Time Explained

[Tigger]

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Given what's happened in the past, May I respectfully suggest that this statement warrants the thread being moved to a non-serious forum.

Rather than addressing the argument and examining the evidence or offering counter-argument and counter-evidence, we see an attempt at censorship. This is what we expect of religion, not science.

Well not really, for if it went to a non-serious forum, you could follow it and continue.

[ChildInAZoo]

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Given what's happened in the past, May I respectfully suggest that this statement warrants the thread being moved to a non-serious forum.

Rather than addressing the argument and examining the evidence or offering counter-argument and counter-evidence, we see an attempt at censorship. This is what we expect of religion, not science.

Well, in this case, you seem to be presenting your own position as a religious one, since you claim that one cannot produce rigor in your subject matter.

[colubridae]

One simply cannot explain time using rigor.

Given what's happened in the past, May I respectfully suggest that this statement warrants the thread being moved to a non-serious forum.

Rather than addressing the argument and examining the evidence or offering counter-argument and counter-evidence, we see an attempt at censorship. This is what we expect of religion, not science.

FS at this stage the very very last thing I want to do is censor you...

But I got reprimanded for not taking your serious threads seriously and I don't want to get into any more trouble.

[Farsight]

Well, in this case, you seem to be presenting your own position as a religious one, since you claim that one cannot produce rigor in your subject matter.

I'm not. I'm giving the scientific evidence and the rock-solid logic. It's necessary because mathematical rigor cannot explain t, and instead leads to people "believing" in time machines for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. Scientific evidence is more important than mathematical rigor. Don't forget that.

Colubridae: try to engage in sincere discussion. It's more interesting, particularly once you start noticing that some of the things you take for granted are unsupported by scientific evidence. The best example for this is "we travel forward through time at one second per second". There's no evidence for this. Clocks clock up motion, and that motion is through space. All this "time flows" stuff is just a figure of speech.

[ChildInAZoo]

I'm giving the scientific evidence and the rock-solid logic.

How can you claim to be giving "rock solid logic" when, in your own words, you cannot discuss this using rigor and you cannot lay out your starting assumptions. Additionally, you provide citations that are in direct contradiction to your claims. It seems that, contrary to your opinion expressed here, you are not actually presenting whatever logic you believe you are following. Why don't you begin from the start with your starting assumptions and then we can all see the logic of your proposal?

It's necessary because mathematical rigor cannot explain t, and instead leads to people "believing" in time machines for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. Scientific evidence is more important than mathematical rigor. Don't forget that.

But you haven't given us any sort of rigor, don't forget that. Let's see your assumptions and how you proceed from your assumptions.

Colubridae: try to engage in sincere discussion. It's more interesting, particularly once you start noticing that some of the things you take for granted are unsupported by scientific evidence. The best example for this is "we travel forward through time at one second per second". There's no evidence for this. Clocks clock up motion, and that motion is through space. All this "time flows" stuff is just a figure of speech.

As far as I can tell, your claim that "Clocks clock up motion" is equally just a figure of speech, a figure of speech with less scientific evidence, as we have scientific claims and evidence about the time that it takes for events that happen without motion, such as the decay of one particle into another.

[Brain Man]

Hold your hands up, colubridae. See that gap between them? That's a space, and you can see it. Now waggle those hands. That's motion, and you can see that too. But can you see time? No. Spot the difference?

Can't see gravity

Can't see the electordynamic force

None of these exist?

Fuck me I must be in the matri

Drop a pencil. It falls down. That's gravity. Push two magnets towards each other, and snick, they leap together. that's the magnetic force. Rub two balloons and see them repel. That's the electrostatic force, another aspect of the electromagnetic force. You can see it working. The evidence is there. In similar vein, you can see a space, and you can see motion, but you can't see time. There is no evidence for time flowing, or for travelling through time. Anybody who believes this is on a par with the creationists.

You can see periodicity though, and the evidence for it stacking itself up on a single vector. i.e. Rings on a tree.

The seasons being period motion in planetary motion of course. So the evidence of periodic motion is laid down in a consistent direction in nature, in our minds and the layering of rocks, ice records etc on our planet and others.

You can say this is not time, its periodicity. What is time ? As you say its a reference, to something already quantified.Just because these quantifications cant be seen in space does not mean time is not real. Its obviously real otherwise we couldnt have quantified any of these things in the first place, allowing the invention of your PC's processor cycles to enable you to sit in a space and type out this information that time does not exist ?

In otherwords the quantification of time by ourselves leads to activity which impinges on space and makes itself real.

[Farsight]

You can see periodicity though, and the evidence for it stacking itself up on a single vector. i.e. Rings on a tree. The seasons being period motion in planetary motion of course. So the evidence of periodic motion is laid down in a consistent direction in nature, in our minds and the layering of rocks, ice records etc on our planet and others.

No problem. But like you said, the evidence is evidence of periodic motion.

You can say this is not time, its periodicity. What is time ? As you say its a reference, to something already quantified. Just because these quantifications cant be seen in space does not mean time is not real. Its obviously real otherwise we couldnt have quantified any of these things in the first place, allowing the invention of your PC's processor cycles to enable you to sit in a space and type out this information that time does not exist ?

I didn't say time does not exist. I said time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. That's in the penultimate paragraph of post 4.

In otherwords the quantification of time by ourselves leads to activity which impinges on space and makes itself real.

We're quantifying the activity, Mr Jobby. The change, the motion. We call it time, but the evidence is evidence of periodic motion, not time flowing, or of any actual travel through time.

