Time simply does not exist

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."

"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)

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 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.

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

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.

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

non-sequitur

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

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

non-sequitur

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

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.

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

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.