so if past does not exist, then what would we define what you just explained as ?
which appears to resemble a past.
IMO it appears what you are saying is,
we can not access the past so it does not exist.
What is "time"
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
which appears to resemble a past.
IMO it appears what you are saying is,
we can not access the past so it does not exist.
MattMars
Registered Member
After sex ?
if he is on alpha centauri, then we can.
edit-
also when in a scenario like this,
it's important to distinguished who is the one in the past.
is it us on earth or individuals on alpha centauri.
edit 2-
another thing to keep in mind is,
when it comes to conscious entities,
a past is memory.
Last edited:
MattMars
Registered Member
I think we can be looking in the direction of alpha centaur, and seeing what we are seeing, but we should be careful with confusing an image with an object, especially if the source is far away.
As per http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-6#post-3243895
so what will it be then?
the image is what depicts the object.
what you are saying is, time and/or past doesn't exist because it's a possible distorted image ?
the fact you see an object speaks volumes.
it speaks a time line is occurring, no matter who is the past or who is the present.
two points are occurring simultaneously with distance.
the question is at what distance is one a past and at what distance is one the present.
that should boggle the mind to lead to a clear answer about past and time.
Last edited:
Hi Matt...
There can be many definitions of time.....I have my own simplistic Occam's razor definition, and others which I like also.
Just as is the case with other cosmological entities, such as space, spacetime, and gravity, we are able to describe them with certain precision. without knowing the true nature of them. Time is one of those.
As I have also said, the realty or otherwise of time, is debatable, no one, can deny that.
This to me seems to be the stumbling block. The "affirmative" position of time is real people , openly admit that, yet the negative position as far as I know, have yet to acknowledge that position.
In other words, despite all the books that have been written on both sides of the equation, the only real true answer is ""we dont know enough about it to say with 100% certainty, one way or the other": And please do not mistake that for a backdown from my position.
I personally do think we know enough about it to conclude that time is real, for the many reasons I have stated.
Likewise the actual scientific position re ETL is that "we don't know": Yet the overwhelming vast number of scientists certainly believe life exists somewhere, sometime, simply due to the near infinite numbers of galaxies, stars and planets, and the fact that the stuff of life is found everywhere. But that's another subject.
On the rest of your posts, yes, like other forums, some animosity also exists here between different parties.
As a "self taught layman" that has frequented science forums for around 12 years or so, and also had the privilege to be part of another forum which is now defunct, that had a professional astronomer and a professional GR physicist, I have learnt plenty, and in the main adhere to the mainstream position.
The problem that exists here [since you did raise it] is that we have some that have inflated egos and suffer from delusions of grandeur, others that have a religiously driven anti GR or just plain anti scientific establishment bias.
Do you realise that we have had four people here that all claim to have TOE's?
All also deride the scientific method and peer review, and all have presented their nonsense with faitre complei 100% certainty.
So you can understand why some people get rather annoyed at these folk.
I openly admit that in some cases, I am unable and incapable of refuting these "potential" TOE's on purely scientific grounds, so I ask myself a simple question....
"If these individuals that claim to have a TOE [as well as other non mainstream claims] are so sure they are 100% correct, and that more then a 100 years of cosmology and physics is wrong, why do they not present their model to the appropriate quarters and peer review"
The answer is obvious.
One of those TOE claimants is partaking in this thread by the way.
But all that is not up for discussion. We are discussing the reality or otherwsie of time, and in that respect, no one has yet been able to answer my question.
Again....
"Can anyone show me a scientifically viable Universe, realm or world where time does not exist"
Yes I have read it somewhere...I'll check some of the books I have and see if I can recover it.
And no, I don't have conformation or confirmation bias.
To the best of my ability, I take things on their merit and logic.
And of course any accusation of bias, can be applied in a positive or negative context.
I absolutely disagree..
All frames of references are as valid as each other.
To confuse that with recording instances of time and happenings on film or in books is not a valid analogy.
There is no universal now or present...The finite constant speed of light attests to that fact.
MattMars
Registered Member
yes, the image is an arrangement of photons in formation flying in a direction,
Im suggesting, as a starting point, we check what we can be fairly sure of and build from that.
eg here,
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...asic-timelessness/the-past-and-future-exposed
The rocket is doing whatever it is doing at A
images are propagating from the scene.
b sees the images at b
the greater the distance X then the more the image happening at B will be different to what is actually happening at A,
but we should not confuse a bunch of photons in a formation as being evidence that there is also a "temporal past" created and stored by the universe in "some way" , "some where"
if we hypothesize the above, that's fine, as a starting point...but then we need to create an experiment to show that extra to just patterns of light, there really is a temporal past.
mm
but we seen a image of any sort, because an object was there to produce an image of.yes, the image is an arrangement of photons in formation flying in a direction,
Im suggesting, as a starting point, we check what we can be fairly sure of and build from that.
