[amrit (OP)]

Farsight did not answer yet, we can turn back to the initial subject: invariance of light velocity in SR and GR implies that photon clock has no relativistic diminishing of velocity:
http://vixra.org/abs/1005.0073

[JP]

Farsight,

Do you have any mathematics to back up your proposed theory?  It's impossible to place it in the context of observations and determine how it differs from the mainstream theory unless you give us something more than pictures and words...

[Geezer]

To support your position that there is no relative speed difference (and therefore time as we know it does not exist) I think you will have to produce an alternative definition for whatever it is you maintain is the thing we currently know as time.

There must be some misunderstanding here. I've said there is a relative speed difference, challenging amrit's OP assertion. I've also said time exists like heat exists. It's just that it isn't something that really flows, and we don't really travel through it. 

Farsight, this is I was referring to. It could be a bit ambiguous.

"You might have some difficulty accepting this, but there's absolutely no scientific evidence for time is running slower. None whatsoever."

[amrit (OP)]

To support your position that there is no relative speed difference (and therefore time as we know it does not exist) I think you will have to produce an alternative definition for whatever it is you maintain is the thing we currently know as time.

There must be some misunderstanding here. I've said there is a relative speed difference, challenging amrit's OP assertion. I've also said time exists like heat exists. It's just that it isn't something that really flows, and we don't really travel through it. 

Farsight, this is I was referring to. It could be a bit ambiguous.

"You might have some difficulty accepting this, but there's absolutely no scientific evidence for time is running slower. None whatsoever."

Geezer, time runs in the mind. Time “past-present-future” (psychological time) is a mind construct through which we experience motion into timeless universe.
Through psychological time we experience timelessness of the universe as “present moment”.
Once we are aware of psychological time we experience timelessness of the universe as “eternal present moment” that has its place in space. In the space is always NOW.

[graham.d]

Amrit, I find your repetition of your concept of time to be unhelpful in giving me (and maybe others) an understanding of your ideas. There is nothing in what you say that seems to relate to the physics. In stating the universe is "Timeless" you may be trying to get people to think in another way, but this still does not relate to the physics. And the experiment showing difference in behaviour between a "photon clock" and other clocks is (IMHO) not going to be successful. However I don't see how this confirms or denies your beliefs in any case. 

[amrit (OP)]

Amrit, I find your repetition of your concept of time to be unhelpful in giving me (and maybe others) an understanding of your ideas. There is nothing in what you say that seems to relate to the physics. In stating the universe is "Timeless" you may be trying to get people to think in another way, but this still does not relate to the physics. And the experiment showing difference in behaviour between a "photon clock" and other clocks is (IMHO) not going to be successful. However I don't see how this confirms or denies your beliefs in any case. 

Graham there is no single evidence that time exist as a physical reality. Our concept of BLOCK UNIVERSE resolves this puzzle in details: http://vixra.org/abs/1005.0098

Tell me one single experiment in physics that proves existence of time!

FQXI gives 2 million dollars grant for basic research on time.
http://www.fqxi.org/grants/large/initial
If with time all will be clear you think they would give such big money for research?

[graham.d]

Amrit, I am not denying that the concepts have some merit but just that you are not explaining them well, at least to me. I have read through the paper but have difficulty following your reasoning and I think to do so would involve following up many references.  Statements like "Tell me one single experiment in physics that proves existence of time!" are not convincing because, philosophically, nothing is provable absolutely but only if based on specific premises. You tell me one single experiment in physics that proves the existence of space, for example.

[Farsight]

Farsight, Do you have any mathematics to back up your proposed theory?  It's impossible to place it in the context of observations and determine how it differs from the mainstream theory unless you give us something more than pictures and words...

The mathematics isn't any different to what you know, JP. It's a difference in interpretation, in what the mathematics means. And it's backed by the observational evidence in that we do see things moving, but we don't see time flowing. This isn't my theory by the way. This goes back to Aristotle. Also take a look at Presentism.   

