What is "time"

In your delusions you imagine that they agree with you.

Your references to things you haven't read and don't understand, thankfully, have no bearing on reality.

Spend more time in front of your mirror, since it agrees with you.
 
Farsight said:
Some of what you think of as mainstream science is just popscience junk. Really.

It isn't as obvious as the nose on your face. I can show you the nose on your face. And space, and motion, and other things too. But you can't show me time.[..]or show me time passing or flowing?
Click to expand...
show me air
 
Last edited:
I can show you air, shimmering on a hot day. I can blow air into your face. Or I could take the air out of the room you're in, such that you are gasping for air. You know what air is. You don't doubt that it exists in a very real sense. Nobody does. OK?

Now, you show me time.
 
tashja said:
He made a similar argument here (skip to 1:04:34):

Click to expand...
Farsight said:
I can show you air, shimmering on a hot day. I can blow air into your face. Or I could take the air out of the room you're in, such that you are gasping for air. You know what air is. You don't doubt that it exists in a very real sense. Nobody does. OK?

Now, you show me time.
Click to expand...
again,
show me air.
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
I though he addressed the issue there, but groan, they were talking about a universe made of mathematics. And Lee Smolin then talked about "passing moments" and the "flow of time". Time doesn't literally pass or flow. Such is just a figure of speech. A clock is not some cosmic gas meter. It doesn't really measure the flow of time.
Click to expand...


I'm rather proud, that I am dismissed along with the real professional experts on this issue, while Farsight dabbles in Disney Land and his ego boosted delusions of grandeur.


Farsight said:
Only because when light slows down you slow down too, because electromagnetic radiation and matter are "made of the same essence"
Click to expand...

Irrespective of whether that's true or otherwise, the speed of light still remains constant. You have progressed some in being able to recognise that fact.
And you have also supported the reality of time in actual fact, in that EMR and matter, both evolved from the fundamentals of space and time [or spacetime]
If I had a gold star, I would give it to you.


Farsight said:
That's what some say, but the "field interpretation" of GR referred to by Kevin Brown says a clock tops at the event horizon, and that's the end of the story.
Click to expand...

Actually it is never seen to stop, and in fact in the FoR of someone holding the clock and falling in with it, nothing happens.


Farsight said:
I haven't dismissed anybody. And as for experts, Don Koks agrees with me about the variable speed of light, and Tom Moore agrees with me that the light doesn't get out because it's stopped. And my references to Einstein and Shapiro etc demonstrate that I'm not the guy pushing alternative hypotheses or pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

I have seen no one agree with you. And you have dismissed all and sundry that do not happen to align with your Disney Land approach.
This analogy explains quite admirably.....
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/intro.html

Hope that helps.
 
farsight,
it's obvious that you do not even recognize how similar air ,water and time are in behaviors of flow.
all in all, i was enjoying this topic until you stepped in it with what is normally stepped in.
 
Farsight said:
I can show you air, shimmering on a hot day. I can blow air into your face. Or I could take the air out of the room you're in, such that you are gasping for air. You know what air is. You don't doubt that it exists in a very real sense. Nobody does. OK?

Now, you show me time.
Click to expand...



Sure!
You made that analogy some minutes ago.
I have just read it.
A certain amount of time has passed/flowed/ progressed.

Now again since you have insidiously avoided answering.
"Show me a scientifically accepted realm, world, or Universe, in which time does not exist"
 
I haven't avoided anything. And you haven't shown me time. Whoosh! Did you see time pass? No. Did you see it flow? No. Things moved, that's all. Thinks like clocks and hearts and planets and light. As for scientifically accepted, that's got nothing to do with whether something exists. We do science via evidence, not popular vote. No, you can't show me time. But I can show you this:

upload_2014-11-13_23-14-18.jpeg

[URL='http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942']http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942]A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein[/URL]
[URL='http://[/SIZE']
paddoboy said:
...I have seen no one agree with you...
Click to expand...
Apart from Einstein and Shapiro and Ned Wright and Don Koks and Tom Moore and more.[/URL]
 
Farsight said:
I haven't avoided anything. And you haven't shown me time. Whoosh! Did you see time pass? No. Did you see it flow? No. Things moved, that's all. Thinks like clocks and hearts and planets and light. As for scientifically accepted, that's got nothing to do with whether something exists. We do science via evidence, not popular vote. No, you can't show me time. But I can show you this:

View attachment 56

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942]A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein

Apart from Einstein and Shapiro and Ned Wright and Don Koks and Tom Moore and more.
Click to expand...


No, no one in actual fact.
You can twist, turn, take out of context all you like. Most on this forum are used to that now.
But the accepted facts remain.
[1] Time is real, as real as space, spacetime, gravity, matter and energy....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
[2] The speed of light is a constant
[3] Light is never seen to stop just redshifted, and time is never seen to stop, just dilated.
[4] In a local FoR, of someone with a clock and a torch just approaching the EH, nothing extraordinary happens.....no stopping or slowing of light, no time dilation from and in respect to that FoR.
[4]Our methodology of measuring events, the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, and the fact that although we do not know the true nature of time [as is the case for many scientific/cosmological concepts], the fact that 13.83 billion years has passed since space and time evolved from the BB, the fact that you are here now, and finally the fact that every night, I am able to visualise the past, as it is, when I am star gazing, proves time is real.......

The best I can offer you Farsight, is that in the case with time, it is still hotly debated.
The rest are "done and dusted"accepted scenarios within GR.
 
Farsight said:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942]A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein
Click to expand...