eg here,
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...asic-timelessness/the-past-and-future-exposed
The rocket is doing whatever it is doing at A
images are propagating from the scene.
b sees the images at b
the greater the distance X then the more the image happening at B will be different to what is actually happening at A,
but we should not confuse a bunch of photons in a formation as being evidence that there is also a "temporal past" created and stored by the universe in "some way" , "some where"
if we hypothesize the above, that's fine, as a starting point...but then we need to create an experiment to show that extra to just patterns of light, there really is a temporal past.
mm
it's that simple.
think about this below,
agian,
the fact you see an object speaks volumes.
it speaks a time line is occurring, no matter who is the past or who is the present.
two points are occurring simultaneously with distance.
the question is at what distance is one a past and at what distance is one the present.
that should boggle the mind to lead to a clear answer about past and time.
look at post # 203 and 207
Last edited:
Time is an integral part of the universe. Common sense, logic and consciousness tells us that. The very concept of time is integrally linked to the second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy.
Without the existence of time, the Universe, spacetime, the second law and entropy are also non existent.
Sean Carroll puts it this way in his book "From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time", shows that time is one of the fundamental basis of the Universe and physics.
At the same time he openly admits, that the true nature of time at its most fundamental qualities is open for debate.
But then so to is the proposition of Alien life off this earth, as I have previously mentioned.
Without the existence of time, the Universe, spacetime, the second law and entropy are also non existent.
Sean Carroll puts it this way in his book "From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time", shows that time is one of the fundamental basis of the Universe and physics.
At the same time he openly admits, that the true nature of time at its most fundamental qualities is open for debate.
But then so to is the proposition of Alien life off this earth, as I have previously mentioned.
The motion is relative so the kinetic energy is relative. Frame dependent. So what did they teach you at school? That motion is absolute? That you can detect inertial motion absolutely by measuring the kinetic energy of an object when it's absolutely at rest or absolutely in motion? That's what you just predicted.
You use the words "perhaps" and "maybe" quite often in what you "speculate" may happen.
That's great...Then you agree with me that in reality, the reality and true nature or otherwise of time is not 100% settled.
From that point, from what I then believe to be the majority of physicists/cosmologists etc, agree that common sense, logic, scientific knowledge and consciousness, point to the overwhelming likelyhood that time does really exist.
Similar in respect once again, to the belief in the existence of life by the majority of cosmologists elsewhere, even without definitive evidence for that existence. [other then weight of numbers and the stuff of life being everywhere]
That from where I sit, makes perfect sense, and having that general opinion supported by the professionals like Kaku, Carroll and Smolin, adds more relevancy to that opinion.
In saying that and in all humility, I imagine myself standing on the shoulders of giants to at least see as far as they do.
With all due respect the other side of the coin, appears to be more philosophical then science/physics related, and what science/physics has been offered, appears in nearly all cases to be astray.
MattMars
Registered Member
(repost , image fixed)
yes, the image is an arrangement of photons in formation flying in a direction,
Im suggesting, as a starting point, we check what we can be fairly sure of and build from that.
eg here,
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...asic-timelessness/the-past-and-future-exposed
The rocket is doing whatever it is doing at A
images are propagating from the scene.
b sees the images at b
the greater the distance X then the more the image happening at B will be different to what is happening at A,
but we should not confuse a bunch of photons in a formation as being evidence that there is also a "temporal past" created and stored by the universe in "some way" , "some where"
if we hypothesize the above, that's fine, as a starting point...but then we need to create an experiment to show that extra to just patterns of light, there really is a temporal past.
mm
We can be reasonably sure that any FoR is as valid as any other frame.
Any image is far more then just the photons reflected from it.
Matter, energy, gravity, spacetime all come into the equation.
MattMars
Registered Member
Hi Pad,
if you dont mind im going to be a bit blunt, to try and jump you into actually approaching this issue by actually taking in some new information ( be it right or wrong) , to try and shift this sticking point.
yes, I use perhaps and maybe, becasue i am trying to get you to consider possibilities, as opposed to using words like "is" etc becasue they close the gates to new and original thinking.
if we start an sentence like "phlogiston is..." , or perhaps "time is..." , then we are forcing the issue, so im trying to demonstrate open mindedness, ( in the hope others may follow
)you say
and in every single post, i'm trying to politely and non forcibly get people to stop, backtrack, and consider where these people got the idea 'time' is very viable, and to check it for yourself.
i.e, i know everyone's opinion, we've all stated it repeatedly... so now lets slow down... stop.. and check the origin of why people think time is scientifically viable...
trust me, Ive only scratched the surface of what i think i may be able to explain, but there is no point going into any detail unless i see someone is open to actually considering a different point of view.
if you look at every post i have written to you you will see im trying to diplomatically get you to that point.
not to admit you pov is (probably) wrong, and mine is (probably) right... we haven't got anywhere near that stage.
p1 - read electrodynamic.
