17
   

Time simply does not exist

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 05:57 pm
@north,
Yes, and it can be imaginary or a square one. To some people, that might even be their "reality."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 06:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Let's call it a tie, and say "we agree to disagree" with the following.

Quote:
A little old lady went into the headquarters of a large national bank one day, dragging a large bag behind her. She insisted that she must speak with the president of the bank to open a savings account because, "It's a lot of money!"

After much hemming and hawing, the bank staff finally ushered her into the president's office (the customer is always right!). The bank president then asked her how much she would like to deposit. She replied, "$165,000!" and dumped the cash out of her bag onto his desk.

The president was of course curious as to how she came by all this cash, so he asked her, "Ma'am, I'm surprised you're carrying so much cash around. Where did you get this money?"

The old lady replied, "I make bets."

The president then asked, "Bets? What kind of bets?"

The old woman said, "Well, for example, I'll bet you $25,000 that your balls are square."

"Ha!" laughed the president, "That's a stupid bet. You can never win that kind of bet!"

The old lady challenged, "So, would you like to take my bet?"

"Sure," said the president, "I'll bet $25,000 that my balls are not square!"

The little old lady then said, "Okay, but since there is a lot of money involved, may I bring my lawyer with me tomorrow at 10:00 AM as a witness?"

"Sure!" replied the confident president.

That night, the president got very nervous about the bet and spent a long time in front of a mirror checking his balls, turning from side to side, again and again. He thoroughly checked them out until he was sure that there was absolutely no way his balls were square and that he would win the bet. The next morning, at precisely 10:00 am, the little old lady appeared with her lawyer at the president's office. She introduced the lawyer to the president and repeated the bet: "$25,000 says the president's balls are square!" The president agreed with the bet again and the old lady asked him to drop his pants so they could all see. The president complied. The little old lady peered closely at his balls and then asked if she could feel them.

"Well, Okay," said the president, "$25,000 is a lot of money, so I guess you should be absolutely sure." Just then, he noticed that the lawyer was quietly banging his head against the wall. The president asked the old lady, "What the heck's the matter with your lawyer?"

"Nothing," she answered, "Except I bet him $100,000 that at 10:00AM today, I'd have the president of this bank's balls in my hand."
0 Replies
 
Forged
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 01:55 am
Lustig Adrei said

"Movement cannot take place without two other things: space and time. It's the physicist's Holy Trinity -- space, time and motion. None of the three can exist without presence of the other two."

I came up with my own equation for this a while back x = 2yn. Basically x is a label, in this case "Physicist's Holy Trinity", y is space and time being of the same fabric, and n is motion (usually being perceived as 3, such as motion, movement, progression, but then you're going beyond it's interpretation in the equation and making another x)
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 02:33 am
@Forged,
Quote:

"Movement cannot take place without two other things: space and time. It's the physicist's Holy Trinity -- space, time and motion. None of the three can exist without presence of the other two."


Not only is the above quote right, it is neglected by almost everyone who doesn't have some physics background or some basic understanding of it. People almost always gloss over the fact that time is necessary for motion. Not only motion but all activities, usually in the forms of verbs can not be done without time as well. There is no way around it. All actions/thoughts/happenings require that time be present.

Forged wrote:

I came up with my own equation for this a while back x = 2yn. Basically x is a label, in this case "Physicist's Holy Trinity", y is space and time being of the same fabric, and n is motion (usually being perceived as 3, such as motion, movement, progression, but then you're going beyond it's interpretation in the equation and making another x)


There is a "problem" within your equation. Your equation suggests that motion is a trait of space itself. Although I wouldn't say you are wrong, that space couldn't have motion itself but we are talking about a trait of time which does require motion.

When an object is in motion, the space isn't carrying the object. In other words the object isn't stationary and the space around it is what is in motion. If this were the case then your equation would be useful. Since the space is NOT moving and it is the object we are referencing then your equation doesn't work.

