The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Time  (Read 17463 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #75 on: 15/03/2015 19:29:51 »
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #76 on: 19/03/2015 09:52:27 »
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.
Ditto.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #77 on: 20/03/2015 21:25:59 »
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.

When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.

Where am I going with time?

zero point space like I have mentioned before, to you a dimensional point   of and in space, timeless points of nothing.

What is time ?

time is nothing.

  What is arbitrary time?

Arbitrary time is an increment of observation of existence in a space, filling a dimension of dimensionless timeless space and making the space countable.

« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 21:42:42 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #78 on: 20/03/2015 21:57:24 »
Quote from: Thebox
What is time ?
We already explained it to you. You chose not to learn.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #79 on: 20/03/2015 22:04:21 »


When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.


You may prefer to operate with an empty head but what you are forgetting is all of the experimentation and effort expended by competent scientists to accumulate present day knowledge. And yes, we should be influenced by these great men of science because of the gain in knowledge mankind has accumulated.

If you prefer to start over and throw away everything we've learned over the past 100 years, you're disadvantaging your position. Do you really think you can do better with the few short years you've been given. You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge through the experience of others.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 22:47:52 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #80 on: 20/03/2015 22:43:05 »
You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge by the experience of others.

Unless he is arrogant.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #81 on: 20/03/2015 23:32:20 »
Quote from: Thebox
What is time ?
We already explained it to you. You chose not to learn.

Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #82 on: 20/03/2015 23:34:20 »


When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.


You may prefer to operate with an empty head but what you are forgetting is all of the experimentation and effort expended by competent scientists to accumulate present day knowledge. And yes, we should be influenced by these great men of science because of the gain in knowledge mankind has accumulated.

If you prefer to start over and throw away everything we've learned over the past 100 years, you're disadvantaging your position. Do you really think you can do better with the few short years you've been given. You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge through the experience of others.

That is not what I was saying or said, that is your own mind interpreting something different to what I said.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #83 on: 20/03/2015 23:36:16 »
You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge by the experience of others.

Unless he is arrogant.

Again name calling, deflection from the thread, one of the same persons from the other forum.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #84 on: 20/03/2015 23:37:53 »
When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #85 on: 21/03/2015 02:34:19 »
Quote from: Thebox
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
What ever gave you the impression that you have right to insult me like this? Don't you know that when you joined this forum you agreed to follow the forum rules and one of those rules is that you are not allowed to post other members. In this case you're insulting my intelligence. You also mistakenly think that you can read minds. Let me educate you on that point. At least with me you can't read my mind. You therefore made a false accusation that I merely chose to accept the definition of time without questioning it and made the horrible mistake that you thought that you actually taught me something. Hint: You don't have enough knowledge or experience to correct anything I say or derive regarding physics. You're simply too ignorant in this area right now. Perhaps in 20 years that might change but today you're quite wrong. You never have taught me anything so you can't make a legitimate claim that you're teaching me. You know damn well, as do I and everyone else who is posting in this thread, that you're only making that claim to irritate me. The so-called "definition" of time that I showed you (actually it's impossible to define time for the reasons explained there) is as perfect as can be. My friend Alan Guth read it and agrees with me. He's a cosmologist at MIT and on the track to win a Nobel Prize in physics. He already won many other prizes in physics as well as the Kavli prize in Astrophysics:
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-kavli-prize

He's a renown physicist and a first rate physicist to boot. And he damn well knows more than you in physics. I know a damn well more than you in physics. But as long as you keep insulting and irritating people here with your accusations that you're so much smarter and more correct than everyone you're not going to learn or get any better and you'll be ignored.

Now it's time for me to tell you how I know that my understanding is better than yours. Yours makes no sense. You claim that there's only time where there is matter. But you haven't said what time is by this statement. All you've done is to describe a property of time. Here's why I know you don't know why yours is better than the old and thus it needed to be changed. You've demonstrated NO knowledge or understanding that you know anything about what time is "defined" by all mainstream physicists. You haven't even take on one statement or even a word from that description of time I gave you and tried to shoot it down. You can't make any claims that a definition is wrong if you have no knowledge of the definition.

What physicists call "time" is the parameter "t" that appears in equations and elsewhere. However its only differences in "t" that play a strong role in physics. It's analogous to the potential energy of a particle, V. V is defined only within an arbitrary additive constant. Kinetic energy K and rest energy E0 added to V forum the total energy E and it's E that is conserved. So "V" plays an important role in energy conservation just like time "t" plays a role in physics, especially when defining spacetime. In your crackpot definition of time, spacetime cannot be defined. You imply that such a thing is okay but don't prove it. Special and General Relativity are theories in which spacetime plays a large role. In fact it's spacetime curvature that replaces tidal gradients in general relativity.