[Farsight]

Farsight, this is I was referring to. It could be a bit ambiguous.

"You might have some difficulty accepting this, but there's absolutely no scientific evidence for time is running slower. None whatsoever."

Yes, it is ambiguous. It would have been clearer if I'd said:

"There's no actual scientific evidence to support the concept of time "running". That's just a figure of speech. It isn't what you see, what you see is things moving. When the motion is going slower, we say time is running slower, but again, it's just a figure of speech associated with the way we usually think about time."

[Farsight]

Graham: re experiment proving the existence of space, simply hold your hands up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. You can see that gap. That's space. You can't see anything there, but the gap is there, and you can see that it's there. Now waggle your hands and you can see motion. Hence you can demonstrate the existence of space and motion quite easily. However you can't similarly demonstrate time running or flowing, or motion through time.

[amrit (OP)]

Amrit, I am not denying that the concepts have some merit but just that you are not explaining them well, at least to me. I have read through the paper but have difficulty following your reasoning and I think to do so would involve following up many references.  Statements like "Tell me one single experiment in physics that proves existence of time!" are not convincing because, philosophically, nothing is provable absolutely but only if based on specific premises. You tell me one single experiment in physics that proves the existence of space, for example.

yes we can observe only distances between objects and not space itself, for "space" we understand medium in which objects exists and this medium is timeless

[amrit (OP)]

Farsight, Do you have any mathematics to back up your proposed theory?  It's impossible to place it in the context of observations and determine how it differs from the mainstream theory unless you give us something more than pictures and words...

The mathematics isn't any different to what you know, JP. It's a difference in interpretation, in what the mathematics means. And it's backed by the observational evidence in that we do see things moving, but we don't see time flowing. This isn't my theory by the way. This goes back to Aristotle. Also take a look at Presentism.  

Farsight im waiting you comment on hot stone that cool down in cold room.....you ca not just ignoring that.....be more cool

PS what you say:

Graham: re experiment proving the existence of space, simply hold your hands up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. You can see that gap. That's space.

is a pure disaster

[graham.d]

Graham: re experiment proving the existence of space, simply hold your hands up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. You can see that gap. That's space. You can't see anything there, but the gap is there, and you can see that it's there. Now waggle your hands and you can see motion. Hence you can demonstrate the existence of space and motion quite easily. However you can't similarly demonstrate time running or flowing, or motion through time.

My point was not to have a simple visual demonstration of space. What you are showing is that I can define a distance between my outstretched hands and compare it with, say, a metre rule. Of course this is providing the rule is not moving relative to me when it gets more involved and takes the concept to a different level from observation. On the same basis I can compare the rate of my breathing with a clock ticking seconds. That is equally convincing isn't it? I was questioning the concept of "proof" and how this would differ between its application to time compared with space.

[Geezer]

Farsight, this is I was referring to. It could be a bit ambiguous.

"You might have some difficulty accepting this, but there's absolutely no scientific evidence for time is running slower. None whatsoever."

Yes, it is ambiguous. It would have been clearer if I'd said:

"There's no actual scientific evidence to support the concept of time "running". That's just a figure of speech. It isn't what you see, what you see is things moving. When the motion is going slower, we say time is running slower, but again, it's just a figure of speech associated with the way we usually think about time."

Well, you can't really say "the motion is going slower" either. "Slower" suggests comparative speed, but speed itself is a function of time, so differences in local time have no effect on speed.

That's why I think it's necessary to create new terminology because so many concepts have an obvious or less obvious function of time built into them.

[Farsight]

Amrit, I responded to your PM re your question. I'll see if I can find what I said and post it up.

Edit: I can't see my sent messages. I said "time exists like heat exists" because heat is an emergent property of motion. A gas molecule doesn't have any fundamental property of heat, it has a velocity and a kinetic energy. However a container full of fast-moving molecules is said to be "hot" because temperature is a measure of the average motion of the gas molecules. And heat burns, it exists all right, even if it doesn't exist at the fundamental level. Time is a similar emergent property, but it's a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure. Your hot stone cools down because its atoms/molecules move slower, and we measure the rate of the slowdown against a clock, which "clocks up" some other regular motion as a benchmark. When you stop the clock, you stop motion, not time. If you stop all the motion in the universe, including the motion of light and in the body and brain of the observer, you can't "measure time" any more. That's because you never were really measuring time, you were measuring motion.   

