So still no property of TIME, thought so. And still playing the shift the proof burden. Did you learn from theist?
Will work on my explanations which I understand need to be clearer
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
So still no property of TIME, thought so. And still playing the shift the proof burden. Did you learn from theist?
Will work on my explanations which I understand need to be clearer
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The burden is on you. You're making the claim.
t is a variable in the fundamental formulae that describe our universe, and our civilization would not work without these formulae being valid.
Time exists. This is accepted fact. If you want to argue otherwise, you'll have to do better than this.
Last edited:
My list is just that a list, also a incomplete list, as it only includes PROPERTIES, way short of all
Said list is not a test for anything and you are certainly free to add to to or correct any perceived defect but from my view it is a list of some examples of properties, was not made with the intent of testing anything
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yup. So not much use in making a case.
OK, then. Moving along.
You've got some work to do to find a new way to support your idea, if you still plan to.
Oh OK
But you do understand it is impossible for proof to be put forward for non existence?
However your claim that time does exist is easily settled by producing evidence
Something you appear reluctant to do
I will no longer engage in the thread as this impasse is a waste of my efforts
I might come back (I will come back) if evidence of times existence is shown
I might come back if I feel I can put forward better discussion for non existence (perhaps quotes from those with much deeper expertise in the science) as my lay persons showing is frequently misquoted
***
I am simply assuming you asking of that what is meant by t in physical equations.
...........
There is many aspect and flavours of time but that one used in physics is for me a glorious nonexistent entity.
*****
AND
****
"If it is measurable it exists."
There is no device you can prove it measures time, which not precisely defined.
*****
More at
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...BRAB&usg=AOvVaw2RjmY5pS1CgAGIR3DpJu_G&cf=1
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Michael 345 missed this.
So? The sun is above the horizon, to the south of the north pole.
Michael:
What are the "properties" of distance? If you can't name any, does that mean distance doesn't exist?
What are the "properties" of temperature? If you can't name any, does that mean there's no such thing as temperature?
What are the "properties" of the colour blue? If you can't name any, does that mean that the colour blue doesn't exist?
etc. etc.
Hopefully we can avoid a silly philosophical debate about what the word "exist" means (he said, expecting that this will be the next objection).
The "totality of the universe" must surely include its past and future. Mustn't it? Or are you just referring to its spatial totality? If that's what you're talking about, then you're not talking about the point of debate, but about an irrelevancy.
I'm aware of your assertion that time doesn't exist. Your actual argument for that strikes me as incoherent, and your hypocrisy when it comes to your notion of "age", which for some reason you assert does exist in the absence of time, has already been pointed out by DaveC.
There are lots of fundamental quantities that don't have any sub-properties of the sort you're demanding.
What are the "properties" of distance? If you can't name any, does that mean distance doesn't exist?
What are the "properties" of temperature? If you can't name any, does that mean there's no such thing as temperature?
What are the "properties" of the colour blue? If you can't name any, does that mean that the colour blue doesn't exist?
etc. etc.
Nonsense. You're clearly not doing NOW something you did two minutes ago, or a year ago, or 2 milliseconds ago.
No. For instance, Julius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, does not exist NOW. He existed in the past.
Hopefully we can avoid a silly philosophical debate about what the word "exist" means (he said, expecting that this will be the next objection).
Ageing is something that occurs over time. Obviously. The idea that age has nothing to do with time is incoherent, as far as I can tell.
There might be an interesting idea in there somewhere, but as things stand you are presenting this with no attempt at justification.
And change implies time. Fill in the blanks. You'll get there eventually.
How is this consistent with what you wrote just above, in the same post? "The totality of the Universe exist in a moment of NOW"
The "totality of the universe" must surely include its past and future. Mustn't it? Or are you just referring to its spatial totality? If that's what you're talking about, then you're not talking about the point of debate, but about an irrelevancy.
Correct does not exist
Can you name any?
Concepts are only in the mind and do not have physicality
Come back when you have ANY property of TIME to present
Meanwhile
If it is measurable it exists."
There is no device you can prove it measures time, which not precisely defined.
Looking at Wikipedia definitions:
1. Time is the indefinite continued progression of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
How your measure "indefinite continued progression" other than recording new events which are changes of state of something?
2. Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension, along with the three spatial dimensions.
How do you measure the fourth dimension?
2. Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.
Time - a component? Of measurement?
component:: part or element of a larger whole
1. Mesurement:: the action of measuring something.
2. amount of something, as established by measuring
Hence
1. Time is the action of measuring time
or
2. Time is the amount of time as established by measuring of time
A simple answer is the obvious one given by Einstein in his 1905 paper:
The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
Nothing more or less, Just the state of the clock. IN such case I can agree that one exists, and can be measured and always is measured.
