# Timeless vs Time

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by BlackHoley, Apr 11, 2014.

1. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
I have come up with an idea and it's totally up to those who are opposing my view of time. We can make a very strict, intelligible debate based on a set of rules. Those rules are, no insulting, no baiting... no intentional acts of ''stupidisms'' or ignorance because you can't understand an article that is presented to you.

Now... show me what you have to prove time is a real thing in nature... in a compact form... not something scattered over a lengthy set of posts.... just post your assertions and I will address them, so show me the same courtesy by giving me time to present my evidence.

This will rely on some responsibility from the posters who make their claims, as showing a working understanding of why your proposals out-rank mine. Ok?

Let's start! I will give you three days to gather your evidence for the case of time.

3. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
Wait, what? Are you saying I get to invent your idea for you? Want to perhaps reword that....?

Also, can we take this as an acknowledgement that you are aware that your ideas are not currently accepted by the mainstream of physics?
Wait, what? I thought you said you were going to tell us your view of time here? And surely you must already, as a starting point, understand the current mainstream view, right? So there should be no need for someone to teach it to you here, right?
Our proposals? No one here has their own proposals. What we have is an understanding of the current state of physics.

This whole thread premise makes no sense. What are you looking for here - for us to just copy and paste paragraphs out of links you could find easily enough on your own? Lets try it the other way: Why don't you explain to us the current mainstream view of physics and then explain exactly what your view is and how it differs and what evidence you have for your view.

5. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
No you are wrong, if my idea's where not accepted in mainstream, it would have no application to actual physics. As it turns out, the fact the time derivative of the evolution of the universe falls out when you quantize the field gravitational field equations you find timelessness.... it is such a recognized [[fact]] of GR that it has been given an official mainstream name.

It is called the ''problem of time'' and there are dozens of papers written from mainstream sources about it. So your argument is baseless and invalid.

7. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
Paddo has plenty of proposals,... well actually, that isn't true. Paddo had two references he loves to spam me with constantly, in a similar nature to Cav in fact.

8. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
I'm still confused then: if your ideas are already accepted by the mainstream, how can you have "come up with" them? Did you author the original papers that proposed the ideas? Are you published?

If your ideas are just the accepted mainstream views, just skip all the arguing and save yourself the writing and post quotes from mainstream sources showing the ideas.
I haven't made an argument, but fair enough: please provide references to some of these mainstream sources discussing the issue and supporting the claim you have just made.

Messages:
10,296
As Russ stated earlier, the premise of this thread makes no sense at all. ALL actions in this universe require some amount of time. From the motion of the Earth around the Sun to the oxidation of a single atom of hydrogen requires time to accomplish.

I'll not be wasting anymore of MY time on this foolishness!

10. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
This is supposed to be a science forum... and it is run by charlatans. People who don't know, intrinsic arguments. Is there anyone here who can talk to me intelligibly about these topics?

11. ### GrumpyCurmudgeon of LucidityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,876
BlackHoley

Paddoman, Read-Only, Russ_Watters and me have been doing nothing but talking intelligibly to you, but you just keep posting idiocy and insult in reply. You do not have a grasp of Relativity and you just can't seem to accept correction without foaming at the mouth. This is a science forum, not a crank forum, you're not doing well as a result.

Grumpy

12. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
... once upon a dream.

13. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
There are enough rules already. Now you want to add your personal rules? Your attitude with using the word "stupidism" is getting off to a bad start. In an attempt to sanction peace you've used hate speech. Good golly Miss Molly!

Wiki on the definition of the meter:

Good now?

Ok! Now show us your understanding of the definition of the meter, which is based on light travel TIME!

I only used about 30 seconds of time to gather information in dispute of your claims, is that Ok?

14. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
What would be good, is if I felt there was someone actually qualified to talk about the subjects instead of searching for arguments. None of them realize, nor yourself, the more you bait arguments, the more I win. It shows shows me and the general public, you don't actually have scientific rebuttals, instead, the majority of you are armed with ad hominems.

This isn't a scientific discussion, because the posters make it into a circus based on pure ignorance.

15. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
I used to teach mechanics, does that count? I was a certified instructor too! So I think I could skuul you on some learnins.

Messages:
21,225
No, I have plenty.....not sure how many links I gave in the other thread.

Your delusions of grandeur, has you failing most of those points.

Totally and 100% agreed.
Just to add, it shows the frustrations and paranoia these alternative theorists seem to have when they get a bee in their bonnets about some issue or other of mainstream science.

17. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,305
One tentative conclusion I think I can make is that trying to prove time doesn't exist (the universe is "timeless"), is at least as difficult as trying to prove time does exist.

This is, I believe, one of the reasons most people, and many scientists, don't bother trying. And it's why, if someone tries to "prove" one or the other is true, their efforts are met with general hostility, disbelief, etc.
"What, you're trying to prove that time exists? Of course it does, what's wrong with you?".

My theory goes: most people believe time exists, because to think otherwise just does their head in.
On the other hand, Einstein did say something like "time is an illusion", although he didn't really try to prove it. Hawking says time is an imaginary dimension in a four dimensional Euclidean space that "becomes" real when multiplied by $\pm i$, the Wick rotation.

Oh yeah, doesn't Feynman say that a particle's state is a "sum over histories", which means all "possible" histories? What do you think that means in relation to "actual histories"?

18. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
Albeit a very convincing one, I'd say.

19. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
Where???

Fraggle rock?

And when fess up where it was, I want their contact number to confirm it.

20. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
Some people think they can have it two ways. On one hand, they say they are doing physics and call me out wrong... little do they know, their own creator, the artist who created modern relativity held the same view I hold.

21. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
I think you are reading a helluva lot into that quote!

22. ### BlackHoleyBannedBanned

Messages:
340
Whose? Einsteins? Not at all... I read into it as he said it.

After all... he was more than aware that the relativity of simultaneity may as well place all events side by side. In his theory, no one has a true ''affirmed'' measurement of an event. No one can always agree on when things happen.

He knew, because of this, that time in the sense of simultaneity meant it was an illusion, that separation between events depending on the observer and their motion in the universe.

What Barbour has done, is show that Machian relativity makes Minkowski relativity obsolete. It shows how it obsolete from first principles that have.... almost been forgotten if it wasn't for Julian Barbour.

23. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
U.S. Army. Everywhere! Good now?