[Farsight]

How can you claim to be giving "rock solid logic" when, in your own words, you cannot discuss this using rigor and you cannot lay out your starting assumptions.

Because you cannot employ mathematical rigor to understand what t is, you have to examine the evidence carefully and set aside all preconceptions. The logic is here. Try breaking it. You can't, because it's rock solid.

...As far as I can tell, your claim that "Clocks clock up motion" is equally just a figure of speech, a figure of speech with less scientific evidence, as we have scientific claims and evidence about the time that it takes for events that happen without motion, such as the decay of one particle into another.

It's no figure of speech. Clocks clock up regular periodic motion. The evidence for this is undeniable. And there are no events that occur without motion. For example, a free neutron decays in circa 15 minutes. But the neutron has a magnetic moment, which means it has internalised motion.

[ChildInAZoo]

Because you cannot employ mathematical rigor to understand what t is, you have to examine the evidence carefully and set aside all preconceptions. The logic is here. Try breaking it. You can't, because it's rock solid.

As I said before, I cannot understand what you think your starting assumptions are and what you think your logic is because the text you reference is almost entirely incomprehensible. Hence I ask you to lay out your starting assumptions. I note that you earlier claimed that you cannot lay out your starting assumptions, yet here you seem to claim that you have already laid out these assumptions. This is the kind of sloppy inconsistency that keeps readers from understanding your position.

I find it odd that you do not want to help people understand your position. You seem to show all the same behavior that you decry in those who shill against global warming.

It's no figure of speech. Clocks clock up regular periodic motion. The evidence for this is undeniable. And there are no events that occur without motion. For example, a free neutron decays in circa 15 minutes. But the neutron has a magnetic moment, which means it has internalised motion.

I do not understand your claim here, since it appears to make no sense given the English language and technical definitions of the terms that you are using. If you would step through your position in more care, then perhaps this might make sense.

[Brain Man]

I didn't say time does not exist. I said time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion.

I think i need to read your work again.

you might like this guy he writes papers basically seeming to conclude with your position

http://www.vetrnica.net/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=23

[Brain Man]

Hold your hands up, colubridae. See that gap between them? That's a space, and you can see it. Now waggle those hands. That's motion, and you can see that too. But can you see time? No. Spot the difference?

Can't see gravity

Can't see the electordynamic force

None of these exist?

Fuck me I must be in the matri

But you will feel the effect of force acting on you.. How do you feel the effect of time, except internally..

[Brain Man]

This is completely mental..

there is no arrow of time, all there is is space. The time is an effect of motion or spin which is a self referred relationship we construct into a linear narrative ?

[Brain Man]

I feel a little dizzy here.

So there is no time, then the idea of mapping out a linear sequence of events i.e. The expanding universe is out the window.

Maybe not so, what you are saying is the expanding universe, is operating in space and is real, but time is just a means we have devised using periodic references to quantize the space itself.

So really the main point in what you are saying is that time is not a fourth dimension at all as physics teaches us. We just have X,Y,Z which we choose to express with periodicity and scales ?

[Farsight]

I think i need to read your work again.

Like I said, time exists like heat exists. I didn't say it doesn't exist, just that it isn't what most people think it is.

you might like this guy he writes papers basically seeming to conclude with your position:

http://www.vetrnica.net/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=23

Yes, I know Amrit Srecko Sorli. We don't agree on everything, but we do agree on time and motion. He's in Slovenia, and I gave him some assistance with the colloquial English in a paper he wrote last year.

This is completely mental... there is no arrow of time, all there is is space. The time is an effect of motion or spin which is a self referred relationship we construct into a linear narrative ?

All there is, is space and motion through it. That's what's there. Things move, processes occur. The arrow of time is a construct. It doesn't really point in a direction. What's mental is time travel. People say things like "we travel forward in time at one second per second", but we don't travel at all. Time travel is science fiction. Ever heard of a stasis box? It's science-fiction too, but it's useful to demonstrate something: get in the box, and the "stasis field" prevents all motion, even at the atomic level. So you can't move, your heart doesn't beat, and you can't even think. When I open the box five hundred years later, to you it's like I opened the box as soon as you got in. You "travelled" to the future by not moving at all. Instead everything else did. And all that motion, be it the motion of planets or people or atoms or light, is through space.

I feel a little dizzy here. So there is no time, then the idea of mapping out a linear sequence of events i.e. The expanding universe is out the window.

No, not at all. There is time, we do map out a sequence of events, the universe does expand. But it's all based on motion through space. The "motion through time" is just a figure of speech.

Maybe not so, what you are saying is the expanding universe, is operating in space and is real, but time is just a means we have devised using periodic references to quantize the space itself.

To quantize the motion through space. No motion means no time. There's no light moving so you can't see, there's no signals moving between your brain cells or within your brain cells so you can't think. Stop the clock or freeze the frame and you actually stop motion.

So really the main point in what you are saying is that time is not a fourth dimension at all as physics teaches us. We just have X,Y,Z which we choose to express with periodicity and scales?

No, all the maths of Minkowski spacetime still works. Time is a dimension, but a dimension in the old sense of measure, rather than a dimension that offers freedom of motion. You use it to to plot the cumulative motion occuring throughout the universe in the X Y and Z spatial dimensions. But there is no motion through it.

[Farsight]

...I find it odd that you do not want to help people understand your position. You seem to show all the same behavior that you decry in those who shill against global warming...

I'm perfectly happy to assist genuine posters. However I'm not prepared to "assist" somebody who refuses to discuss the topic and instead throws out snide insinuations and ad-hominems comparing me with a "shill" and dismissing the explanations I do give as "make no sense".