Not only that but I even go a step further and divorce time and space despite our currently held notion that time and space are linked. I say no it is an illusion that space and time are intertwined.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 11:07 am
@Forged,
Those things that humans identify as the Holy Trinity are human concepts that have no relevance. It's all about infinity. Humans cannot conceptualize "what's out there" in any human time frame.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 11:57 am
@Forged,
I dare not talk about time and space if you want them to be discussed in the manner that physicsts (especially quantum physicsts) do. But from my "naive realist" perspective I think of "movement" with reference to "positions". An object moves, or changes its spatial position relative to that of other objects, which serve as the observer's points of reference. And this is done in time.
Forged
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 08:51 pm
@JLNobody,
I also have from Zeno and The Tortoise by Nicholas Fearn saying "Science recognizes only four forces: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atomic nuclei together. The weak nuclear force has been shown to be a form of electromagnetic force, and it is hoped that before long all the forces will be discovered to be aspects of a single unifying force" that excess strength = gravity vs no gravity (0) times electromagnetic force. If you add nuclear forces you don't have excess strength, but you also don't have the equation

Note that mass (contribution to gravity) isn't part of the physicists holy trinity, and I hope this still contributes to the purpose of this thread

Also, n is an imaginary placeholder in any equation that stands for number
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:57 am
@Forged,
Forged wrote:

I also have from Zeno and The Tortoise by Nicholas Fearn saying "Science recognizes only four forces: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atomic nuclei together. The weak nuclear force has been shown to be a form of electromagnetic force, and it is hoped that before long all the forces will be discovered to be aspects of a single unifying force" that excess strength = gravity vs no gravity (0) times electromagnetic force. If you add nuclear forces you don't have excess strength, but you also don't have the equation

Note that mass (contribution to gravity) isn't part of the physicists holy trinity, and I hope this still contributes to the purpose of this thread

Also, n is an imaginary placeholder in any equation that stands for number


I agree with you but want to add there are theories that suggest that gravity itself might not even be a force but instead a byproduct of the strong force. Similar to magnets themselves. You know magnets are only unique because of the arrangement of the atoms which align their electrons in such a way they compound their fields which extend beyond their normal range.

This is why magnets do what they do. Similar ideas with gravity is that the strong force actually generates gravity when you get billions of atoms to clump together their compounded attraction spills over generating the gravitational force but it just could be nothing more than the compounded strong atomic force.
Forged
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 04:45 pm
@Krumple,
This is very interesting
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 02:22 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I dare not talk about time and space if you want them to be discussed in the manner that physicsts (especially quantum physicsts) do.


Quote:
But from my "naive realist" perspective I think of "movement" with reference to "positions". An object moves, or changes its spatial position relative to that of other objects, which serve as the observer's points of reference. And this is done in time.


sure " in time " but not " because " of time
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 02:42 pm

what we seem to keep on and on missing is what gives time any sort of meaning

sure there is a displacement of an object from its point , of say rest , to another point in space , hence we get the mathematical concept of space-time to define this movement of the object

but this not really getting to the point of time and what it actually is or essentially what it is

let me try to put time in a perhaps in a different realm

if the Universe was completely and entirely empty , of any objects , from the macro to the micro ,would time still exist ?

NO

now would any like to refute this ? I'm open to any arguments that says I'm wrong
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 03:04 pm
@north,
north wrote:
let me try to put time in a perhaps in a different realm

if the Universe was completely and entirely empty , of any objects , from the macro to the micro ,would time still exist ?

NO

now would any like to refute this ? I'm open to any arguments that says I'm wrong


I can refute it.

If an object were to all of a sudden be added. It would require that time be present to "add" the object. Like wise for the object to be "removed" would also require that time be present. Also if this "space" did anything such as expand or contract, then that too would require that time exist. If there is change of any sort, it would require time to do so. I would even go as far as to say there is time present anyways even if the space does nothing at all the only problem is that I can't prove it because we need something that indicates change to compare one moment with another.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 03:15 pm
@Krumple,

north wrote:
let me try to put time in a perhaps in a different realm

if the Universe was completely and entirely empty , of any objects , from the macro to the micro ,would time still exist ?

NO

now would any like to refute this ? I'm open to any arguments that says I'm wrong


Quote:
I can refute it.