So stop with your arrogant and ignorant attitude. You already appear to us as a crackpot so why make it worse for yourself?
« Last Edit: 21/03/2015 03:03:19 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #86 on: 21/03/2015 11:47:07 »
Quote from: Thebox
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
What ever gave you the impression that you have right to insult me like this? Don't you know that when you joined this forum you agreed to follow the forum rules and one of those rules is that you are not allowed to post other members. In this case you're insulting my intelligence. You also mistakenly think that you can read minds. Let me educate you on that point. At least with me you can't read my mind. You therefore made a false accusation that I merely chose to accept the definition of time without questioning it and made the horrible mistake that you thought that you actually taught me something. Hint: You don't have enough knowledge or experience to correct anything I say or derive regarding physics. You're simply too ignorant in this area right now. Perhaps in 20 years that might change but today you're quite wrong. You never have taught me anything so you can't make a legitimate claim that you're teaching me. You know damn well, as do I and everyone else who is posting in this thread, that you're only making that claim to irritate me. The so-called "definition" of time that I showed you (actually it's impossible to define time for the reasons explained there) is as perfect as can be. My friend Alan Guth read it and agrees with me. He's a cosmologist at MIT and on the track to win a Nobel Prize in physics. He already won many other prizes in physics as well as the Kavli prize in Astrophysics:
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-kavli-prize

He's a renown physicist and a first rate physicist to boot. And he damn well knows more than you in physics. I know a damn well more than you in physics. But as long as you keep insulting and irritating people here with your accusations that you're so much smarter and more correct than everyone you're not going to learn or get any better and you'll be ignored.

Now it's time for me to tell you how I know that my understanding is better than yours. Yours makes no sense. You claim that there's only time where there is matter. But you haven't said what time is by this statement. All you've done is to describe a property of time. Here's why I know you don't know why yours is better than the old and thus it needed to be changed. You've demonstrated NO knowledge or understanding that you know anything about what time is "defined" by all mainstream physicists. You haven't even take on one statement or even a word from that description of time I gave you and tried to shoot it down. You can't make any claims that a definition is wrong if you have no knowledge of the definition.

What physicists call "time" is the parameter "t" that appears in equations and elsewhere. However its only differences in "t" that play a strong role in physics. It's analogous to the potential energy of a particle, V. V is defined only within an arbitrary additive constant. Kinetic energy K and rest energy E0 added to V forum the total energy E and it's E that is conserved. So "V" plays an important role in energy conservation just like time "t" plays a role in physics, especially when defining spacetime. In your crackpot definition of time, spacetime cannot be defined. You imply that such a thing is okay but don't prove it. Special and General Relativity are theories in which spacetime plays a large role. In fact it's spacetime curvature that replaces tidal gradients in general relativity.

So stop with your arrogant and ignorant attitude. You already appear to us as a crackpot so why make it worse for yourself?

That is not an insult, that is me being arrogant in response to sciences arrogance.


Let me correct this for you

''Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.''



Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.

Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.


''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''


The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.

Measuring a casting of a shadows movement on a sundial is putting a period of ''time'' to a distance of movement, a timing and  not a time.  The time you observe whilst timing is your own time, timing the action.

The ball rolling down a hill from A-B is an increment equal to your time observing,

A block of ''time'' in a infinite timeless time.



 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #87 on: 22/03/2015 04:18:06 »
Quote from: Thebox
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.

Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
Incorrect yet once again. Then again you didn't read the page I showed you nor my posts very well so this ignorance is to be expected. Changes might not take place relative to anything having to do with different places in space but could be with respect to a single location in space such as the shutting off or turning on of an LED which, according to an observer, takes place at a single place in space in a particular reference frame.  That it has structure which means that it spans a small amount of space is unrelated to the fact that motion is not a factor here.

You also failed to understand that time cannot be defined like other concepts can. This is because its a fundamental concept. Any attempt to define it will lead to a circularity. The same thing happens with certain mathematical terms. You made the mistake over and over that you were at liberty to create your own definition of time. In reality all you were doing is choosing to use the term "time" in your own particular way when in fact the term was created to describe the phenomena relating to change in the universe

Quote from: Thebox
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''


The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Yet another mistake. First off that's an extremely sloppy sentence. This is why so many people keep saying that they don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is pure gibberish.

