Does time exist?

[river]

Many counterintuitive consequences emerge: in addition to being independent of the motion of the light source, the speed of light has the same speed regardless of the frame of reference in which it is measured; the distances and even temporal ordering of pairs of events change when measured in different inertial frames of reference (this is the relativity of simultaneity); and the linear additivity of velocities no longer holds true.

The light is from a physical source .

 

[paddoboy]

The light is from a physical source .

Is that supposed to mean anything?
Time is real...time and space are two sides of the same coin, and are interchangeable as shown and validated in GR.

 

[Asexperia]

Time is real...time and space are two sides of the same coin, and are interchangeable as shown and validated in GR.

I agree with the General theory of relativity, but I think space (Geometry) and time (Philochrony) can be studied and know separately.

 

[DaveC426913]

My position is no different from mainstream science.

Then I guess we're in total agreement.
Time is one of the four dimensions.
Mathematics is a human tool.

 

[paddoboy]

I agree with the General theory of relativity, but I think space (Geometry) and time (Philochrony) can be studied and know separately.

Accepting that time is real, as is space, is pretty sensible imo.

 

[Write4U]

Then I guess we're in total agreement.
Time is one of the four dimensions.

Time is an emergent dimension of geometry

Mathematics is a human tool.

Human mathematics are symbolic representations of natural mathematics.
I believe my perspective is in complete functional harmony with mainstream science. No one has yet proven this interpretation wrong.
OTOH, I believe I have demonstrated the emergent property of Time as a mathematical measurement of "duration" for individual events, much as all human symbolic mathematical measurements are descriptive of natural emergent mathematical phenomena. In fact I believe that my interpretation is closer to Einstein than what is argued here.

Albert Einstein's 1905 special relativity challenged the notion of absolute time, and could only formulate a definition of synchronization for clocks that mark a linear flow of time:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B.

But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time."

We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

 

[Write4U]

Accepting that time is real, as is space, is pretty sensible imo.

Only if time is associated with and relative to space (or anything else) does measurable duration become apparent and can be described in human arbitrary units of time.

Currently associated best description of time is in association with and relative to:
Physicists Have Broken The Record For The Most Accurate Clock Ever Built

BEC CREW
11 FEBRUARY 2016
Physicists in Germany have built the most accurate timepiece on Earth, achieving unprecedented levels of accuracy with a new atomic clock that keeps time according to the movements of ytterbium ions.

Called an optical single-ion clock, the device works by measuring the vibrational frequency of ytterbium ions as they oscillate back and forth hundreds of trillions times per second between two different energy levels. These ions are trapped within an 'optical lattice' of laser beams that allows scientists to count the number of ytterbium 'ticks' per second to measure time so accurately, the clock won’t lose or gain a second in several billion years.

Until very recently, our most accurate time-keepers were caesium atomic clocks - devices that contain a 'pendulum' of atoms that are excited into resonance by microwave radiation. It's on these clocks that the official definition of the second - the Standard International (SI) unit of time - is based.

According to the most accurate caesium atomic clock in the world, 1 second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the caesium 133 atom.
That might sound pretty good, but when it comes to defining time itself - the thing that governs literally everything we do in life - you can never be too accurate.

https://www.sciencealert.com/physic...record-for-the-most-accurate-clock-ever-built

IOW we have no clue as to the nature and independent existence of time. Human understanding of "duration" (as increments of time) is always an emergent measurement in relation to a physical phenomenon, never as an independent dimension.

 

[river]

Time is an emergent dimension of geometry
Human mathematics are symbolic representations of natural mathematics.
I believe my perspective is in complete functional harmony with mainstream science. No one has yet proven this interpretation wrong.
OTOH, I believe I have demonstrated the emergent property of Time as a mathematical measurement of "duration" for individual events, much as all human symbolic mathematical measurements are descriptive of natural emergent mathematical phenomena. In fact I believe that my interpretation is closer to Einstein than what is argued here.
We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

But so what ? In the end , time has no efficacy on anything . Ever . Time doesn't speed up or slow down anything .