If an object were to all of a sudden be added. It would require that time be present to "add" the object. Like wise for the object to be "removed" would also require that time be present. Also if this "space" did anything such as expand or contract, then that too would require that time exist. If there is change of any sort, it would require time to do so.


you see thats my point , the only way that time has any value is if an object is present


Quote:
I would even go as far as to say there is time present anyways even if the space does nothing at


non-sequitur


Quote:
all the only problem is that I can't prove it because we need something that indicates change to compare one moment with another.


exactly

the concept of time is meaningless without an object or objects

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 05:06 pm
@north,
But especially humans. Without humans, time has no meaning.
0 Replies
 
whatiam
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 11:27 am
@Lustig Andrei,
i think time plays an important role of universe. but i think time can be vary at some point. for an example. a black hole
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 04:04 pm
@north,
Krumple wrote:
I would even go as far as to say there is time present anyways even if the space does nothing at


north wrote:

non-sequitur


Well just because it is difficult for me to prove it doesn't mean that I am wrong. The problem becomes one of perspective. Here is a similar example. What if you were in a room, with no windows and the door behind you had seals? There are no lights in the room so you can't see anything at all. There is an object moving in this room other than you, but how can you determine it if you can't use your senses? It sounds rather impossible but yet there is still an object moving in the room other than you. How can I prove it though?


Krumple wrote:
all the only problem is that I can't prove it because we need something that indicates change to compare one moment with another.


north wrote:

exactly

the concept of time is meaningless without an object or objects


Well now I think we are talking past each other. The word you chose to use here "meaningless" is sort of relative and also subjective really. I mean I believe that the universe existed for fourteen billion years before my consciousness became aware of it. I can't prove it though. Not only that but the time, 14 billion years is something I can't even imagine or put into perspective. It's hard enough to put one year into perspective.

So all that time that past is relatively meaningless to me prior to my existence. The same will be true after my existence ends. Events had to have occurred without me being present, therefore time did have a meaning, it is just not in reference to me.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 02:31 pm
@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:
I would even go as far as to say there is time present anyways even if the space does nothing at


north wrote:

non-sequitur


Well just because it is difficult for me to prove it doesn't mean that I am wrong. The problem becomes one of perspective. Here is a similar example. What if you were in a room, with no windows and the door behind you had seals? There are no lights in the room so you can't see anything at all. There is an object moving in this room other than you, but how can you determine it if you can't use your senses? It sounds rather impossible but yet there is still an object moving in the room other than you. How can I prove it though?


Krumple wrote:
all the only problem is that I can't prove it because we need something that indicates change to compare one moment with another.


north wrote:

exactly

the concept of time is meaningless without an object or objects


Quote:
Well now I think we are talking past each other. The word you chose to use here "meaningless" is sort of relative and also subjective really. I mean I believe that the universe existed for fourteen billion years before my consciousness became aware of it. I can't prove it though. Not only that but the time, 14 billion years is something I can't even imagine or put into perspective. It's hard enough to put one year into perspective.

So all that time that past is relatively meaningless to me prior to my existence. The same will be true after my existence ends. Events had to have occurred without me being present, therefore time did have a meaning, it is just not in reference to me.


now that you explained better what you mean , I understand what your saying better , and I agree

and hence why earlier I mentioned , elements as in the periodic table
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 04:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I'm talking psychology, because that's how we understand the human mind. It allows us to understand the limitations of humans, and what we call our reality.


Understanding the human mind is impossible because each is different in its own way, with its own perceptions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.
John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)



Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 04:58 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Rickoshay75 wrote:
Understanding the human mind is impossible because each is different in its own way, with its own perceptions


I couldn't disagree any more than 100%. I think we can understand the human mind. Sure there are differences but there are a vast amount of similarities. Perception is one thing but consistent perceptions are key to understanding that there really aren't an infinite amount of ways of perceiving reality.

I was watching through the wormhole the other day. It was on weather or not we invented god. Some of the researchers were using groups of children to show that superstition can influence behavior. Not only that but we also empower objects in every day life and then they impact how we interact with them. The over all picture was, it was built into our brains to behave this way because of our cognitive abilities. We impose properties onto reality that just are not there because of our imaginations.




Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 05:57 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Rickoshay75 wrote:
Understanding the human mind is impossible because each is different in its own way, with its own perceptions


I was watching through the wormhole the other day. It was on weather or not we invented god. Some of the researchers were using groups of children to show that superstition can influence behavior. Not only that but we also empower objects in every day life and then they impact how we interact with them. The over all picture was, it was built into our brains to behave this way because of our cognitive abilities. We impose properties onto reality that just are not there because of our imaginations.



It's also known as behavior conditioning learned by emulating our parents, sibs, peers and teachers, but I don't see where reality has a part in it, whatever reality is, only that BC is hard wired.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.
John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 04:32:03