Please take at least one physics course and one course in writing before you come back here again. You're embarrassing yourself again.

It's for reasons like this that you're on the crackpot list. You're second only after jccc. It's a very close race though.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 04:34:46 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #88 on: 22/03/2015 12:04:02 »
Quote from: Thebox
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.

Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
Incorrect yet once again. Then again you didn't read the page I showed you nor my posts very well so this ignorance is to be expected. Changes might not take place relative to anything having to do with different places in space but could be with respect to a single location in space such as the shutting off or turning on of an LED which, according to an observer, takes place at a single place in space in a particular reference frame.  That it has structure which means that it spans a small amount of space is unrelated to the fact that motion is not a factor here.

You also failed to understand that time cannot be defined like other concepts can. This is because its a fundamental concept. Any attempt to define it will lead to a circularity. The same thing happens with certain mathematical terms. You made the mistake over and over that you were at liberty to create your own definition of time. In reality all you were doing is choosing to use the term "time" in your own particular way when in fact the term was created to describe the phenomena relating to change in the universe

Quote from: Thebox
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''


The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Yet another mistake. First off that's an extremely sloppy sentence. This is why so many people keep saying that they don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is pure gibberish.

Please take at least one physics course and one course in writing before you come back here again. You're embarrassing yourself again.

It's for reasons like this that you're on the crackpot list. You're second only after jccc. It's a very close race though.

No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.  The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.

End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 12:06:11 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #89 on: 22/03/2015 17:53:35 »
Quote from: Thebox
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.
First of all your main problem is that you want to change what you think the term "time" refers to (which you really have no idea what it means) but you haven't even explained or proved that there is any problem with the meaning as it now stands. So you claim its wrong, huh? Fine! Then prove it!

There are four errors in this statement.

1) It's not my definition.

2) It's not even a definition (you keep ignoring that fact for some reason).

3) It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.

4) The description of time as given in the sources are the correct description

The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm, (1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_3/index.html
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time.html

Quote from: Thebox
  The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
You sure can't write a meaningful sentence, can you? That makes no sense whatsoever! What do you mean by "you can record time in a space that is not your own time"???

Quote from: Thebox
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
Then if you're so cocksure of yourself then prove it! First prove that you know what "my" definition of "spacetime" is and then prove that it's "incorrect" and then prove what it means for someone else's definition to be incorrect.

You have absolutely no logic to your arguments. It has no meaning to say that someone's definition is incorrect. That you can't fathom that fact is the kind of thing that put you near the top of the crackpot list.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #90 on: 22/03/2015 19:54:04 »
Quote from: Thebox
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.
First of all your main problem is that you want to change what you think the term "time" refers to (which you really have no idea what it means) but you haven't even explained or proved that there is any problem with the meaning as it now stands. So you claim its wrong, huh? Fine! Then prove it!

There are four errors in this statement.

1) It's not my definition.

2) It's not even a definition (you keep ignoring that fact for some reason).

3) It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.

4) The description of time as given in the sources are the correct description

The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm, (1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_3/index.html
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time.html

Quote from: Thebox
  The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
You sure can't write a meaningful sentence, can you? That makes no sense whatsoever! What do you mean by "you can record time in a space that is not your own time"???

Quote from: Thebox
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
Then if you're so cocksure of yourself then prove it! First prove that you know what "my" definition of "spacetime" is and then prove that it's "incorrect" and then prove what it means for someone else's definition to be incorrect.

You have absolutely no logic to your arguments. It has no meaning to say that someone's definition is incorrect. That you can't fathom that fact is the kind of thing that put you near the top of the crackpot list.

Your links more or less say what I have been talking about.  I can define time other than arbitrary use.


Space-time is 3 dimensions of space and a forth dimension of time, the problem is space has no dimensions .


try dimensions that fill a space that  are timed occupying that space whilst travelling through space.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 19:57:55 by Thebox »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #91 on: 22/03/2015 20:19:40 »
All I see is an uninteresting assertion that time doesn't exist in space when there's nothing in that space to show time passing. It's a bit like talking about there being no sound when a tree falls in a forest if there's no one there to hear it - it's something that cannot be proved either way and which is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Dull and trivial.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #92 on: 22/03/2015 20:28:10 »
All I see is an uninteresting assertion that time doesn't exist in space when there's nothing in that space to show time passing. It's a bit like talking about there being no sound when a tree falls in a forest if there's no one there to hear it - it's something that cannot be proved either way and which is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Dull and trivial.