 

[Write4U]

But so what ? In the end , time has no efficacy on anything . Ever . Time doesn't speed up or slow down anything .

True, time only measures if something physical speeds up or slows down.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
But so what ? In the end , time has no efficacy on anything . Ever . Time doesn't speed up or slow down anything .

True, time only measures if something physical speeds up or slows down.

And everything in between .

 

[DaveC426913]

Time is an emergent dimension of geometry
...
Human mathematics are symbolic representations of natural mathematics.

So your position is not in agreement with mainstream science. Was that a lie?

of natural mathematics.
I believe my perspective is in complete functional harmony with mainstream science. No one has yet proven this interpretation wrong.

I have a theory that the universe is powered by the Cosmic Unicorn. No one has proven that wrong either. So I'm just gonna put mine up there in the shelf right next to your idea.

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[Write4U]

So your position is not in agreement with mainstream science. Was that a lie?

Do tell me where and why it is not in agreement with mainstream science. Have you considered that your perspective may not be in agreement with mainstream science?

Einstein: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.

Tell me where this speaks of an independent time dimension where Time is a Universal constant.

I have a theory that the universe is powered by the Cosmic Unicorn. No one has proven that wrong either. So I'm just gonna put mine up there in the shelf right next to your idea.

Is your perspective of a Cosmic Unicorn in functional harmony with mainstream science? Have you presented anything that describes this perspective?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do tell me where and why it is not in agreement with mainstream science.

Because what you purport conflicts with what mainstream science finds.

Have you considered that your perspective may not be in agreement with mainstream science?

Have you considered that purporting things that conflict with mainstream science is pretty much the definition of "not in agreement"?

Tell me where this speaks of an independent time dimension where Time is a Universal constant.

Time is one of the four dimensions. There are three spacelike and one timelike.

Like space, time is fundamental. You've got it backwards: the geometry of spacetime is a property of its spatial and temporal dimensions. Not the other way around.

Is your perspective of a Cosmic Unicorn in functional harmony with mainstream science?

It is as much in agreement with mainstream science as your ideas. i.e. not.

 

[Asexperia]

I do not believe there is timetime. I believe that time only emerges as a result of the existence of something else.
Can that be proven wrong? I doubt it. There is no possible way to measure time itself, unless it is attached to something else. I believe time is a metaphysical concept and part of the abstract mathematics of space.

Clocks or external active memories (MEXA) preserve the duration of the Earth's rotational movement in hours, minutes and seconds. Time is measured with the duration of a movement in space. Without movement there is no time. Get outside at 12:00 at noon on your watch and you will see the Sun at its maximum height in the sky.

 

[Write4U]

Clocks or external active memories (MEXA) preserve the duration of the Earth's rotational movement in hours, minutes and seconds. Time is measured with the duration of a movement in space. Without movement there is no time. Get outside at 12:00 at noon on your watch and you will see the Sun at its maximum height in the sky.

All true, but meaningful only to humans and perhaps organisms that respond to circadian rhythms.

Circadian rhythms are physical, mental, and behavioral changes that follow a daily cycle. They respond primarily to light and darkness in an organism's environment. Sleeping at night and being awake during the day is an example of a light-related circadian rhythm.

What are biological clocks?

Biological clocks are an organism’s innate timing device. They’re composed of specific molecules (proteins) that interact in cells throughout the body. Biological clocks are found in nearly every tissue and organ. Researchers have identified similar genes in people, fruit flies, mice, fungi, and several other organisms that are responsible for making the clock’s components.

https://www.nigms.nih.gov/education/fact-sheets/Pages/circadian-rhythms.aspx

But these abilities are not indicative of knowledge of time, but memory of the duration of certain natural cycles.

 

[Write4U]

Relativity of simultaneity

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

On spaceships, map-clocks may look unsynchronized.

