Time simply does not exist

@Krumple,

It means that time dilation is relative to each one of course, as time dilation is not for itself but for other observers...different time displacements for different speed moving targets observing a phenomena or each other...

1 Reply

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

"Time" is simply a unit of language; a representation of an observed natural phenomenon. To say that time does not exist is similar to saying that matter does not exist simply because we have given it name.

No one is questioning the experiencing of time here...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It means that time dilation is relative to each one of course, as time dilation is not for itself but for other observers...different time displacements for different moving targets...

yes all so that everything maintains less than the speed of light. I say no, it has to do with the space and time is the constant. Im saying that space is the illusion not time. We focus on time because space is not tangible to us but time is so we assume it is time that is bowing down to the speed of light to balance the equation.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

...you see but as time dilates so does space we are talking of spacetime here...even the length of the body in movement expands...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...you see but as time dilates so does space we are talking of spacetime here...even the length of the body in movement expands...

So does the mass. Which is my point. You can actually cancel out increase of mass if space itself is what is distorted. This is one of the problems that arrises for objects with mass traveling near the speed of light. The closer they get it is assumed they would gain more mass and thus not able to achieve light speed. We assume that a photon is massless and that is why it is able to travel at the speed of light.

There are some challenges to this theory but at the same time the theory goes that an object would actually have infinite mass and infinite energy at the speed of light. There is one way to solve this problem, it deals with the space itself but no one looks at the space because it is much more difficult to comprehend or visualize.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

But how am I not looking at space ? I did already even imagine how it would look like an actual 3D black hole which is always miss represented in video, as they only offer a cross section in 2D...when the correct way of imagining it is by seeing a progressive zoom in coming from all directions...if you could see a transparent sphere with cubic space you would see this cubes of space progressively smaller towards the centre as you go in...each layer of the cubes closer to the centre would decrease in size...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

But how am I not looking at space ? I did already even imagine how it would look like an actual 3D black hole which is always miss represented in video, as they only offer a cross section in 2D...when the correct way of imagining it is by seeing a progressive zoom in coming from all directions...if you could see a transparent sphere with cubic space you would see this cubes of space progressively smaller towards the centre as you go in...each layer of the cubes closer to the centre would decrease in size...

Okay, right, I agree. I think the cross section view is because we have a difficult time comprehending 3d objects that converge in on themselves equally on all sides. We just are not accustomed to viewing objects this way since most 3d objects have plains that break up concaved surfaces.

But since you brought up the black hole again. Here is the issue with it. We have observed gas clouds falling into blackholes and seeing radiation emitted shortly after. If time actually slows down or even stops the cloud can never technically ever impact the blackhole and thus the blackhole could never gain any new mass. To gain mass it would have to collide with other mass objects, but if time stops at the event horizon the new mass would never collide or become a part of the blackhole.

Talking about super massive blackholes wouldn't exist. It would mean that any object that has an event horizon would have to technically be the same mass it was at it's formation and it would never increase nor decrease in mass if time stops at the event horizon.

My theory about space being seprate from time allows for blackholes to not only gain and lose mass but there is actually no stoppage of time at the event horizon because time is constant. What my theory suggests is that blackholes twist space into a loop like a nautilus shell. The space distorts and condenses the further in you get but in 3 dimensions instead of 2.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Stoppage is for whom is seeing from the outside from the one falling in perspective there is no stoppage...again depends on who is seeing...in here is the progression of gravity that slows time down...matter is actually compressed in smaller layers of space...information on the falling object would be conserved at the event horizon this way...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Stoppage is for whom is seeing from the outside from the one falling in perspective there is no stoppage...again depends on who is seeing...in here is the progression of gravity that slows time down...matter is actually compressed in smaller layers of space...information on the falling object would be conserved at the event horizon this way...

yeah stoppage would appear to us observing the blackhole as the gas cloud collides with it. The gas cloud would never actually collide at all if there is a stoppage of time at the horizon.

The information would not actually be a part of the blackhole but instead it would be spread out equally across the entire event horizon. I am not even sure what happens to atoms at this point. I assume that most would not be able to maintain their bonds and break into substantually smaller particles giving off energy in the process or perhaps bypassing it completely and vaporizing in some even higher form of energy above that of plasma. Nothing is lost in the exchange just a really intense event. Major understatement there.

