What is reality ?

[Dywyddyr]

So if

The thing we are measuring has physical properties but the measure itself is just relative to us

then what are the properties of this measure

None of your post contain ANY properties of any stuff you claim exist

Please provide at least one property of any something you claim exist

You did ask in one of your post what properties do I think TIME should have

Your joking right?

But in the spirit of humouring you I submit the following list

Visual - none
Audio - none
Frequency - none
Mass - none
Position on the periodic table - none
Position in the electromagnetic spectrum - none
Detectability - none
All those properties I have missed - none of those either

Feel free to pick any and replace the none word with what you consider to be a property

Presumably you meant to quote me rather than the loon.
We can measure time. Similar to the way we can measure length.
And I asked what properties do you think time should have, not to list what it doesn't.
Am I to take that you do deny the existence of length (and therefore everything) then?

 

[Mark Turner]

Wrong. Length is a dimension.

Equally wrong. There is no confusion on my part.

If it really is basic then you should be able to understand it. Then again, I'm not surprised because your comprehension of both of those has previously been shown to be severely lacking.

Really?
"Length" is a basic dimension in physics, in fact it's a fundamental.

Nope.
Length - as a dimension - is the extent between (or along) objects.
If you deny length as a dimension then there can be no spacial extension - i.e. everything is a single point.
If you deny time as a dimension then everything is happening now. (I.e. me going to sleep last night occurs simultaneously with with me being born and me dying - the fact that this isn't true should give you a slight clue).

I never said a length wasn't a dimension , I said it is not a physical thing itself , its a word that we use to describe the measure . It exists as a word , you're very very subjective in your thinking .

 

[Dywyddyr]

I never said a length wasn't a dimension , I said it is not a physical thing itself

Yet you claim that time doesn't exist.
The very same argument that you're using to deny the existence of time applies also to length.
If you deny one then you automatically deny the other.

, its a word that we use to describe the measure . It exists as a word

It's a dimension. That's more than just a "word".

you're very very subjective in your thinking .

And you like to make up bullshit like this.

 

[Mark Turner]

So if

The thing we are measuring has physical properties but the measure itself is just relative to us

then what are the properties of this measure

None of your post contain ANY properties of any stuff you claim exist

Please provide at least one property of any something you claim exist

You did ask in one of your post what properties do I think TIME should have

Your joking right?

But in the spirit of humouring you I submit the following list

Visual - none
Audio - none
Frequency - none
Mass - none
Position on the periodic table - none
Position in the electromagnetic spectrum - none
Detectability - none
All those properties I have missed - none of those either

Feel free to pick any and replace the none word with what you consider to be a property

If you were asking me , the properties of the measured is dependent to what we are measuring . A volume of water does not have the same properties as a rock although they have similar properties , namely atoms. I think nows a good time for me to mention the Higgs field hypothesis assuming the field fills all of space as an invisible entity with relative 0 permeability . It could be possible that this field is undetected but not undetectable . I suspect the assumed fields properties are two individual fields converged into one field . Perhaps a "hot" and "cold" field converged by thermodynamics to form a steady state field . There is many ways we can consider the space between stuff , minds focusing on an undetectable aether or dark energy. I'd describe space time as a finite 3D array , based on visual boundaries from a central observation .

 

[Mark Turner]

Yet you claim that time doesn't exist.
The very same argument that you're using to deny the existence of time applies also to length.
If you deny one then you automatically deny the other.

It's a dimension. That's more than just a "word".

And you like to make up bullshit like this.

You are being subjective and have closed ears to your own subjectiveness . Don't you understand words and words use ?

Time and a length exist as a descriptive word that represents the measure .

Why do you keep trying to change the correct content of the words , trying to make them mean something more than they mean?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are being subjective and have closed ears to your own subjectiveness .

And you're back to posting complete bollocks.
Just because you don't have a rational argument is no reason to resort to ad homs.

Don't you understand words and words use ?

Yes, but evidently you don't.

Time and a length exist as a descriptive word that represents the measure

No. Time and length exist as dimensions. In fact you yourself said that length is a dimension back in post #202.

Why do you keep trying to change the correct content of the words , trying to make them mean something more than they mean?

Possibly because you're the one that's actually doing that.