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. If one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events (the only exception being when motion is exactly perpendicular to the line connecting the locations of both events).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

 

[Write4U]

Time is one of the four dimensions.

No argument from me. But that does not automatically assume that Time is an independent existing dimension. IMO, it is an emergent property of dynamic space and there is no argument that falsifies that.

Time is the emergent fourth mathematical property of geometric space.
Space is not three emergent mathematical properties of temporal duration.

The equation reads "spacetime = 3 D space + time"
Note; The term Dimension is a mathematical term for a spatial measurement.
The term Time is a mathematical term for measurement of temporal duration.

Definition of dimension

1a mathematics
(1): measure in one direction the dimensions of the room
specifically : one of three coordinates (see COORDINATE entry 3 sense 1a) determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time
(2): one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (such as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space) the surface of a sphere has two dimensions
also : a parameter (see PARAMETER sense 1) or coordinate variable assigned to such a propertythe three dimensions of momentum
(3) a: the number of elements in a basis (see BASIS sense 5) of a vector space
b: the quality of spatial extension : MAGNITUDE, SIZE… the town's modest dimensions and leisurely ways …— Jane Shellhase

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimension

No mention of Time as an independent dimension. It can be part of a mathematical coordinate in Dimensional space!

Without space there is no time. Space originated before there was time. It's the continuation and dynamic expansion of space that produced measurable temporal duration, symbolized as Time, just like human Mathematics are symbolized values and functions of dynamic geometric spatial dimensions

 

[DaveC426913]

No argument from me. But that does not automatically assume that Time is an independent existing dimension.

Yes it does.

IMO,

As stated - in conflict with established science.

This being the Pseudoscience forum does not entitle you to just make stuff up off the top of your head.

Time is the emergent fourth mathematical property of geometric space.

Well no it isn't.
You have it backwards.

No mention of Time as an independent dimension

. It can be part of a mathematical coordinate in Dimensional space!

Also no mention of it being shaped like a puppy, but that does not mean we can just decide it is shaped like a puppy.

You mangle words and torture meaning to suit your needs. This is not science.

 

[Write4U]

Yes it does.

With all respect Dave, it does not.
The Time we always speak of is spacetime, which emerged and is inseparably connected with the duration of this space since it's beginning, some 13.772 billion (symbolic) years ago.

Answer me this question ; "did Time exist before space existed? If not, it cannot be considered a separate and independent dimension . Time as we know it is/was an emergent property of this space and started with t=0 as the beginning of a mathematical temporal measurement of 3 dimensional space.
If you assert that time is an independent dimension from all other existence you must be able to show this.
What you are declaring is tantamount to assertion there is a God who caused space.

As stated - in conflict with established science.

No, I am very much in agreement with the term "spacetime", which includes the symbolized duration of space since it's beginning. I am not in agreement that Time can exist independent of something else. Time can only be used as a measured aspect of something that exists and endures. It cannot be used to measure itself, because it does not emerge and be measured as a duration unless associated with the existence (or change) of something else.

I showed the various definitions of time and its use as a mathematical measurement. Nowhere in the definitions does it assert Time is an independent dimension.

This being the Pseudoscience forum does not entitle you to just make stuff up off the top of your head.

I am not saying anything which disagrees with the facts, only with the interpretation by the majority at this "time" of scientific investigation. There is a persistent debate about this by minds much more educated than mine. It is not fair to single me out as "making stuff up".

Well no it isn't. You have it backwards.

There's the rub. I do not have it backwards, you do.

Also no mention of it being shaped like a puppy, but that does not mean we can just decide it is shaped like a puppy.

Who is making stuff up?

You mangle words and torture meaning to suit your needs. This is not science.

It seems you understand me sufficiently well to disagree . If I am too obscure all you need to do is ask me to clarify.

Let me give you a fundamental perspective. Time is always dependent on the duration of existence of something else and has no independent duration of existence in and of itself. Is that clear enough?