Kiran Sreedhar Ram
Charles Darwin University
Time is a phenomenon that prevents everything from happening simultaneosly.
***
I am simply assuming you asking of that what is meant by t in physical equations.
...........
There is many aspect and flavours of time but that one used in physics is for me a glorious nonexistent entity.
*****
AND
****
"If it is measurable it exists."
There is no device you can prove it measures time, which not precisely defined.
*****
More at
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...BRAB&usg=AOvVaw2RjmY5pS1CgAGIR3DpJu_G&cf=1
I see. So, ideas like force, pressure, temperature, electric charge, and many others, all have no "physicality", if I understand you correctly.
It sounds like when you use the term "physicality" you mean only "something that is not a concept in the mind". On that basis, it is arguable as to whether something like a rock has any "physicality". In fact, on that basis, it is arguable whether anything exists.
Why does something need to have sub-properties in order to exist?
Also, isn't it a "property" of time that it keeps everything from happening at once? Isn't it a "property" that there can't be any change without time?
What do you mean by "property" anyway?
Clocks do a good job of measuring time. You'll even find plenty of people who'll tell you that's what they are for. It's strange that we have those things, seeing as they are useless and don't really measure anything (because there's nothing there to measure). An oddity, wouldn't you say?
Why do you need a measure other than the one you just mentioned?
In this case, a clock works pretty well, I find.
Yes. For instance, if you want to measure the speed of something, you can take the distance it travels and divide it by the time taken. Speed is the rate of change of distance, and time allows us to quantify that rate, like the definition says.
Now you're just confusing yourself.
In your quote from Einstein, he uses the words "event", "simultaneously", "synchronous" and "clock". It sounds like he thinks time exists or something. Imagine that.
Uh huh. Hold that thought.
Strange that you've managed to find so many definitions of something that is non-existent. A lot of people must spend a lot of their .... something or other ... worrying about this thing that doesn't even exist.
Are you saying that there's no way to tell a good clock from a bad one?
To physicality I should have added detectability
That is how stuff is known to exist
It appears you agree with theist "god exist even though you cannot detect him"
But time is one of those things that is always there. You can't go into a time-proof room, for instance, any more than you can go into a room that has no space in it.
Whenever things change, you're "detecting" the passage of time, aren't you?
And what happened to your answers to the other questions I asked you?
No
You keep asking questions
How about provide evidence of existence and or a time detection machine
I really really really really hope you don't say clock
You seriously seriously think clocks either detect or measure time?
Most of them have covered but will try to condense later
Again what happened to your evidence and
but time is one of those things that is always there
seriously sounds like Jan's god IS
I'm a time detection machine. So are you. Anything that changes detects time, in a sense. If you want to measure it accurately, what you need is a good clock, but simply detecting it is easy; you only need to notice that things change.
Sure do. What use are they, if they don't measure time? What do you think they measure?
The bald fact that things change is evidence.
That's why your claim that time doesn't exist is such a silly one.
No
You keep asking questions
How about provide evidence of existence and or a time detection machine
I really really really really hope you don't say clock
You seriously seriously think clocks either detect or measure time?
Themselves
What do they pick up about time? How exactly do they pick up, say a second? Does the second hit something in the clock which makes the second hand move?
Or it's frequency? mass? some other property?
BTW age is considered to be the total measure of stuffs existence. While it is given in the same arbitrary units as time it is not time
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
The oscillatory frequency or the occurrence of periodic event.
The clock detects its own time.
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
THE SCIENTIFIC TIME AND THE TIME OF COMMON SENSE
The scientific time is defined as the duration of things (between an interval) in a given physical state or situation. One day is divided precisely in 24 hours, hours in 60 minutes and minutes in 60 seconds. One hour of work is equal to one hour of rest.
The time of common sense is defined as the continuous succession of irreversible moments or changes that goes from the past to the future. This definition is correct, but emphasizes the details of time. The scientific definition of time is closer to the nature of this magnitude.
For common sense, time may go slower or faster according to people's emotional state. Also for common sense, time flows faster as we age. To affirm that time is what clocks measure is also an idea of common sense.
The change-interval duality is deduced from the scientific definition of time.
The scientific time is defined as the duration of things (between an interval) in a given physical state or situation. One day is divided precisely in 24 hours, hours in 60 minutes and minutes in 60 seconds. One hour of work is equal to one hour of rest.
The time of common sense is defined as the continuous succession of irreversible moments or changes that goes from the past to the future. This definition is correct, but emphasizes the details of time. The scientific definition of time is closer to the nature of this magnitude.
For common sense, time may go slower or faster according to people's emotional state. Also for common sense, time flows faster as we age. To affirm that time is what clocks measure is also an idea of common sense.
The change-interval duality is deduced from the scientific definition of time.
Last edited:
- Status