Time Explained

[Brain Man]

Brain Man, Both time and space has required to solve problems and have other experiences in life. Time and space are not an "either/or" thing; they come together as part of the same package. It is not about "need," it is merely a description of the way things already are. Or, if you can explain how anybody can perceive experiences without both time and space, please do so...

try some LSD and ketamine and you will perceive completely with no reference to time. As the drugs wear off then awareness of time starts to creep back in. A lot of drugs do that. Even anti anxiety drugs or alchohol, but not surprising is the brains timing comes from the limbic areas and hippocamus which are connected to the amygdala. Women are also more anxious in general and tend to have greater concern over time.

notice that athletes who do things fast are often in a mental zone in which they have no concern over time, but their entire system is concentrated on increasing motion.

[traditionaldrummer]

Theres no such thing as perfect time in drumming. Experiments show that even the best drummers have a variance plus or minus a couple of milliseconds which they cant control. Probably because 3-4 millisecond is the time of neuron latency itself.

No argument there, my friend. I am certainly far from drumming in perfect time and have no interest in mimicking what a machine can do, but the metronome sets a perfect tempo and keeps me and the other members from drifting (rubato). That neuron latency gives us drummers the "feel" that machines just can't accomplish. Anyway, I don't want to derail too far away from the brainy stuff in this thread....

[Farsight]

Your maths demonstrated ‘no time’, so when I use your maths I must demonstrate ‘no space’.

No it didn't. It demonstrated that maths can't tell you what time is. And where do you get this "no time" idea from? I said in the OP that time exists like heat exists, and I've reiterated it since.

You might be able to fool people into thinking that time is motion, now you have to fool them into thinking space is just motion as well.

No I don't. Hold you hands up a metre a part. There's a space between them. That isn't motion. But waggle your hands. That is.

Sheesh, where do they get these people?

[Farsight]

The test of science is whether it predicts experimental outcomes, rather than some philosophical idea of truth. If alternative theories are to gain traction, they need to explain what happens now and preferably suggest experiments in which existing theories predict different outcomes to the new theory. A new idea can be true without an experiment to show how it supercedes current ideas of course, but if the new idea doesn't predict anything and can't be tested, then it is really just a faith, isn't it?

If the new idea is supported by scientific evidence and the old one isn't, then the old idea is just a faith. I can show you space and motion with my hands. But you can't show me time flowing. And you can't show me any motion through time. It's that simple.

I'm a drummer. I use metronomes for "perfect time". Time is essential to my craft. Perhaps it is just an illusion of our perceptions. But a damned important one. Think I'm kidding? Show up late at work tomorrow then try to use this Einstein shit as the excuse for your boss.

Your metronome moves, your arms move, your drumsticks move, the drumskins move, the air moves. If you're late for work, it's because you didn't move it and you stayed in bed, or because you didn't move fast enough. It all comes down to motion, and the motion is through space. We measure the thing we call time with clocks, but open up a clock and what do you see? Time flowing? No, just cogs and stuff, moving.

This will maybe get it across: you and I are sitting in a room facing one another across a table. On this table there's a big red button. I point to the clock tick-tocking on the wall, and explain to you that when you press this button, all motion in the universe will stop for one minute. So you press the button. What happens next? The clock on the wall stops too. All motion stops, including the motion of light, and the motion of the electrical impulses in your brain. There's no way of timing that minute. So the universe stops forever. And there's no way of timing forever either. Hence you don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

[ChildInAZoo]

All motion stops, including the motion of light, and the motion of the electrical impulses in your brain. There's no way of timing that minute. So the universe stops forever. And there's no way of timing forever either. Hence you don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

There are still nuclear processes unrelated to motion or light.

[colubridae]

Your maths demonstrated ‘no time’, so when I use your maths I must demonstrate ‘no space’.

No it didn't. It demonstrated that maths can't tell you what time is. And where do you get this "no time" idea from? I said in the OP that time exists like heat exists, and I've reiterated it since.

You might be able to fool people into thinking that time is motion, now you have to fool them into thinking space is just motion as well.

No I don't. Hold you hands up a metre a part. There's a space between them. That isn't motion. But waggle your hands. That is.

Sheesh, where do they get these people?

*tsk* *tsk* farsight that is

Ok so you want to treat time completely differently to how it's used in real physics.
your point is that time is a 'feature' of energy. Dumb-ass stupid but whatever.
You used your cockamammy 'philosopher' type maths to 'prove' your point. Fine.

Now you must use the same cockammamy maths (used from your derivation) to treat space in the same way.
Yet despite your own maths, you do not want to do this. You specifically claim this against your own maths.

How is one different from the other?
Do not use verbal waffle. use the language of science. Show me where this simple detail is wrong using your maths.

Sheesh where do you get these people from...

Not the same place as you get your dumb-ass maths and ideas from.

[colubridae]

Look back on the thread you also claimed to be able to not experience time but to be able to see gravity and space.

[Farsight]

OK so you want to treat time completely differently to how it's used in real physics.

No I don't. I've already said that all the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime works. All I'm saying is that we should look at the scientific evidence to understand what time is, instead of pandering to celebrity garbage about time machines. Things move through space, and all the evidence in the world backs this up. Clocks clock up motion. A mechanical clock clocks up the rotational motion of its cogs, a quartz clock clocks up the vibrational motion of its crystal, a light clock clocks up the motion of light. A sundial clocks up the rotational motion of the earth. Motion motion motion. Through space. We don't travel through time at one second per second. Things move, shit happens, that's it.

Your point is that time is a 'feature' of energy. Dumb-ass stupid but whatever. You used your cockamammy 'philosopher' type maths to 'prove' your point. Fine.

You are so gracious in defeat.

