# Time Explained

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like it Farsight... though I might not agree with all of it.. it's good to think outside the box

Perhaps some here find participating in this discussion or thinking about it really does not happen. Untill You prove me wrong I insist something happens in this forum -perhaps some of You agree it happens at different moments -in time of course.

Perhaps some here find participating in this discussion or thinking about it really does not happen. Untill You prove me wrong I insist something happens in this forum -perhaps some of You agree it happens at different moments -in time of course.

let me put it this way ;

if you stand still does my inclusion of time move you physically ?

not psychologically like I have meeting at such time , but physically

let me put it this way ;

if you stand still does my inclusion of time move you physically ?

Not psychologically like i have meeting at such time , but physically
?-???? ?

inorder for a change in Qualia to happen means that there must be a movement of some kind

behind the change is a movement of some kind , always

I disagree. This is a thought-experiment. The ball isn't going from blue to green because someone is painting it, it is just a magical ball that can alter the properties of its surface to absorb and reflect light of varying frequencies. The ball is perfectly spherical and lacks any small, constituent properties.

The fact that this featureless ball of no moving parts could be used to tell "time" with no movement whatsoever blows your definition out of the water. Movement is the most common type of change, which has you fooled into thinking it is a complete set of all change, and therefore a synonym for time. But it obviously isn't. And time is akin to change, plain and simple.

I'm not sure why you are wed to your definition. It is weaker and provides no new insights. It seems like you are pigeon-holing yourself due to mere preference.

"a magical ball that can alter the properties of its surface to absorb and reflect light of varying frequencies" = motion

"a magical ball that can alter the properties of its surface to absorb and reflect light of varying frequencies" = motion

My defining all change as motion you are proving my point and exposing your argument as one of very circular reasoning. All change=motion therefore all motion=change.

Originally Posted by thinking
inorder for a change in Qualia to happen means that there must be a movement of some kind

behind the change is a movement of some kind , always

I disagree. This is a thought-experiment. The ball isn't going from blue to green because someone is painting it,

true

it is just a magical ball that can alter the properties of its surface to absorb and reflect light of varying frequencies.

and what is the imputis that adjusts or alters the properties of its surface ?

so that this surface can absorb and reflect light of varying frequencies ?

in the first place ?

The ball is perfectly spherical and lacks any small, constituent properties.

except the fact that this ball can alter its surface

with no movement

The fact that this featureless ball of no moving parts could be used to tell "time" with no movement whatsoever blows your definition out of the water. Movement is the most common type of change, which has you fooled into thinking it is a complete set of all change, and therefore a synonym for time. But it obviously isn't. And time is akin to change, plain and simple.

actually no

I'm not sure why you are wed to your definition. It is weaker and provides no new insights. It seems like you are pigeon-holing yourself due to mere preference.

above

you can't alter something without something to cause the alteration , in the background

Velocity is motion, more absolute than distance, more absolute than time.

To paraphrase an ancient pre Heisenberg paradox, if a stone flies in the air, it passes through series of trajectory points. At any given moment a stone is located somewhere, if it's "located" somewhere, it doesn't move, therefore its speed should be zero. Quite an absolute you've invented.

Seriously, humans are limited creatures, our perception of universe is approximated through 3D space, time, distance, force, energy. Those are fundamental intuitive concepts defying precise definition, it's just there. Show me a brainy wannabe Einstein claiming that he understand about time etc. more than an illiterate Bolivian peasant, I'll show you an arrogantly stupid asshole balancing on the edge of sanity.

It's quite possible that our perceptions are mass programmed by super intelligent race, it's quite possible that we are raised in the timeless 4D universe for their sensory pleasures, but guess what? There is no way to know because we are limited creatures thinking otherwise. I would strongly suggest you spending time to embrace this novel concept of human limits, instead of inventing "theories" of time.

To paraphrase an ancient pre Heisenberg paradox, if a stone flies in the air, it passes through series of trajectory points. At any given moment a stone is located somewhere, if it's "located" somewhere, it doesn't move, therefore its speed should be zero. Quite an absolute you've invented.

Seriously, humans are limited creatures, our perception of universe is approximated through 3D space, time, distance, force, energy. Those are fundamental intuitive concepts defying precise definition, it's just there. Show me a brainy wannabe Einstein claiming that he understand about time etc. more than an illiterate Bolivian peasant, I'll show you an arrogantly stupid asshole balancing on the edge of sanity.

It's quite possible that our perceptions are mass programmed by super intelligent race, it's quite possible that we are raised in the timeless 4D universe for their sensory pleasures, but guess what? There is no way to know because we are limited creatures thinking otherwise. I would strongly suggest you spending time to embrace this novel concept of human limits, instead of inventing "theories" of time.

of course if you are the future Einstein you could disagree with the past thinking, could you not ? and be right

of course if you are the future Einstein you could disagree with the past thinking, could you not ? and be right

Humans and human Einsteins (even disagreeing Einsteins) are limited by 3D space, time, force, energy which they cannot even define to anyone's satisfaction. Pop cult, media, etc. claim otherwise solely for the social control sake. I'm quite confident (and satisfied) that those limits are here to die with us.

Originally Posted by thinking
of course if you are the future Einstein you could disagree with the past thinking, could you not ? and be right

Humans and human Einsteins (even disagreeing Einsteins) are limited by 3D space, time, force, energy which they cannot even define to anyone's satisfaction.

it seems though that even now time its self is being debated though

sometimes it just takes time , time to think about a concept , to change ones mind about a previous concept

so I have found anyway

take time its self for example

the pervalence for most was that time had some influence on things , rather than seeing time as for what it is , the measurement of the movement by things

see my point ?

To paraphrase an ancient pre Heisenberg paradox, if a stone flies in the air, it passes through series of trajectory points. At any given moment a stone is located somewhere, if it's "located" somewhere, it doesn't move, therefore its speed should be zero. Quite an absolute you've invented.

Why does it not move because it is located somewhere? Movement is simply a change of location. We are not saying the stone is located there forever :shrug:

Why does it not move because it is located somewhere?

For the same reason your PC monitor doesn't move with respect to table when you've typed that.

Movement is simply a change of location. We are not saying the stone is located there forever

At some point in forever your PC monitor will move from the table. Therefore, your monitor is moving right now, right ?

The ancient paradox can be explained only using Heisenberg uncertainty principle stating that the values of position and velocity, for example, cannot both exist with arbitrary precision.

put simply ,time is the measurement of the movement(s) by object(s)

time has NO influence on anything at all

time is a consequence of movement

obviously

the Reasoning is sound

Last edited:
put simply ,time is the measurement of the movement(s) by object(s)

What is the distance and space then? What does time measure when a cup of tea is cooling down on the fixed wrt Earth surface table?

time has NO influence on anything at all

Except that you are getting older with time

time is a consequence of movement

No movement = no time, huh? That's remarkable.

Originally Posted by thinking
put simply ,time is the measurement of the movement(s) by object(s)

What is the distance and space then?

distance and space

both are what they are

soo...?

time has NO influence on anything at all ”

Except that you are getting older with time

so , this is an expression and has nothing to do with the understanding of WHY we are getting older

and it has nothing to do with the influence of time , in and of its self

Status
Not open for further replies.