It proves the truth but you say it is uninteresting,

there is no sound from a falling tree, sound is a wave conversion, the actual wave makes no sound.  You detect waves and covert it into a sound, your brain again I am afraid to say.



 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #93 on: 23/03/2015 00:58:43 »
If sound is a wave compression, the sound is there even if no one is there to hear it, but if you consider sound to be the experience inside the head of a hearing creature like a human, then there is no sound where a tree falls out of range of the hearing of such creatures. However, there's also the philosophical argument that not only is the sound not there, but the tree might not exist when there's no one there looking at it. That is closer to what I actually had in mind when comparing this with your argument about empty space not having time.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #94 on: 24/03/2015 00:11:37 »
If sound is a wave compression, the sound is there even if no one is there to hear it, but if you consider sound to be the experience inside the head of a hearing creature like a human, then there is no sound where a tree falls out of range of the hearing of such creatures. However, there's also the philosophical argument that not only is the sound not there, but the tree might not exist when there's no one there looking at it. That is closer to what I actually had in mind when comparing this with your argument about empty space not having time.

No the tree exists whether or not you can see it, tie a string around a tree and close your eyes and pull the string.

The tree is definitely there.

Anyone who mentions Holographic universe, do we really exist, are talking utter crap.

« Last Edit: 24/03/2015 00:39:19 by Thebox »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #95 on: 24/03/2015 17:54:06 »
Try not to attack the point by distorting the analogy away from what it is there to illustrate. Analogies are almost always inadequate in a multitude of ways, but homing in on irrelevant points where they fail does nothing to rescue you from your hopeless position. I can keep modifying the analogy to eliminate any defect you spot in it, but all that happens is that the key issue is being avoided rather than being addressed.

Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't. Your argument that empty space has no time in it is equivalent to that - if you can't detect the passing of time in space which has no matter in it, there is no time there. But time could continue to be there regardless of your inability to detect it, so all you're doing is making an assertion that can't be proved by experiment (and which is also logically bankrupt). If empty space contains no time, there is no time in which that space is empty, so there is no such thing as an empty bit of space. But if you eliminate a chunk of space from the rest of space on the basis that it is empty, has no time and cannot exist, you will find all the parts of space that aren't empty compressing in together to eliminate all the empty voids such that two elephants a mile apart with nothing but empty space between them will suddenly find themselves right next to each other with all the separation irrecoverably lost.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #96 on: 24/03/2015 20:57:51 »
Try not to attack the point by distorting the analogy away from what it is there to illustrate. Analogies are almost always inadequate in a multitude of ways, but homing in on irrelevant points where they fail does nothing to rescue you from your hopeless position. I can keep modifying the analogy to eliminate any defect you spot in it, but all that happens is that the key issue is being avoided rather than being addressed.

Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't. Your argument that empty space has no time in it is equivalent to that - if you can't detect the passing of time in space which has no matter in it, there is no time there. But time could continue to be there regardless of your inability to detect it, so all you're doing is making an assertion that can't be proved by experiment (and which is also logically bankrupt). If empty space contains no time, there is no time in which that space is empty, so there is no such thing as an empty bit of space. But if you eliminate a chunk of space from the rest of space on the basis that it is empty, has no time and cannot exist, you will find all the parts of space that aren't empty compressing in together to eliminate all the empty voids such that two elephants a mile apart with nothing but empty space between them will suddenly find themselves right next to each other with all the separation irrecoverably lost.


''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''

What? there is no argument of the such,  a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.

These are my thoughts you are hearing in your own voice in your head has you read this.

The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.

To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own.  Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.
I am simply stating fact and truths, science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.

Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?






« Last Edit: 24/03/2015 21:00:05 by Thebox »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #97 on: 24/03/2015 21:27:17 »
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''

What? there is no argument of the such,  a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.

But it's the same as your argument - if there's no means to measure the tree because there's nothing there to measure it, it doesn't exist.

Quote
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.

Science cannot record the existence of the tree when it isn't recording the existence of the tree.

Quote
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own.  Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.

No, all you're doing is asserting that time is not there in empty space in the same way I'm asserting that the tree doesn't exist except when its existence is actively being measured in some way.

Quote
I am simply stating fact and truths,

No, you're simply pushing an unbacked assertion and calling it a fact when it is nothing of the kind.

Quote
science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.

I'm no fan of Spacetime, but why turn that into a denial of time in empty space? You have provided no proof whatsoever that time doesn't exist in empty space, and yet you assert that it's a fact that it doesn't exist there. You tie time to matter instead, but matter is merely revealing the existence of time by showing you that it can change in various ways.

Quote
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?