If you were asking me , the properties of the measured is dependent to what we are measuring . A volume of water does not have the same properties as a rock although they have similar properties , namely atoms. I think nows a good to me to mention the Higgs field hypothesis assuming the field fills all of space as an invisible entity with relative 0 permeability . It could be possible that this field is undetected but not undetectable . I suspect the assumed fields properties are two individual fields converged into one field . Perhaps a "hot" and "cold" field converged by thermodynamics to form a steady state field . There is many ways we can consider the space between stuff , minds focusing on an undetectable aether or dark energy. I'd describe space time as a finite 3D array , based on visual boundaries from a central observation .

This is, practically in its entirety, complete bollocks.

 

[Mark Turner]

And you're back to posting complete bollocks.
Just because you don't have a rational argument is no reason to resort to ad homs.

Yes, but evidently you don't.

No. Time and length exist as dimensions. In fact you yourself said that length is a dimension back in post #202.

Possibly because you're the one that's actually doing that.


This is, practically in its entirety, complete bollocks.

Your counter argument is nonsense , you can't prove that time exists any other than the word itself . You have an illusionary superiority problem in that you always think you're correct and can never be at error.
Can you provide a single shred of proof that time exists ?

No you can't so why do you keep being subjective ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your counter argument is nonsense

And yet you haven't managed to provide any actual counter to that argument other than to attack me personally.

you can't prove that time exists any other than the word itself .

Really?
So you're claiming that my birth and my death both happened at the same "time"? Which also coincided with the Big Bang, the Earth forming AND the Sun expanding as it starts to die?

You have an illusionary superiority problem in that you always think you're correct and can never be at error.

And yet you're the one that never provides reasoned argument for his claims, insists on denigrating opponents as "subjective" and claims to understand relativity better than Einstein...

Can you provide a single shred of proof that time exists?

I've given evidence.

No you can't so why do you keep being subjective ?

Aaand back to the ridiculous ad hom. Why do you persist in doing that rather than give a reasoned argument? (That was rhetorical, I know why you don't: because you can't).

 

[Write4U]

ie NOW

Could be yesterday or tomorrow. Depends on the time frame you want to use.

The final fraction-of-a-second of inflation is where our knowledge ends.

No, that's where our knowledge of time begins . It's the inflationary period (expanding @ FTL) which is the great mystery.

But IMO, inflation @ FTL was possible because the universe was expanding outward before any internal mathematical restrictions had become established by the expanding spacetime bubble.

 

[Write4U]

So space etc. doesn't exist either. And therefore nothing at all can exist.

Time does not create space. Space creates time......

I disagree with your use of the word space in reference to time. Space is Spatial, Time is Temporal and has nothing to do with space.

One more time: if length (the dimension) doesn't exist then there can be no separation (either between objects or of faces/ edges of objects).

The length you refer to is a spatial length, but time does not measure space (except for the "lightyear" unit), but "length of duration".

Length of time depends on the persistent continuation of a chronology of related events in space and universally of the chronology of spacetime itself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Time does not create space.

You really should read a post before you reply to the assumptions you've made about what it says.

Space creates time......

According to...?

I disagree with your use of the word space in reference to time.

Then, like I said, you should actually read what I wrote instead of inventing strawmen.

Space is Spatial, Time is Temporal and has nothing to do with space.

Good. Because I didn't say that.

time does not measure space

Nor did I say that.

Length of time depends on the persistent continuation of a chronology of related events in space and universally of the chronology of spacetime itself.

Yeah... no.

Back onto ignore until you learn how to read.

 

[Write4U]

I'd describe space time as a finite 3D array , based on visual boundaries from a central observation .

I disagree. IMO, Time is an emerging one dimensional result of change.

Can you describe the 3 Dimensional properties of time?

 

[Mark Turner]

I disagree. IMO, Time is an emerging one dimensional result of change.

Can you describe the 3 Dimensional properties of time?

Sy , maybe !

Well , if we assume time is aging and anything that ages has 3 dimensional properties , we can consider time as being what changes in a system . We could look at time as the entropy of a system , the number of ways a system can change . To me the 3D properties of time is energy . The energy of a system constantly changing .

 

[Write4U]

No. "Time and length exist as dimensions"

Your words.