My point was not to have a simple visual demonstration of space. What you are showing is that I can define a distance between my outstretched hands and compare it with, say, a metre rule. Of course this is providing the rule is not moving relative to me when it gets more involved and takes the concept to a different level from observation. On the same basis I can compare the rate of my breathing with a clock ticking seconds. That is equally convincing isn't it?

No. It doesn't offer any convincing evidence of "time flowing". You're just comparing two moving things. Substitute your beathing for another clock to appreciate this, and remember that a clock is "clocking up" motion. It displays some sort of cumulative counter of how many times a cog has gone round or a crystal has vibrated.

Well, you can't really say "the motion is going slower" either. "Slower" suggests comparative speed, but speed itself is a function of time, so differences in local time have no effect on speed.

That's a circular argument, Geezer. If you compare two clocks, then if they don't "keep time" the cogs in one are moving slower than the cogs in another. It doesn't matter if one is on the surface of the earth whilst the other is up in space, that's what's actually happening. You can see this. You can't see "time running slower". You can't see time "running" at all. One doesn't need a new terminology for this, just an adherence to the observational evidence and an appreciation that some of the things we say are figures of speech, because time is a function of motion, not the other way around. 

[imatfaal]

My point was not to have a simple visual demonstration of space. What you are showing is that I can define a distance between my outstretched hands and compare it with, say, a metre rule. Of course this is providing the rule is not moving relative to me when it gets more involved and takes the concept to a different level from observation. On the same basis I can compare the rate of my breathing with a clock ticking seconds. That is equally convincing isn't it? I was questioning the concept of "proof" and how this would differ between its application to time compared with space.

Couldn't agree more Graham. I think Amrit and Farsight are not accepting that the received conception of time is axiomatic to current physics, as is our conception of space.  As axioms, these concepts are fundamental and beyond proof - the first sections of Einstein's easy guide to SR and GR explains this concept of axioms beautifully; I am sure I have seen a link to the text recently and will post when I find it. 

got it http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I

On a philosophical level this question becomes more interesting - but less useful.  As this is being advanced as a scientific theory could someone propose a real world experiment that would give a result that would vary from that expected under current dogma.  I think that experiments have already been performed that contradict the original idea - but the work required to demonstrate this is too much for me at present.  Matthew

[Geezer]

Well, you can't really say "the motion is going slower" either. "Slower" suggests comparative speed, but speed itself is a function of time, so differences in local time have no effect on speed.

That's a circular argument, Geezer. If you compare two clocks, then if they don't "keep time" the cogs in one are moving slower than the cogs in another. It doesn't matter if one is on the surface of the earth whilst the other is up in space, that's what's actually happening. You can see this. You can't see "time running slower". You can't see time "running" at all. One doesn't need a new terminology for this, just an adherence to the observational evidence and an appreciation that some of the things we say are figures of speech, because time is a function of motion, not the other way around. 

Farsight: We use motion, chemical reactions, sub-atomic activity, etc., etc. to observe time, but that is hardly evidence that time only exists because of motion. Motion can only be determined on the basis of time. Without time, motion boils down to "things can be in different places".

As I said, many concepts have a function of time built into them, and motion is one of them. If you want to establish an alternative definition for time, you'll have to define it in terms that do not include a function of time, otherwise your definition will be recursive.

EDIT:

Come to think of it, if, as you say, time is a function of motion, then motion, by definition, is a function of time. I suppose you could define everything in terms of motion, but I don't think there is much point unless you can find a way to eliminate time from the equations. However, as motion is a function of time (and vice versa) that may not be possible.