Anyways the problem comes up, what happens when two blackholes are converging then? Technically they would never be able to if there is a time dialation at the event horizion. Or in otherwords we would never be able to observe two blackholes merging. What we would see are two blackholes side by side but never collide or fall into each other.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

...technically you wouldn't see neither ...that is why they are called black holes...I suppose what you mean is that the event horizon would enlarge...I believe they treat the information as some sort of hologram, but I can't quite tell...I am way over my head here as I am not a mathematician nor a physicist...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...technically you wouldn't see neither ...that is why they are called black holes...I suppose what you mean is that the event horizon would enlarge...I believe they treat the information as some sort of hologram, but I can quite tell...I am way over my head here as I am not a mathematician nor a physicist...

I understand they can't be directly viewed because they don't emit any photons but you can indrectly see them. What I would mean then is that they would be like two basketballs stuck together once their event horizons overlapped. They would never assimulate into each other because of the time stoppage.

I do think when we have telescopes that are powerful enough we can actually see the shapes of blackholes by using a type of shadowing technique. Sort of like if we have a light behind an object and that light is illuminating a fog behind the blackhole then it would reveal the shape of the blackhole that sits infront of the bright cloud of gas. The problem is blackholes are surrounded in bright gasses so we would need a way to look through one layer of gas and then stop and allow the back layer to persist. Hense more powerful technology.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I speculate that the "image" would shrink and adhere to the spinning "surface" of the event horizon regarding any luminous object...with a black hole I have no clue how it would look like...I guess in rigour no one has...I doubt you would see anything like an image if not on top of it as levels of light around the event horizon should be less then residual...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Here explanation found :

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It seams we must look further in into the inner event horizon where time slows down enough to bring speed of light back in place and right there you get all the conserved information of every ever object that did fall into it...in the outer layers what you have is Hawking's radiation working from freed up partners in pairs of "virtual" particles...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It means that time dilation is relative to each one of course, as time dilation is not for itself but for other observers...different time displacements for different moving targets...

yes all so that everything maintains less than the speed of light. I say no, it has to do with the space and time is the constant. Im saying that space is the illusion not time. We focus on time because space is not tangible to us but time is so we assume it is time that is bowing down to the speed of light to balance the equation.

What amazes me is how they could determine the speed of light long before they timed the radar bouncing off the moon

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

What amazes me is how they could determine the speed of light long before they timed the radar bouncing off the moon

You mean how the experiment that was conducted to determine the speed of light?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The systemic functionality of say "the bee dance" in co-ordinating insect behavior is transcendent of any particular local interpretation (contextual meaning) involving location of nectar.

This confuses me. I would assume that "the bee dance" is something that has evolved through trial and error, kind of like an accumulation of experience through several generations. Would it be correct to say that the bee dance is transcendent of any local interpretation, yet immanent in each of them.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The fact that the bee dance (dialectically) varies according to local group implies that it is the interactive mechanism transcendent of any local trial and error, which is significant. By analogy, what matters in human language is not the local content but its co-ordinative functionality.

0 Replies

An interesting video:

...we still can use models as recollections of dynamic processes that were useful in the past...that as been all along my point...I've been talking on that on other contexts and threads...treating dynamics as objects that are retrieved to compare with new dynamic learning...so there is this back and forward movement between memorized models and embodied interaction, the usage of objects as symbols for dynamic functional processes that worked in the past and a constant revision of those as we go and get new context or new assembly of context that can change the models we have...the very working of the overall process is a sort of an a priori operative system, or a language for languages which integrates all kinds motor visual auditive embodied learning open to constant feedback, plus memory modular data for comparison...

...so while I would agree that we experience everything as becoming I still sustain that whatever becomes ends up fitting a shape, a rough geometry of paths that is modular in nature...

(...in case you are wondering yes it has everything to do with time existing or not existing in a twisted kind of way...)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...our very learning brings about regularity's that we map and that futurly may or may not be contextually relevant, the point being we didn't create those regularity's, we didn't invent a new geometry of the dynamic interactions we functionally experience...what happens is that often we used them wrongly when we misperceive the context we are operating... they become coined as "ours" because eventually we recognise they don't fit a given context, so that we think they are not "natural"...the poor association of these regularity's these models to the wrong contexts, are what we term as perceptual illusions, when they persist in the long run we have trouble in mapping new associations, we became biased towards dynamical data assembly treating relevant content as noise...

...nevertheless I believe top down feedback is an automatic not free response as much part of a mindless process as the embodied learning itself...no matter how counter intuitive such claim is...a prioritized NEED ratio rather then will establishes the amount of effort and energy we spontaneously commit to make a conscious calculation...no wonder awareness of it comes after as shown in recent experiments...

1 Reply

Time simply does not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know