Time Does it exist?

Time is the same as space so time exists. There is a common riddle that states; a man rises up early on a rainy day and gets on his way to work. He stops for 10 minutes in the rain to adjust his umbrella and then proceeds to cross the street when he is splashed by a speeding car. Was he at the wrong place at the right time?

Answer; Obviously as long as he could have taken another route accross the street he was at the wrong space, which automaticaly means at the wrong time, regardless of a straight line being the shortest possible time between two points. Also consider that if he had not stopped he would not be in the space he currently got showered. However he stopped in space not in time but this still affects the straight line rule and his time. Hence time is the same as space.

Last edited:
devils_reject said:
...Hence time is the same as space.
I can chose any direction in space to go; if you can tell me how to back a few years, please do so.

Space doesn't really exist right? Then what do you suppose allows us to be here in 3 dimension. Time doesn't exist right? Then what do you suppose allows us to record events, which gives everything that occupies space meaning. To answer your question specificaly; space is infinite and directions are inventions of man unless there is an absolute rule such as a God that says this way is West and that way is East. Hence directions are imaginary principles to guide us like time does. If we accept that directions are real because man said so then we must also accept that time is real since man invented time. Going back in time is easy...just remember... and you are also at a different enviroment.

Going back in time is easy...just remember... and you are also at a different enviroment.

Isn't that like claiming that imagining you're, say, on the moon is equivalent to actually being located on the moon?

Anyway I'm not sure what would mean to claim that time or smace *really* exist, "exist" means, or while we're at it, what "mean" means...

Man can you imagine if there were multiple time dimensions? I wonder how that would work...

Isn't that like claiming that imagining you're, say, on the moon is equivalent to actually being located on the moon?
Yes if you have actually been on the moon before, remember we are talking about going back in time.
Anyway I'm not sure what would mean to claim that time or smace *really* exist, "exist" means, or while we're at it, what "mean" means...
I am lost
Man can you imagine if there were multiple time dimensions? I wonder how that would work...
I can only wonder but it doesn't seem feasible because its a mere vector

Ever heard of bose einstein condensation, do U see my point EMPTYCHI ?

Last edited:
devils_reject said:
Space doesn't really exist right? Then what do you suppose allows us to be here in 3 dimension. Time doesn't exist right? Then what do you suppose allows us to record events, which gives everything that occupies space meaning. To answer your question specificaly; space is infinite and directions are inventions of man unless there is an absolute rule such as a God that says this way is West and that way is East. Hence directions are imaginary principles to guide us like time does. If we accept that directions are real because man said so then we must also accept that time is real since man invented time. Going back in time is easy...just remember... and you are also at a different enviroment.

right, we should accept time exist just becuase U say so. There is no so what ever proof in nature for existence of time, or there wouldnt be this debate.

Listen I am not interested in cajoling you, believe whatever you want to believe. All I know is that forces exist, and as long as forces exist...motions exist, and as long as there is motion there will always be time to record it. Also quantum mechs says space is the same as time, you move from one space to another you move from one frame to another, a frame being a block of space whether three or two or one dimension, and time is a way to keep record. Saying time exist or not is not more relevant than the importance and uses of time. As a utilitarian time definately exists. What say you?

Last edited:
Isn't that like claiming that imagining you're, say, on the moon is equivalent to actually being located on the moon?
Yes if you have actually been on the moon before, remember we are talking about going back in time.

Well its not like you could interact with the past just by imagining it. Imagine you did something it the past that you regret. You could replay the event in your mind as much as you want, but it's fixed and can't be undone. You could imagine having acted differently, but it won't have any effect on your or anyone else's memory. Actually travelling back in time would give you the possibility of modifying past events, and lead to alternate timelines, grandfather paradoxes...

Anyway I'm not sure what would mean to claim that time or smace *really* exist, "exist" means, or while we're at it, what "mean" means...

I am lost

I was just pointing out that there is no set criteria for deciding whether or not something "exists" - personally I say cars and other objects exist because I perceive them; I get information from my senses that my brain sorts out into different objects. I don't get all this information simultaneously, it streams in continuously, so time (or at least the passage of time) is just as real to me as anything else.

I like that. Well you can interact with the past in the sense that what you remember can help you in making present and future decisions, exactly what else do we even need the past for but for that reason. Also the past can interact with you physicaly by coming into the present- say for example a man you stole a bike from comes and suddenly hits you on the head.