[Farsight]

Couldn't agree more Graham. I think Amrit and Farsight are not accepting that the received conception of time is axiomatic to current physics, as is our conception of space. As axioms, these concepts are fundamental and beyond proof - the first sections of Einstein's easy guide to SR and GR explains this concept of axioms beautifully; I am sure I have seen a link to the text recently and will post when I find it. Got it http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I

I have no issue with space, Matthew. But that received conception of time is to be blunt, wrong. It's unsupported by scientific evidence. There is no proof whatsoever that we "travel in time" or that "time flows". Have a look at "A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" re the view Einstein adopted in 1949. I like to think that I'm fully in line with this view, but do note that the front flap is a little misleading. Time as we ordinarily understand it does not exist. That's not to say that time doesn't exist. It just isn't what people think it is. 

On a philosophical level this question becomes more interesting - but less useful. As this is being advanced as a scientific theory could someone propose a real world experiment that would give a result that would vary from that expected under current dogma. I think that experiments have already been performed that contradict the original idea - but the work required to demonstrate this is too much for me at present.  Matthew

IMHO it's very useful indeed. But there are no different results to be had. One merely sees existing results in a new light, and then gains understanding that was previously lacking.

Farsight: We use motion, chemical reactions, sub-atomic activity, etc., etc. to observe time, but that is hardly evidence that time only exists because of motion.

You
missed the crucial point, Geezer. We observe motion, but we don't actually observe time.

Motion can only be determined on the basis of time. Without time, motion boils down to "things can be in different places".

You're still not recognising what we actually see. Time can only be determined on the basis of motion. Without motion, there isn't any time.

As I said, many concepts have a function of time built into them, and motion is one of them. If you want to establish an alternative definition for time, you'll have to define it in terms that do not include a function of time, otherwise your definition will be recursive.

One defines it using the motion we actually observe. Then one retains a function called time, but one now realises that we can't move through it and it doesn't actually flow.

Come to think of it, if, as you say, time is a function of motion, then motion, by definition, is a function of time.

There's no justification for that. 

I suppose you could define everything in terms of motion, but I don't think there is much point unless you can find a way to eliminate time from the equations. However, as motion is a function of time (and vice versa) that may not be possible.

No, you can't remove time from the equations. You wouldn't want to anyway. But when you appreciate that the thing we call time is measured and defined using motion through space, you get a better concept of say gravity and electromagnetism, and you don't get distracted by science fiction such as time travel.

[Geezer]

Come to think of it, if, as you say, time is a function of motion, then motion, by definition, is a function of time.

There's no justification for that. 

If A is a function of B, B is automatically a function of A. The justification is inescapable.

[JP]

Couldn't agree more Graham. I think Amrit and Farsight are not accepting that the received conception of time is axiomatic to current physics, as is our conception of space. As axioms, these concepts are fundamental and beyond proof - the first sections of Einstein's easy guide to SR and GR explains this concept of axioms beautifully; I am sure I have seen a link to the text recently and will post when I find it. Got it http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I

I have no issue with space, Matthew. But that received conception of time is to be blunt, wrong. It's unsupported by scientific evidence. There is no proof whatsoever that we "travel in time" or that "time flows". Have a look at "A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" re the view Einstein adopted in 1949. I like to think that I'm fully in line with this view, but do note that the front flap is a little misleading. Time as we ordinarily understand it does not exist. That's not to say that time doesn't exist. It just isn't what people think it is.

Before someone goes out and spends money on a book that's been poorly reviewed, I would suggest they read up on it.  This seems like a pretty good review: http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf

Also, you certainly have very little evidence for telling people that the mainstream view of time is "wrong."  What you're claiming is philosophy with no mathematics to back it up.  Science is about making predictions and observations--the validity of a theory is based on how well it seems to model reality and how well it matches experiments.  Your philosophy doesn't offer any predictions, so it isn't science.  It's not even clear that it's consistent with the mainstream view of time as a dimension space-time.  Therefore, claiming that your philosophy is a scientific fact supported by evidence is misleading.