im trying to get you to not just repeat your pov, but to actually track the scientific source of it, and read that carefully for yourself... very specifically, as i have repeatedly, subtly mentioned, the most valuable thing to read may be the heart of SR itself. ""On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...ivity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies
I. KINEMATICAL PART
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
literally, only the first three paragraphs, literally just 198 words, are all we need to discuss to see what Einstein does and does not mean by "time", throughout Relativity...
but so far Ive seen no indication that you are actually checking the most fundamental part of the key paper, at the heart of all these experts second hand interpretations for yourself , even though it is literally just a click away.
you have also re-posted your question to me 2 or 3 times...
p2 - check the responses you have received - ( only if you are open minded, otherwise theres no point)
and each time i have politely responded and pointed you to a 104 power point slide live talk i gave on precisely that possibility... and had absolutely no indication you had even watched, let alone opened your mind to considering any part of it.
(even though you literally need only click a start button and sit back... i can't spoon feed any more than that)
p3 - demonstrate that you are considering different pov's and not just defending against them
we can all ask questions, but if we ask, and then stick our fingers in our ears and repeat what we think, we will have no idea if the answer presented is useful or not...
Everyone's posted their current opinion, (its going round in circles now), and with respect none of your replies have shown that you are "considering" what has been suggested to you, by which i mean , not one of your replies has started anything like...
and Ive very diplomatically explained how 7 different ways, how and why that may be a useful thing to do - i can only suggest something so much.
p4 - brush up on confirmation bias
instead of just pointing out all parties must be aware of it
ive referenced the 2,4,8, 16 youtube vid a few times, and had no indication at all whether you had even clicked it once - understood it, or disagreed with it etc..
SUMMARY ( in a different order)
ie if you are actually interested in seeing "any scientifically viable realm, world, or Universe, that does not have time "
and not just asking the question so you can look open minded, while you (may) actually not be. then...
try the following - if you are not, then dont , either way is fine.
1 first check out
2 - then read the first 3 paragraphs of
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
I. KINEMATICAL PART
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...ivity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies
- which most experts think are evidence Einsteins analysis leads to space "time".
3- watch my 3 camera 104 full colour live vid, complete with LEGO intro...
or the shorter
and 4 - "actually" ask, IE explore for "yourself"....
'how would the world look IF things just exist and interact 'timelessly', just moving and interacting in all directions - not heading into a "future", and not leaving a "past" behind them.
would what you actually see, in the first instance, right now.. - on a park bench nearby - with out jumping straight into what we think we know about conclusions based on the idea of time..
∆-3 The essence of Timelessness.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
that's pretty much it, if you genuinely want to see how there may be "any scientifically viable realm, world, or Universe, that does not have time " then you probably wont get it outlined to you for free any better than that,
and dare i say it ( i think ive earnt it after this) the 304,391 word book " A brief history of timelessness" is only a couple of bucks.
mm
Last edited:
This fella puts it far better then your's truly.
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion
Diverse thinkers, from the ancient Greek philosophers through contemporary quantum cosmology and eternal inflation theory, have called time an illusion. For them, the perception of time passing from present moment to present moment is an artefact of our psychology, so that anything real or true is real or true eternally and timelessly. The belief that reality lies in a timeless realm of truth, rather than in the flow of events our perceptions show us, might be supported by scientific argument but equally it reflects a metaphysical prejudice. Contemporary attempts to extend quantum theory to the cosmological, to encompass the whole Universe and not just a sub-system of it, are often couched in equations which suggest time is emergent from a timeless reality. But these attempts suffer from problems, both technical and conceptual, that are even more challenging than the usual conundrums of quantum theory. Several advances in the study of quantum gravity have shown that our four-dimensional space-time is only recovered in a version of the theory in which time is real and not emergent. I would hold that, contrary to the ancient metaphysical tradition, time is not only real, it is likely that it is the only aspect of reality we experience directly that is fundamental and not emergent from anything else.
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/time-real-or-illusion
Diverse thinkers, from the ancient Greek philosophers through contemporary quantum cosmology and eternal inflation theory, have called time an illusion. For them, the perception of time passing from present moment to present moment is an artefact of our psychology, so that anything real or true is real or true eternally and timelessly. The belief that reality lies in a timeless realm of truth, rather than in the flow of events our perceptions show us, might be supported by scientific argument but equally it reflects a metaphysical prejudice. Contemporary attempts to extend quantum theory to the cosmological, to encompass the whole Universe and not just a sub-system of it, are often couched in equations which suggest time is emergent from a timeless reality. But these attempts suffer from problems, both technical and conceptual, that are even more challenging than the usual conundrums of quantum theory. Several advances in the study of quantum gravity have shown that our four-dimensional space-time is only recovered in a version of the theory in which time is real and not emergent. I would hold that, contrary to the ancient metaphysical tradition, time is not only real, it is likely that it is the only aspect of reality we experience directly that is fundamental and not emergent from anything else.