Now you must use the same cockammamy maths (used from your derivation) to treat space in the same way. Yet despite your own maths, you do not want to do this. You specifically claim this against your own maths. How is one different from the other? Do not use verbal waffle. use the language of science. Show me where this simple detail is wrong using your maths.

What part of maths can't tell you what time is didn't you get? It can't tell you what space either. But just put your hands in the air a metre apart. See that space between them? That's space. Now waggle your hands. See it? That's motion. Maths can't tell you any more. Can you show me time like I can show you space and motion? Guess what? No, you can't. Because like heat, time is an emergent property of motion through space. But whilst a temperature is a measure of average motion, time is a measure of cumulative motion. No motion, no time. Now go and read the OP again and this time, try to understand it.

[Farsight]

There are still nuclear processes unrelated to motion or light.

No, there aren't. Electron spin is a real rotation, so is proton spin, so is neutrino spin.

[ChildInAZoo]

There are still nuclear processes unrelated to motion or light.

No, there aren't. Electron spin is a real rotation, so is proton spin, so is neutrino spin.

Well, you can spout your fantasies all you want, but spin is not the only nuclear process. There is also decay. In any case, your science fiction scenario is not enough to overthrow the decades of actual research that you ignore.

[colubridae]

OK so you want to treat time completely differently to how it's used in real physics.

No I don't. I've already said that all the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime works. All I'm saying is that we should look at the scientific evidence to understand what time is, instead of pandering to celebrity garbage about time machines. Things move through space, and all the evidence in the world backs this up. Clocks clock up motion. A mechanical clock clocks up the rotational motion of its cogs, a quartz clock clocks up the vibrational motion of its crystal, a light clock clocks up the motion of light. A sundial clocks up the rotational motion of the earth. Motion motion motion. Through space. We don't travel through time at one second per second. Things move, shit happens, that's it.

Your point is that time is a 'feature' of energy. Dumb-ass stupid but whatever. You used your cockamammy 'philosopher' type maths to 'prove' your point. Fine.

You are so gracious in defeat.

Now you must use the same cockammamy maths (used from your derivation) to treat space in the same way. Yet despite your own maths, you do not want to do this. You specifically claim this against your own maths. How is one different from the other? Do not use verbal waffle. use the language of science. Show me where this simple detail is wrong using your maths.

What part of maths can't tell you what time is didn't you get? It can't tell you what space either. But just put your hands in the air a metre apart. See that space between them? That's space. Now waggle your hands. See it? That's motion. Maths can't tell you any more. Can you show me time like I can show you space and motion? Guess what? No, you can't. Because like heat, time is an emergent property of motion through space. But whilst a temperature is a measure of average motion, time is a measure of cumulative motion. No motion, no time. Now go and read the OP again and this time, try to understand it.

That's not an answer. If you are correct demonstrate with your maths.
and I've told you before you cannot see space. there are no 'lumps' that you can count between your hands. All you can see is the far side of the room.
All you've done is repeat non-sense and avoid the question.

You can't see gravity - your assertion... Face it dude your stuff is fun

[Farsight]

Well, you can spout your fantasies all you want, but spin is not the only nuclear process. There is also decay. In any case, your science fiction scenario is not enough to overthrow the decades of actual research that you ignore.

I'm not ignoring anything, especially not scientific evidence. You're ignoring it, not me, because of some silly conviction that quantum mechanics surpasseth all human understanding. Get this: not any more it doesn't. You want to talk about decay? How about beta decay? A free neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino in about fifteen minutes. They've all got spin, and the rotation is real. So the neutron spin is a real rotation too. Only guess what? It's unbalanced. How do I know? The electron is like a closed twisted loop, you've seen the picture, the proton is like a twisted trefoil with three components, the next knot in the table. The neutrino is an open untwisted running loop, just like the Weyl spinor symbol. And you cannot put these things together to make a three-way symmetrical dynamical stress-energy configuration. Hence the neutron essentially wobbles itself apart, and decays. And not only that, it sometimes decays when it's braced in a nucleus too. You know why? Because neutrinos are lashing at it, all the time. That's why radioactive decay is seasonal.

[ChildInAZoo]

I'm not ignoring anything, especially not scientific evidence. You're ignoring it, not me, because of some silly conviction that quantum mechanics surpasseth all human understanding.

Wow, you slip into religious language pretty easily, Pope Farsight. All I'm doing is taking QM seriously. I am saying that it is part of human understanding. I am also suggesting that if you hope to explain the contents of science, then you have to actually address the contents of science and that includes QM.

Instead of spouting words that you think make you sound scientific, why don't you actually support your scientific claims with some predictions and observations? Science fiction scenarios about red buttons are not observations.

[Farsight]

That's not an answer. If you are correct demonstrate with your maths. And I've told you before you cannot see space. there are no 'lumps' that you can count between your hands. All you can see is the far side of the room. All you've done is repeat non-sense and avoid the question.

LOL! You can't demonstrate space with maths. But you know your hands aren't together. You can see this, you can feel it. So what's between your hands? Space. And no, there are no lumps in it. If there were, we'd call it matter. Sheesh, you still don't quite get this maths can't tell you what time is thing, do you? Groan. You know what kid, you remind me of somebody:

[Farsight]

Wow, you slip into religious language pretty easily, Pope Farsight. All I'm doing is taking QM seriously. I am saying that it is part of human understanding. I am also suggesting that if you hope to explain the contents of science, then you have to actually address the contents of science and that includes QM. Instead of spouting words that you think make you sound scientific, why don't you actually support your scientific claims with some predictions and observations? Science fiction scenarios about red buttons are not observations.

I'm taking it seriously, I'm addressing it, I'm giving predictions and observations and references and experimental. You're just carping and trying to stop me.