Anomalous,

Its very simple. Make two dots on a piece of paper(A,B) now draw a faint straight line between them and measure that line. We know this line is the shortest route between them using a constant speed for all possible routes including this straight line. Lets use 1mm/sec as our speed. Start from A and go down that staright line, if you stop anywhere on that one dimensional straight line you are stopping in space, say you paused for 5 seconds, by the time you reach point B the straight line is no longer the shortest distance, you have taken too much time. Why is the staright line no longer the shortest route? This violates a Universal law of common sense and basic physics...Thus something or a phenomenom must exist...we call it time.

Lesson 2 For me to leave from Los Angeles and get to Paris before a man from the French Suburbs there has to be an explanation-this is time. Maybe I left earlier or maybe I travelled faster, nonetheless it violates a fundamental assumption.

Last edited:
devils_reject said:
..What say you?
I dont say things that I cant back. Instead of saying I am asking for the proof of time with an example of natural phenomena.

Watches , clocks , races are nothing more than changes in state of positions of matter.

devils_reject said:
...
Anomalous,

Its very simple. Make two dots on a piece of paper(A,B) now draw a faint straight line between them and measure that line. We know this line is the shortest route between them using a constant speed for all possible routes including this straight line. Lets use 1mm/sec as our speed. Start from A and go down that staright line, if you stop anywhere on that one dimensional straight line you are stopping in space, say you paused for 5 seconds, by the time you reach point B the straight line is no longer the shortest distance, you have taken too much time. Why is the staright line no longer the shortest route? This violates a Universal law of common sense and basic physics...Thus something or a phenomenom must exist...we call it time.
The 5 seconds U counted was not time, it was cycles made by the quartz in it, thats the property of matter. The feeling of 5 seconds is illusion your brain is getting as the state of seconds display are changing, the speed of time is illusion created by the relative delay of your brain to process that quartz information.

well this illusion is one powerful and constant illusion

Anomalous said:
The 5 seconds U counted was not time, it was cycles made by the quartz in it, thats the property of matter. The feeling of 5 seconds is illusion your brain is getting as the state of seconds display are changing, the speed of time is illusion created by the relative delay of your brain to process that quartz information.

are you the only one on the same page as me right here?

all i am asking for is proof of a claim is that to much to ask the scientific community here?

peace,

EmptyForceOfChi said:
are you the only one on the same page as me right here?

all i am asking for is proof of a claim is that to much to ask the scientific community here?

peace,
Dont ask them or U will be insulted, just blindly accept everything they say for they have spent 10s of years studying these things, if U question science then U r directly ruining theirs years of efforts.

Anomalous said:
Dont ask them or U will be insulted, just blindly accept everything they say for they have spent 10s of years studying these things, if U question science then U r directly ruining theirs years of efforts.
None of this is true. There are no insults, domatic demands, etc. in the simple PROOF I gave about one page back at 14 minutes past the hour. I repeat here the first summary two-sentence paragraph:

"Time, t, is a convenient parameter in equations used to relate observables but not observable its self. Thus, in the sense that anything which is undetectable does not exist, time does not exist."

You and EmptyForceOfChi appear to want "empty verbage" and opinions instead of logic and evidence. I add now:

Time is an intutively natural concept that eveyone has, but not a thing that can be observed because it has no effect on anything. Clocks change their displays for various reasons, that depend upon their design - dripping water, oscilating quartz, etc. but not one does so because "time is passing." Time is not detectable or observable and these are the characteristics of concepts that do not actualy exist, such as elephant eggs, unicorns, etc.

Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
None of this is true. ... Time is not detectable or observable and these are the characteristics of concepts that do not actualy exist, such as elephant eggs, unicorns, etc.
So like me U too dont believe that time exists as a dimension ?

Anomalous said:
So like me U too dont believe that time exists as a dimension ?
That depends upon what you mean by "dimension." Time, t, is a very useful "coordinate," necessarly mixed with spatial coordinates in SRT. Thus it shares many properties with space coordinates, but is unique among the coordinates. My first point was that, in any reference frame, everything can in principle be described or specified without any direct reference to time variable, t, but it would be insane to try to do this as the complexity is too great.

The second point is that time has no causal capacity. I am not growing old physiologically because "time is passing" but because some of the body's restorative processes are less than perfect. Time by it self, a very useful coordinate, does nothing real, and is not detectable as, for example, matter is.

In the absence of matter, including even that brief form called "vacuum polarization", I have doubts if even energy in EM waves could be shown to exist as again I do not think those EM waves would have any causitive powers.

Good explanation Billy T. Time is merely a concept which describes a rate. Energy is a concept which exists only in the concept of time. A concept in a concept. Radiation can do work on matter but it is not energy.