Black holes do not exist

Right, well duration requires an extent of what we call time. Call duration age if you like.

If you mean time, as in a non scientific term as you indicated, duration age, age as used in everyday language is not referring to fundamental TIME

Can you please explain why no evidence of TIME existing has been forthcoming?

So many are claiming its existence

If it was on a lab bench for examination, or a piece of equipment available to detect TIME where is the lump on the bench? or the detection apparatus?

Could it be
  • lump - does not exist
  • apparatus - does not exist
  • list of characteristics - does not exist
  • list of properties - does not exist
Starting to see a pattern here

Coffee due

:)
 
Last edited:
If you mean time, as in a non scientific term as you indicated, duration age, age as used in everyday language is not referring to fundamental TIME

Can you please explain why no evidence of TIME existing has been forthcoming?

So many are claiming its existence

If it was on a lab bench for examination, or a piece of equipment available to detect TIME where is the lump on the bench? or the detection apparatus?

Could it be
  • lump - does not exist
  • apparatus - does not exist
  • list of characteristics - does not exist
  • list of properties - does not exist
Starting to see a pattern here

Coffee due

:)
Can you show me a lump of length?

No you can't. All you can show me is something having a length that you can measure as one of its spatial dimensions. In order to exist, that same thing has to persist for a length of time, which again you can measure. Possession of spatial dimensions alone is insufficient for the existence of an entity. It must also exist for a non-zero duration. A duration is a period of time. Which can be measured, just as length can be measured.

This may seem trivial for everyday objects, but it is not for scientists that deal with species that are transient, with limited lifetimes that need to be characterised.
 
It does to all extents, in every situation we have looked at. There are, so far, no exceptions.

Relativity is about perspective .

Where you are , relative to another point of observation . 180degrees perspective to us , is seeing the blue majority of the time , objects moving towards us . In the Universe . Blue light , moving towards us , not away from us . Relatively speaking . Red is moving away from us . The bigger picture is both are happening , At the same moment .
 
Last edited:
Well in the reference frame of the photon there is no TIME (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL)
As DaveC tried to explain to you, the idea of "the reference frame of the photon" makes no sense. In every valid inertial frame, photons travel at a speed of c. There is no frame in which an observer could hypothetically see photons with speed zero.
When I look at that, I see a page festooned with advertising, which makes it difficult to read.

The article itself reads like a fluff piece. It does a semi-decent job of trying to express complex concepts in term that a layperson can understand, but in the process it is forced to make analogies and statements that are not really in the physics or mathematics it is discussing.
Seems like scientists way above my pay scale also toy with TIME not existing
I don't think so. The idea of time passing or progressing is, in a particular view of relativity, one that is debatable, but physics can't be done without the concept of time.

BTW, when you read statements like "In fact, photons don't experience any time at all", you ought to bear in mind that this is for pop-science consumption. It isn't technically what the physics says. A more accurate statement would go something like this: "As a particle's speed approaches the speed of light, the rate at which a clock in its frame would tick, relativity to the 'stationary' clock that is viewing the fast particle, becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the 'stationary' clock rate. In the limit as $$v\rightarrow c$$, that fraction becomes zero." However, it is important to understand what a mathematical limit means in this context. The "limit as quantity x goes to infinity" is not something that can ever be actually reached. (In this case, the thing that's going to infinity, BTW, is the Lorentz factor that quantifies the amount by which time is dilated.)

Notice, also, that the accurate statement I've just given you says nothing about particles that travel at the speed of light! In other words, while you can wave your hands and use the above statement about a limit to imagine what might happen if we could deal with a reference frame travelling at c, you need to keep in mind that, actually, there is no such reference frame - such a frame only exists in the (unattainable) limit.
 
New

Well in the reference frame of the photon there is no TIME (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL)
As DaveC tried to explain to you, the idea of "the reference frame of the photon" makes no sense. In every valid inertial frame, photons travel at a speed of c. There is no frame in which an observer could hypothetically see photons with speed zero.

Agreed .
 
Last edited:
Slight division and repeating a reference

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/newsflash-time-may-not-exist

Small extract

Our clocks do not measure time

the person at the facility, The National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardises time for the nation) is admitting there is no objective TIME to be measured
The NIST guy is just boasting a little about the importance of NIST to timekeeping. What he means is not that time doesn't exist, but that NIST helps to set the
time standards used around the world. The hint is right there in the name of the organisation!