I don't find that a meaningful question. Space is an arena in which things can exist and move around. Time is something that enables movement and change. Spacetime is a concept from a particular theory which tries to treat time as a dimension like a space dimension rather than allowing time to run in the Newtonian way, leading to the idea of a block universe in which the past, present and future are eternal and time has an arrow rather than running or flowing. (I personally reject the Spacetime model on the basis that it destroys all possibility of cause and effect, but that's another issue).
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #98 on: 24/03/2015 23:01:23 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I don't find that a meaningful question.
That's because it isn't. He does that a great deal of the time. That's why I had to stop bothering with him. He just can't see his mistakes.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #99 on: 25/03/2015 10:09:35 »
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''

What? there is no argument of the such,  a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.

But it's the same as your argument - if there's no means to measure the tree because there's nothing there to measure it, it doesn't exist.

Quote
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.

Science cannot record the existence of the tree when it isn't recording the existence of the tree.

Quote
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own.  Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.

No, all you're doing is asserting that time is not there in empty space in the same way I'm asserting that the tree doesn't exist except when its existence is actively being measured in some way.

Quote
I am simply stating fact and truths,

No, you're simply pushing an unbacked assertion and calling it a fact when it is nothing of the kind.

Quote
science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.

I'm no fan of Spacetime, but why turn that into a denial of time in empty space? You have provided no proof whatsoever that time doesn't exist in empty space, and yet you assert that it's a fact that it doesn't exist there. You tie time to matter instead, but matter is merely revealing the existence of time by showing you that it can change in various ways.

Quote
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?

I don't find that a meaningful question. Space is an arena in which things can exist and move around. Time is something that enables movement and change. Spacetime is a concept from a particular theory which tries to treat time as a dimension like a space dimension rather than allowing time to run in the Newtonian way, leading to the idea of a block universe in which the past, present and future are eternal and time has an arrow rather than running or flowing. (I personally reject the Spacetime model on the basis that it destroys all possibility of cause and effect, but that's another issue).

You are missing the point, go look at a tree, you can see that tree, while you observing that tree observe the transparent space around the tree.  You can never observe transparent space.

You observe your time and the tree's time, you do not observe any transparent time or space-time.


It just came to me,

What is time?

Time is observed timing increments of matter through a transparent time that has no values.

Analogy- You are observing nothing that travels from point (a) to point (b)  , nothing's velocity is ? miles an hour, the distance between (a) and (b) is 5m.

How much time does it take for nothing to travel 5m?



(a)0.......................................................................................(b)0


do you see, nothing takes no time to arrive at (b)

Nothing is infinite and faster than the speed of the light, nothing is instant, nothing is never occupied for a very long increment of time, everything is moving in the universe.

XYZ are 3 imaginary lines in space, with an imaginary time added, it is none existence, xyz is to represent a cubic volume of space for the purpose of space travel or our boys would get lost.

trajectory and velocity, an arbitrary man made function.

Anyway my days and time on science will end soon, no one is bothered for sure or believes it.  I need to go out and get a Job, waste my time on being some robot following commands.

At least I know I tried and if you do not get it after this post I really do not know what else to say.


I brought transparent space to science, a dark passive transparent space, I brought science that dark is not the absence of light but the absence of sight and brain function, a state of being, it is technically always light and there is always some form of light present even in pitch black.

(M1)0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(m2)

t=(M1)

t=(m2)

0=dDtv = distance of dependent time travelled relative to velocity



00000000000000(M1)000000000000000000000(m2)




00000000000000000000000000(M1)000000000(M2)


000000(m1)(M2)00000000000000
 

Maybe you will understand a zig zag better.

m1                            m2                             m1
     m1                       m2                       m1
          m1                  m2                  m1
               m1             m2             m1
                    m1        m2        m1
                         m1   m2  m1
                              m1,2
...

c=>00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    > m1                     >m3          >0                                           >0
        > 0                 >0     >0 >0     >0                                      >0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000      <=c         
            >0          >0                            >0 >0 >0                   >0
               >0    > 0                                              >0 >0      >0
                 >m2                                                             >m4

c=>000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

c=>00000>(m1)0000000000000000(m2)<0000000000000000000


http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/assignment-discovery-shorts-black-hole-the-singularity/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=DiscoveryChannel

The space still exists, dependent time exists because , 

Whilst the probe is in a black hole relative to the probe time exists dependent of the probe.  A dimension of space is still occupied by the probe.









« Last Edit: 25/03/2015 14:11:37 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Time
« Reply #99 on: 25/03/2015 10:09:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums