Does time exist?

[Michael 345]

Not sure what the value if this number is.
OK, so three people have said what they think time is. - (at least one of which is wrong inasmuch as they don't even address the question).
Luckily, the world is not built on what people on forums suppose.

Don't get me, wrong, 'what is time' is a good topic for discussion, but it's not like you're building a case for defining time.

Well if time exist I would think numerous people would know what it is and be able to answer such a simple question

I would expect to have either

• a fairly concise much the same answer or
• numerous different descriptions

But 3?

By the way I have Iggied some people who I suspect have answered so my 3 could be low

I am not trying to define time

Why would I try to define time? other than as being non existent?

The suggestion was put that What is TIME would be a better topic thread than Does TIME exist thread

I obliged. It seems however not

Could it be possible with only 3 descriptions time is non existent hence the problem?

 

[DaveC426913]

Could it be possible with only 3 descriptions time is non existent hence the problem?

Again, luckily, the world is not built on what people on forums suppose.

 

[DaveC426913]

Time exists in relativity theory, else we would not have space-time curvature, and thus no gravity.

So, if you were to assert that time does not exist, you will be proposing an alternate theory to Einsteinian General Relativity. Are you prepared to do that?

 

[Michael 345]

Time exists in relativity theory, else we would not have space-time curvature, and thus no gravity.

So, if you were to assert that time does not exist, you will be proposing an alternate theory to Einsteinian General Relativity. Are you prepared to do that?

As I understand time was added in the mathematical construct

No need for me to propose a new theory

Are you stating gravity did not exist before Einsteinian General Relativity theory was thought of?

Explain please how thinking of Einsteinian General Relativity produced gravity

 

[James R]

Michael 345:

Gravity is not a thing. Try gravity is a force. If the makers of the instrument call the machine a Gravimeter I would think that they have made the link

Physicists typically talk about "the acceleration due to gravity", which is what a gravimeter measures.

But "gravity" is just as abstract a concept as "time". It's strange that you believe in the one and deny the other.

And as for the What is TIME thread it still holding at 3

I don't have the link at hand. Did I respond to that thread?

How about this: time is the thing that stops everything happening at once.

Good enough?

I would have thought at least 10 by now by describing the characteristics and properties of TIME which would give a graphic mental picture. Currently no such luck

What are the properties of gravity? You believe in that, you tell us, and you also tell us that everything real must have properties, so what are the properties of gravity?

Acceleration is the rate of change over a period ✓

As defined, it is the rate of change of displacement with respect to time.

Your word games have failed, because you have been unable to adequately distinguish "period" from "age" from "time".

because, obviously you cannot measure a rate of CHANGE if something is not changing.

Correct. Time is required for change.

The PERIOD over which it changes is AGE, in every day language, incorrectly, called time

Your "age" or "period" appears to me to be simply a time interval. If it isn't that, you need to say what it is.

 

[DaveC426913]

As I understand time was added in the mathematical construct

Don't know what that means. The theory is a model. The model explains nature.

Einsteinian General Relativity posits that things happen in four-dimensional space time. Gravity is not a force that pulls things together, gravity is merely a manifestation of four dimensional curved space time.

No need for me to propose a new theory

OK, since the prevailing theory requires space time, and you have no alternate theory, then you have little choice but to accept that our best model of the universe is that of four dimensional space time.

Are you stating gravity did not exist before Einsteinian General Relativity theory was thought of?

No. In a Newtonian universe, both space and time were absolute, fixed and unchanging - a stationary background against which things interacted. Gravity was a force - and it happened instantly over infinite distances - no dependence on time.

That model has been debunked by experimental evidence. Newton's fixed universe cannot explain our observations - observations that Newton didn't have access to.

Einstein's does. And it does so with flying colours, through countless tests over almost a century. It is one of the most tested and confirmed theories in the history of science, and it has never failed.

That doesn't mean it's "proven", it means it is - not merely the best model of our universe - it is the only serious model we have.

 

[Michael 345]

How about this: time is the thing that stops everything happening at once.

How about

Stuff which exist is always in motion (changing) therefore everything is incapable of happening at once

AGE (frequently confused with TIME) a period between two arbitrary markers

NOW is a moment during which the whole of the Universe is in existence.

During NOW everything is happening - separated by distance (ie not at a single location)

What are the properties of gravity? You believe in that, you tell us, and you also tell us that everything real must have properties, so what are the properties of gravity?

This formula illustrates two important properties of gravity. First, the mass of the bodies increases the force; the larger the mass, the larger the force. Second, the distance between the bodies will reduce the force.

https://sciencing.com/properties-gravity-8439386.html

Time is required for change.

An assertion but as mentioned before AGE is confused with TIME in common language

Stuff AGEs it does not TIMEs

Limitations of language sorry about that

Your "age" or "period" appears to me to be simply a time interval. If it isn't that, you need to say what it is.

Well compare 12 inches in a foot (inches don't exist - have I got that correct?)

How many TIMES in a year?

 

[Michael 345]

Gravity is not a force that pulls things together, gravity is merely a manifestation of four dimensional curved space time.

Is same as

This formula illustrates two important properties of gravity. First, the mass of the bodies increases the force; the larger the mass, the larger the force. Second, the distance between the bodies will reduce the force.

https://sciencing.com/properties-gravity-8439386.html

which seems to be firm about gravity being a force

 

[DaveC426913]

https://sciencing.com/properties-gravity-8439386.html
which seems to be firm about gravity being a force

Q: How much of that article did you read before losing interest?
A: Less than 8 paragraphs.

"Gravity as a Curvature of Space-Time
Gravity can also be understood not as a linear force, but as a curvature of space-time. Space-time is conceptualized as a mesh of three-dimensional space and time. In this mesh, space and time are not two different magnitudes, but rather a single unified entity. In the space-time, gravity can be conceptualized as a pit on the space-time; the more massive the body, the deeper the pit."
https://sciencing.com/properties-gravity-8439386.html


Newtonian gravity is a fine approximation for virtually all daily human experience. It's simple to talk about gravity being a force in most common applications. eg. unless actually talking about relativity, most textbooks right up through high school will treat gravity as a force. The math involved in space time curvature is overkill when it comes to falling apples and artillery.

But a model that's 'good enough' is not sufficient when talking about things like whether time exists.

If you want to insist that gravity is a force, then you'll also be insisting that there is no such thing as relativistic length contraction. And then you'll once again be caught between observation and a hard place.

Gentle note: It is becoming apparent that you have a lot of reading to do on this subject before you will have an informed opinion.

 

[James R]

Michael:

All you're doing here is playing with language. You can't stop time from existing merely by renaming it to "age" or something. Tacitly, you keep admitting that time exists, despite your silly claim to the contrary.

Stuff which exist is always in motion (changing) therefore everything is incapable of happening at once

Change presupposes time. Motion presupposes time.

AGE (frequently confused with TIME) a period between two arbitrary markers

A period, eh? A period of what? Yes, that's right: a period of time.

NOW is a moment during which the whole of the Universe is in existence.

And five minutes ago is another moment where the same thing was true. And five minutes from now. All are times.

During NOW everything is happening - separated by distance (ie not at a single location)

Is it your claim, then, that nothing happened in the past, and nothing will happen in the future? Keep digging that hole.

This formula illustrates two important properties of gravity. First, the mass of the bodies increases the force; the larger the mass, the larger the force. Second, the distance between the bodies will reduce the force.

You are shifting the goalposts. This is not how you previously talked about "properties". I'm onto your game.

An assertion but as mentioned before AGE is confused with TIME in common language

No it isn't. Age is simply a measure of a period of time, or a time interval. If your age is 5 years, it only means that the period between your birth and the present has a duration in time of 5 years.