The guy's point is that NIST isn't "measuring time" against somebody else's standard. Their job is to set the standard against which other measures of time are to be compared. The reason they get to do that is actually by agreement, and that agreement is based on the idea that NIST has the most reliable time keeping equipment (i.e. the most accurate clocks) among a number of other collaborator organisations.
Back to James - any poster in the forum can instantly show TIME has a existence (just as the poster can instantly show his god exist) by producing evidence
Your mother is older than you. Done.
You remember yesterday, but not tomorrow. Done.
etc. etc.

Denying that time exists is silly.
A facility whose purpose is to synchronise time for a nation but does not use fundimental TIME for said synchronisation and produces its own version of time to use seems to me a very strange setup
No. In science, we can never have access to an "absolute reality". We only have the access that our best instruments and detectors allow us to have. We have no way of knowing what is "fundamental" (note the spelling, BTW).

This is basic science 101.
Again what characteristics does fundimental TIME have?
There's no way to know.
Is there such a equipment device which detects TIME?
Yes. It's called a clock. But even you can do it, with your built-in clocks.
 
I looked up dimension and the three dictionaries only gave Hight Width Depth. No mention of TIME
Then you ought to get yourself a better dictionary. Try a scientific one, perhaps. Or a more complete version of one of the ones you have already consulted. For instance:
"(physics) the physical units of a quantity, expressed in terms of fundamental quantities like time, mass and length"​

(That's just from a dictionary that is readily available online.)
 
river:

Since you never have anything useful to add to a discussion about science, why don't you just stay out of this one? I mean, I know we're in the pseudoscience subforum here, but you're just getting in the way of somebody possibly being educated, with your inane comments.

You can cheer on the pseudoscientist Luchito if it makes you feel better about yourself - throw him a few more likes, so you can feel like you're sticking it to the man. But please don't post anything. You just add clutter.
 
Please do not troll. If you cannot support a claim, you ought to retract it and apologise to your readers.
river:

Since you never have anything useful to add to a discussion about science, why don't you just stay out of this one? I mean, I know we're in the pseudoscience subforum here, but you're just getting in the way of somebody possibly being educated, with your inane comments.

You can cheer on the pseudoscientist Luchito if it makes you feel better about yourself - throw him a few more likes, so you can feel like you're sticking it to the man. But please don't post anything. You just add clutter.

Black-holes do not exist .
 
Luchito:

All those words, and yet you still haven't posted a single thing that might start to refute relativity or the existence of black holes. I had high hopes that you might at least try to back up your empty words at some point, but they are rapidly dwindling.

Unless you can provide some kind of argument based on physics in your next reply, I can't see much point in my continuing to engage with you. You seem to be lost in your own fantasies and high opinions of yourself, and unwilling to connect with any actual science. I'm thinking that, most likely, you're not interested in learning anything on this topic, at least.
I already posted that best for you is to exclude quantum mechanics and keep Relativity alone to prove the existence of those black holes of yours. But, do you know what? Add your quantum mechanics, after all it is just another theory with lots of failures from its very beginning, since the thought of the cat inside the box.
I'd be happy to leave a discussion of quantum mechanics out of this, because it seems likely that you'll have an even poorer understanding of that topic that you have of relativity. But, before, you wanted to talk about Hawking radiation, which can't be done properly without talking about quantum physics. So, I'm a little puzzled. Perhaps we should just drop that topic, too, for now.
Mechanism? Don't tell me. You better show here what mechanism you are talking about. No links accepted. Use your own words, and copy as many formulas, equations and even drawing you need to show your mechanism. I want to read it from you.
Nah. It's quantum physics, like I said, and if you're unaware of the basics I don't have the time or desire to educate you about them. Go look it up.
Who are those guys saying Einstein and Hawking works are valid in science? Write their names here.
Sorry. I can't possibly list the vast majority of the community of physics professionals here.
Also, what methods they used to verify if the words of those two individuals are accurate.
Try googling "evidence for ..." and fill in that blank with "relativity" or "Hawking radiation". You can get back to me after you have done that.
Where are yours?
In the peer-reviewed literature, of course! Where else would they be?
It appears that you asking me for my profile is the beginning of your sure falling, because you have no evidence at all and now your messages are becoming personal.
Strange. All this time, you have been questioning the credentials of scientists like Einstein and Hawking, but apparently your own credentials are somehow unimportant. It looks like you have a double standard - one for yourself, a different one for everybody else.
No matter how famous and important the author of a theory can be for the scientific community. If his words are not supported by PHYSICAL REALITY then he is out, definitively he is out.
You're out.
I just wrote clocks malfunction when exposed to an environment other than the one in which those were CALIBRATED.