Just thought I would do a bit of research on Godel....
Here's a paper on time by with references to him....
http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Time.pdf
entitled....
Time and Causation in Gödel’s Universe.
By John L. Bell


In which he said.....
In 1949 the great logician Kurt Gödel constructed the first mathematical
models of the universe in which travel into the past is, in theory at least,
possible. Within the framework of Einstein’s general theory of relativity
Gödel produced cosmological solutions to Einstein’s field equations
which contain closed time-like curves, that is, curves in spacetime which,
despite being closed, still represent possible paths of bodies. An object
moving along such a path would travel back into its own past, to the very
moment at which it “began” the journey. More generally, Gödel showed
that, in his “universe”, for any two points P and Q on a body’s track
through spacetime (its world line), such that P temporally precedes Q,
there is a timelike curve linking P and Q on which Q temporally precedes
P. This means that, in principle at least, one could board a “time
machine” and travel to any point of the past.

Now in that short paragraph he absolutely shoots down your own thoughts on time travel, and which you highlighted in another provocatively mis-titled thread, as has become so obvious with those with pseudo views on science and the nature of reality.
"Time Travel is Science Fiction" by Farsight:

He does go on to say though that....
"Gödel inferred, in consonance (as he observes) with the views of
Parmenides, Kant and the modern idealists, that under these
circumstances there could be no such thing as an objective lapse of time,
that time or, more generally, change, is an illusion arising from our
special mode of perception" which does align with your own thoughts.

Irrespective he concludes......
"We conclude that, if time travel into the past is possible (and
feasible), and no restrictions are placed on the purposes to which such
travel is put, then the universe must branch. Accordingly we have three
possibilities:
1. Time travel is impossible.
2. Time travel is possible, with no “changing of the past”.
3. Time travel is possible, and the universe ramifies. "

So while proving time travel is possible, he concludes that time is not real, which I find breathtakingly illogical.
 
You know, this quote from Gödel reminds me of the "many interacting worlds" postulate, and it ties in.

Or maybe I've had a little more to drink than is good for me.
beer.gif
 
Dr_Toad said:
You know, this quote from Gödel reminds me of the "many interacting worlds" postulate, and it ties in.Or maybe I've had a little more to drink than is good for me.
beer.gif
Click to expand...


Cheers!!! I'm just about to crack open a can [OR TWO] of VB! :) [32C in Sydney today!]
 
Farsight said:
You're the one who believes in pixie magic, so much so that you dismiss Einstein and the evidence and bona-fide physics and try to defend that with abuse.
Click to expand...
Would you please stop lying to people and saying that you have done "bona-fide physics".

You don't know and can't do physics. We can all see that. Until you can back up your theories by showing how to use them in an application, please go away.
 
Msg To all “What ‘is’ Time” SciForums participants.

Ok, I'm going to say it. I’m getting really disappointed with the direction this forum is going. And some of the people here claiming to be scientific while also actually engaging in name calling should be starting to feel a bit embarrassed for themselves. As the saying goes “what is a good man if he is not a bad mans teacher, and what is a bad man if he is not a good mans teacher”.

However, i do not think all is lost. I have chatted on a lot of “what is time”, “Does time exist?” forums, and I had hoped I’d found a forum that wasn’t heading down the (amusing but) unproductive “your mum...” route : ), so perhaps we can get back on track, I have a few suggestions below.

I consider this area of ”time” to be the most unscientific area of science I have ever seen. Why, because it’s the one area where people seem free to rush to insults, and to kick the scientific method aside without even giving it lip service. However, that also makes it a an area from me where I think some fascinating things may be waiting to be found.

The problem is, so many people rush of to say why they think a certain thing exists or not... without even clearly defining it... and just as bad many seem to intend to define it as they go along, and think that defending a side, as opposed to logically and objectively checking all possibilities, is scientific. Which it is not. We can’t change how nature happens to be or not, we can only work together to try and work out how it may actually be.

SO, if I can take it everyone has got their insults out the way ( here on a what is meant to be a “scientific” forum ) and realised they do not advance scientific knowledge.

So could I suggest we all take a step back in case we are too entrenched in an opinion, as opposed to describing and testing actual observations, as per the scientific method.

And remember, if time does exist, then we are all wasting it going round in circles, and if time does not exist we are all at least wasting energy and telomeres ! ( perhaps we can all at least agree on that :^).

Imo, this cannot be an emotional issue, progress in science comes for checking foundational concepts, so can I suggest the one thing everyone here, with any opinion (the possibility of time v the possibility of timelessness), can at least agree we need a clear and agreed, working definition of “time”. And from there start afresh?

My position is I sincerely think matter just existing and interacting may be all we need to explain all we observe, and to explain away some misunderstandings, so I can’t provide a definition, but I also can’t explain my reasoning in contrast to an undefined thing that seems to be slightly different to each person defending it.

The OED definition of “time” is,

“The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in ‘the past’, ‘present’, and ‘future’ regarded as a whole:”

So can the 'for time' people agree on that, or modify it to an agreed (perhaps more scientific) definition.

Then, perhaps we can free ourselves from apparently personal investment in this issue, and more systematically civilly, and scientifically discuss at least an agreed definition, and the existence etc of each of “time’s” suggested components.

Just my opinion, Matthew Marsden
 
Last edited:
Landau Roof said:
Paddoboy is doing that thing again where he thinks if he types in bold his argument will be irrefutable. :(
Click to expand...
hi Landau,
to be fair, i think in fact the quote was highlighted bold, but bold mode stayed on, its happened to me a couple of times
mm
 
paddoboy said:
Even Issac Newton acknowledged in "Principia Mathematica" the inevitable flow of time. ...
Click to expand...
Please quote where. (Use his indexing of paragraphs). I have carefully read, (checking his proofs) about 1/3 of "Principia Mathematica" and then skimmed it all. I don't think your statement is true. Have you actually read that some where in "Principia Mathematica" or are you just extending your conformation bias there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top