Time does not exist as a dimension, it exists (emerges) as a measurement of duration. Time does not exist for something without duration. Time emerges along with "duration".

The durability of space creates the temporal measurement of an associated time-frame (age).
Question is if an arbitrary time-frame constitutes a universal dimension?

Is Duration a Dimension?

duration, n
the length of time that something lasts or continues
[C14: from Medieval Latin dūrātiō, from Latin dūrāre to last]

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/duration

 

[Write4U]

W4U said,
Time does not create space.

Dywyddyr said,
You really should read a post before you reply to the assumptions you've made about what it says.

W4U said,
Space creates time......

Dywyddyr said,
According to...?

It's a self-evident phenomenon. Space creates measurable space and time, but time does not create measurable space nor time.

Time is a resulting by-product (measurement) of duration of change, but has no independent existence apart from space.

 

[Michael 345]

everything is happening now

Well you have that correct

What you fail to consider is not all of your NOWs are happening at the same moment

Every single atom in the Universe has its NOW moment at the same moment

Separation by DISTANCE is why they do not happen in the same region

By your "reasoning" there can't be any void. Nor any content.

Show your workings please

And I asked what properties do you think time should have, not to list what it doesn't

As answered already having a position of TIME not existing I am unable to give you properties WHICH DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE ITEM DOES NOT EXIST

But since YOU claim time's existence YOU should be able to provide any of the said properties for the list, or any other property not listed

ADDITIONAL homework (no bonus Elephant stamps )

Hands up all those who think activity is taking place right NOW in the future?

..... in the past?

Post your thoughts at your convenience

 

[Dywyddyr]

What you fail to consider is not all of your NOWs are happening at the same moment

In other words they're separated in time.

Separation by DISTANCE is why they do not happen in the same region

Except that, again, using the same argument you've used to claim time doesn't exist also "proves" that distance doesn't exist...

Show your workings please

No distance = no space/ volume. Ergo no void. Everything's at a single point.

As answered already having a position of TIME not existing I am unable to give you properties WHICH DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE ITEM DOES NOT EXIST

Why do you think time (a dimension) should have physical properties?
Why does that argument not also apply to length?

But since YOU claim time's existence YOU should be able to provide any of the said properties for the list, or any other property not listed

Not at all since I don't hold the belief that time should have "properties".

 

[Michael 345]

Not at all since I don't hold the belief that time should have "properties".

Got it

Every thing which exists must have properties

except TIME

Bye

(CLICK)

 

[James R]

This thread sure got cranky in a hurry.

Michael:

What you fail to consider is not all of your NOWs are happening at the same moment

What is it that allows them to happen at different moments?

Every single atom in the Universe has its NOW moment at the same moment

I don't think I really understand what you mean by that.

If it means something like what I think it means, then I think you have a(nother) problem. Simultaneity is relative, so the "now" moment for one observer is necessarily different than the "now" moment for a relatively-moving observer.

Separation by DISTANCE is why they do not happen in the same region

What are the properties of distance?

But since YOU claim time's existence YOU should be able to provide any of the said properties for the list, or any other property not listed

What do you mean by "properties"?

If I say "Time is the the thing that prevents everything from happening at once" then time would appear to have the property of preventing things from happening at once, for instance.

Hands up all those who think activity is taking place right NOW in the future?

Define "NOW" for me, please. The way I understand that word makes no sense when you use it.

Really, michael, the fact that Mark Turner "likes" your posts should send off alarm bells, if nothing else.

 

[Michael 345]

This thread sure got cranky in a hurry.

Never

What is it that allows them to happen at different moments?

CHANGE

The changed version appears at different NOW

I don't think I really understand what you mean by that.

Will come back to this

What are the properties of distance?

NONE

properties

Third on the list in Merriam Webster is

a special or quality characteristic of something

Distance is not in anyway a something

Really, michael, the fact that Mark Turner "likes" your posts should send off alarm bells, if nothing else.

No accounting for taste

I'm going off for a moment to write out answers and will cut and paste when back. Have a feeling will need to repeat so will file away

Define "NOW" for me, please. The way I understand that word makes no sense when you use it.

Before I go NOW is the only moment in existence and my question to all

Hands up all those who think activity is taking place right NOW in the future?

..... in the past?

Minor correction

... happening NOW or in the future or in the past