The common belief is that atomic clocks are "perfect" and such is a laughable idea. Even L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clocks knew that his invention is not perfect. There is nothing "perfect" made by man, nothing. Atomic clocks, by the way they are built and the procedure of its function is one machine subjected to show any malfunction inside it.

If you want to keep the atomic clock works at the same rate of its original calibration, then don't move it.
I addressed this previously. Please re-read.
On the other hand, your belief is that moving the atomic clock won't affect it at all, and such is your mistake because you do ignore how those clocks work.
On the contrary, I believe that moving an atomic clock will affect its rate in the ways that are predicted by the theory of relativity. Moreover, my belief is backed up with extensive evidence.
You are not doing your part, I told you to study how radiation comes to be.
I've done that already.
No matter if you apply Relativity alone, quantum mechanics alone, quantum relativity or relativistic quantum. Radiation is produced only one way, and black holes, by the way the theory explain such a body exists, such body can't evaporate radiation.
You seem to be denying that Hawking's theory exists now. Very strange.
Evolution theory was used as an ANALOGY, but you can start a topic about if you want to.
I don't want to. It would just mean more work for me trying to disabuse you of further misconceptions and faulty understandings you have on a different topic.
In my opinion, if you paid for Physics classes, then you must ask for a refund, because your teachers taught you fantasies rather than science.
That's an easy thing for you to say, but until and unless you can actually bring any science to the table, it's an empty claim. But I told you this back in April, 7 months ago. You couldn't bring it then, and I don't expect you'll bring it now, either. You haven't even made a start, yet.
Which one of your contributions are related with Relativity? Of course you can have your thesis, but how much will contribute to the advance in science, such is debatable. On the other hand, profiling posters here, such is unacceptable.
Profiling posters here is out of bounds, but profiling esteemed scientists like Einstein and Hawking is just fine?

On the one hand, the only argument you've put up here so far is your own authority, and your disparagement of the credentials of Einstein, Hawking and myself. But on the other hand, you're unwilling to establish your own credentials. Why the double standard?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see your point of view. You want to make the movie "Theory Wars", where theories against theories will attack one to another.

To your disappointment, a theory is not proved valid or false by using a different theory against it. No, in order to prove the validity of a theory you use evidence.
Present your evidence that relativity is wrong. Note: not your opinion. Evidence. We've heard quite enough about your opinion on this. You've had months to come up with something. What have you been doing?
I showed you that there is no flowing time...
No. You expressed your opinion that there's no flowing time.
I think your ideas are far away from becoming evidence in physical reality.
Then you're denying the thousands upon thousands of experiments that support the physical reality of relativity. That's not my problem!
Have you ever read papers presented in journals?
Of course.
Lets see, for example:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mich/6b1b1cc7ba87fbb9fc363014e1b4d69909366528

Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation

Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality imply that the speed of any moving object cannot exceed that of light in a vacuum (c). Nevertheless, there exist various proposals for observing faster-than- c propagation of light pulses, using anomalous dispersion near an absorption line, nonlinear and linear gain lines, or tunnelling barriers.... etc. etc. etc.

This paper presented in year 2000 started showing what Relativity stands for, but later shows other "proposals" obtained from experiments made with light thru gas and so forth.

Here we are in that first step, the one showing what Relativity said WRONG.

I am familiar with that paper. It does nothing to show that relativity is wrong. I thinking you probably don't understand what it's about.
Relativists have spread out their fantasies for 100 years already, what is the rush for showing the sure evidence in a few months?

It's fine. Take all the time you need. Perhaps go away and gather your evidence. Then, when you have some, in a year, or in 10 years, come back and we can discuss it. Right now, all you have is your opinions, and you haven't started doing any science yet.

Relativity is based on a flowing time with his own arrow when is flowing. Look at Hawking diagram, time has its flowing in one way, space is way open, light travels in an allowed path, there is a zone to which we better call it "the limbo". Wow!
Oh dear. Where to start with you?

There's no "flow" of time on a spacetime graph like the ones you have linked. Time is just there as one of the axes. On every graph, the axes point in some direction from lower values towards higher values. That says nothing about a physical "arrow".