People do not use the words "age" and "time" synonymously. There is no confusion. Well, you might be confused, but nobody else is.

Stuff AGEs it does not TIMEs

That's because "time" is not a verb, whereas "age" is both a noun and a verb. You're just playing games with language here, nothing more. The fact that time isn't a verb doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as you are no doubt aware. Stuff doesn't stapler, either, but that's not an argument against the existence of staplers.

Well compare 12 inches in a foot (inches don't exist - have I got that correct?)

Compare it to what? An inch is not distance, any more than an hour is time. You seem to be confusing units of measures with the thing they are measures of. That's been true throughout this thread, with you.

How many TIMES in a year?

As many as you want (other than zero). Which, once again, only goes to show that time exists.

 

[James R]

By the way, nobody asks "What age is it?" (unless they are inquiring about a time interval). They ask "What time is it?"

 

[Michael 345]

silly claim

Well many Science papers have the same silly claim

"What time is it?"

Which is covenant method for synchronisation of events, but still a arbitrary mark

 

[Michael 345]

Well many Science papers have the same silly claim

To Barbour, change is real, but time is not.

https://www-space-com.cdn.ampprojec...www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

Julian Barbour

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour

 

[James R]

Well many Science papers have the same silly claim

That time doesn't exist?

Are any of these papers published in respectable peer-reviewed journals?

Got a link?

 

[James R]

To Barbour, change is real, but time is not.

He doesn't say that in article you linked.

 

[Michael 345]

https://www-space-com.cdn.ampprojec...www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

So the link above does not include the screen shot below?

Said screen shot showing

To Barbour, change is real, but time is not.

?

Julian Barbour

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour

Is about him and contains this extract

*****

Timeless physicsEdit
His 1999 book The End of Time advances timeless physics: the controversial view that time, as we perceive it, does not exist as anything other than an illusion,

*****

Screenshot provided on request

 

[Asexperia]

THE OBJECTIVE AND THE SUBJECTIVE

The objective is real, relative to the object. The subjective is mental, relative to the subject.

The objective can be:
a) Concrete (a specific thing: table, chair, apple, house, etc).
b) Abstract (quality considered separately that is part of the concrete: length, mass, time, volume, etc.).

The subjective can be:
a) Abstract (love, hate, happiness, peace, etc).
b) Imaginary (it is unreal: dragon, mermaid, unicorn, etc).

Time is the property we abstract from the phenomena of occurring continually. From a clock we abstract a measure, the quantity of duration. Similarly, from a body we abstract its mass or its length.

 

[Asexperia]

THE NATURE OF TIME

Let's also see the nature of water, light and color as a reference to the nature of time.

- Water is the body formed by the H2O molecule.

- Light is the electromagnetic phenomenon composed of wave-particle that makes bodies visible.

- Color is the property (objective-concrete) that manifests in bodies when they are illuminated.

- Time is the property (objective-abstract) that indicates the duration of things. Water, light and color are material, time is not. Time is the most tenuous property in the universe. Time increases continuously in value due to the succession of changes.

 

[Asexperia]

HISTORICAL PAST VS METRICAL PAST

Philochrony distinguishes between the historical past (HP) and the metric past (MP). The historical past refers to the events that have already occurred. The metric past refers to dates prior to the present. The HP is not real, but the MP is, because time is an objective-abstract property of universe.

For example:
1- Destruction of the Berlin Wall (11-09-1989).
2- Attack to the Twin Towers (09-11-2001).
3- Indonesia earthquake and tsunami (12-26-2004).

The historical past are the events arranged chronologically and the metric past are the dates. Although the HP is not real we have evidence that it existed. Our date of birth is real and known. Our date of death is real but unknown. Death is an inevitable fact.

 

[James R]

Although the HP is not real we have evidence that it existed.

We have evidence for the existence of something that isn't real?

Okay, whatever you say...