You have some basic misconceptions here that you really ought to start to address by learning some physics. If you have questions, I can probably help.
And funny, this diagram is just the top over a similar diagram under which is also a cone. The coordinates presented by Hawking are absurd when you add the other cone at its bottom, this is to see, when you see the full figure. This representation of Hawking is the interpretation of Relativity doctrines.
Again, there's no content to what you say other than your opinion. If you have specific objections, why don't you explain what they are? Reference the science, not just your gut feeling that something is absurd. That has been your mistake all along.
Are you going to tell me that you are not in agreement with that diagram?
What's not to agree about?
Because so far, you agree with Einstein and Hawking even when those two individuals really don't know what they are talking about.
Don't be silly. I didn't say that!
Alfred Nobel stated clearly before he died in 1986 that the prizes given in his name were to contribute for science advance solely with proved works, not for theoretical works. Photoelectric was presented for Nobel Prize since 1910 to 1921-22.

12 years rejection for such a theory. And finally was accepted for Nobel Prize because the members of the Swiss Academy were tired of such lunatic insistence and persistence.
Are you comparing credentials again, now? You're criticising Einstein's photoelectric theory because it wasn't awarded a Nobel prize soon enough for your liking? Shouldn't you be concentrating on whether there's evidence that the theory is right or wrong, instead? Your methods are very inconsistent.
Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light. At first he suffered harsh criticism for his new measurements of the speed of light but it was the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957and in 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light. The atomic clock is the standard of measure throughout the world and without it the GPS system would not be possible. Why is it little known that this winner of multiple awards in physics also published a paper called “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis”? A member of the National Physical Laboratory of the UK from which he retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s theory of relativity. "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. …the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory."

Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44. ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’

I guess he was talking about your teachers and about you in this last statement.
It's impossible to know what he was talking about, based on what you have quoted. What were his actual objections to the theory of relativity (if any)? What are the "arguments" to which he refers? I'm interested to learn more, but you're not telling me anything about the science. You're trying to rely on Essen's opinion. Why are you so focussed on opinions rather than the evidence you say is important? Oh, and did you check Essen's credentials, too? Why do you trust him above Einstein or Hawking?
When I ask you the evidence of physical time then you called it a coordinate, when I ask you how a coordinate can perturb the normal function of an atomic clock, then you want me to explain quantum mechanics... when you don't answer directly the simple questions made to you from my part and from others, then you better start to realize that you are not the right person to defend Relativity theory or just you know the answer but you just don't want to concede with the fact that Relativity is not a theory of science.
The evidence of physical time is that you remember yesterday and not tomorrow, that your mother is older than you are, etc. Simple.
I don't need you to try to explain quantum mechanics. I don't think you'd be capable, frankly.
There's no need for me to defend relativity, yet. Nothing you have written so far puts in into doubt. Maybe you'll bring something soon. Or maybe not. We'll see.
 
Moderator note: river has been warned for trolling. Claims should be backed up with evidence or argument of some kind. river made no attempt at that.

Due to accumulated warning points, river will be taking a short break from sciforums.
 
Gravity has been shown to exist via its effects on other bodies and detection of gravitational waves

More at this link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#:~:text=Gravitational waves can be detected,planned space-based LISA instrument.

Ready to show how fundimental TIME (not age) affects stuff and how its presence is detected?

Note - fundimental TIME - not time as in everyday parlance

:)
So now you are trying distinguish common or garden time, as manifested in age (or duration) from something you call "fundamental" time?

As everyone has pointed out, time is a dimension, not a physical thing. You can't show us how to "detect" distance, in the abstract. It's meaningless. So don't demand that we should do this for time.
 
So now you are trying distinguish common or garden time, as manifested in age (or duration) from something you call "fundamental" time?

As everyone has pointed out, time is a dimension, not a physical thing. You can't show us how to "detect" distance, in the abstract. It's meaningless. So don't demand that we should do this for time.

Thought it was understood there are no fundimental length breath height and your addition distance so why (I haven't) would I ask you for a fundimental of any of them?

Requested (no demand) a attribute of fundimental TIME, along with other possible attributes, which would show fundimental TIME exist. None forthcoming

time is a dimension, not a physical thing

Never indicated TIME was a physical thing. Gravity is not a physical thing. You are welcome to show how non physical TIME manifest

:)
 
Back
Top