Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Write4U said:
If you assert that time is an independent dimension from all other existence you must be able to show this.
Click to expand...

I am simply stating that, as per established science, time is as much a dimension as any of the spatial dimensions. The spatial dimensions are not "emergent from any geometry", nor is the time dimension. That is what you were asserting, and that is what is rejected.

To assert otherwise would conflict with science and would need to defended with significantly more than the inimitable "IMO".

The rest of your post is an erroneous consequence of the above error.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I am simply stating that, as per established science, time is as much a dimension as any of the spatial dimensions. The spatial dimensions are not "emergent from any geometry", nor is the time dimension. That is what you were asserting, and that is what is rejected.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. Spatial dimensions are emerging and unfolding as we speak.
David Bohm describes a constantly unfolding and enfolding process in his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
This dynamic process is currently proposed in a new model proposed by Renate Lol, et al , and is based on the concept of Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) .
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Click to expand...
It has sparked considerable interest as it appears to have a good semi-classical description. At large scales, it re-creates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but it shows spacetime to be 2-d near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time.
Click to expand...
These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work. A brief article appeared in the February 2007 issue of Scientific American, which gives an overview of the theory, explained why some physicists are excited about it, and put it in historical perspective. The same publication gives CDT, and its primary authors, a feature article in its July 2008 issue.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Can you give me an example of a constant time frame independent of dynamic spacetime?

I am proposing that instead of a dimension of time there is an independent purely abstract permittive state, permittive of physical phenomena such as the mathematically expressed spatial geometric dimensions of space.

This permittive state allows for the chronological self-ordering of spatial dimensions along with the emergence of measurable mathematical durations of events within the spatial dimensions. All measurable durations of all dynamic physical phenomena which emerge in those processese and are measurable with arbitrary human symbolic increments of time.

If you visualize a state of four existing conditions (dimensions), then by the fact that all dimensions are of a mathematical nature, the concept of time has equal standing to the concept of space, and if space is in a constant state of mathematically unfolding, time being a mathematical temporal function can only be in a constant state of unfolding along with the duration of emergent chronologies of mathematical spatial patterns , no?

When we express the observation that; "that event took a long time", we are addressing the emergent chronological duration of that event. The physical event was causal to the mathematical function of "duration". The rest is just symbolism.
 
DaveC426913 said:
View attachment 3246
Click to expand...
Wow, in your lame attempt trying to discredit my logic, you just called a lot of serious science woo.

Note: that wheel, while very impressive, does not in any way disprove anything I have proposed.

It's merely a clever ad hominem not only to me, but also to some very serious and recognized scientists.
You may want to do some serious research on those new scientific areas of research before you start using them as examples of woo. For shame!
 
From post #2277:

The relativity of simultaneity has been scientifically proven or is it an imaginary methematical model?
 
Asexperia said:
From post #2277:
The relativity of simultaneity has been scientifically proven or is it an imaginary methematical model?
Click to expand...
It's part of Einstein's Special Relativity. And I believe that has been accepted as the model to beat.
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.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
 
TIME IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF MOVEMENT

The varied opinions of time can be summed up in four ideas:

a) It is objective (a physical magnitude).
b) It is subjective (an illusion).
c) It is subjective (a priori).
d) It is objective (a type of movement).

If time is a), it cannot be b) or c).
If time were b) or c), what do clocks measure?

Time is a movement or change of sequential moments. Space movement has a starting point and an ending point. Time has a start and an end. Although the object is at rest it moves with time. We are not aware of time because we all move with it.
 
Asexperia said:
TIME IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF MOVEMENT

The varied opinions of time can be summed up in four ideas:

a) It is objective (a physical magnitude).
b) It is subjective (an illusion).
c) It is subjective (a priori).
d) It is objective (a type of movement).
Click to expand...
e) It is emergent (a result of duration)
 
Does time exist? The HUMAN BEING IS time. Five fingers on one hand.

Should I wish to study the universe scientifically, I may study the con-sci-ous mind. This may be studied with regards to pro-s and con-s, meaning "for" and "again-st."

An un-con-sci-ous mind may be considered to be identical to a pre-ci-ous one ("pre" simply meaning "be-for-e", and being "un-con"-sci-ous.)

Should science truly be pre-ci-ous (before "ci") then I may remove "ci" from s-ci-ence to discover sence. It is in this way that I may say that science is based upon the sences (in es-sence) of which there are five: sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. But of course I would argue that there are many more senses than these: a sense of humour or balance.

However, how these original five senses interact is quite interesting: for example touch produces sound. Do these noises mean the object is moving AT the speed of sound? Please consider someone pressing a light switch that then clicks. Should we consider this finger moving at that speed over a great distance, would it be at the speed of sound?

If a driver beeps a car horn, they are simply expressing that they are trying to move forwards. Then, the car continues forwards.

Now, with regards to the universe, some will state that the universe has come from nothing. Is this possible? Can you summon something from nothing?
Computers, still to this day, have difficulty dividing by zero (how many nothings in one, two or three?) This is because they are not living.

To divide by zero you may add one to what you are dividing, add one to what you are dividing by, and then subtract one from the total.

Example:

(((1+1)÷(0+1)-1)=
((2÷1)-1)=
2-1=
1

Thus one divided by zero equals one, two divided by zero equals two and so on. You may summon any of the five deadly sins in this way by following the steps shown above, and so you are summoning them from NOTHING. The above is further held to be true thanks to another poster who highlighted that NO DIVISIONS equals the whole.

In this way (step by step ((+1÷+1)-1)) we may summon 1,2,3,4 or 5.

Now, should we summon some-one, would you be able to hear their thoughts? I.e. if you WERE them, or if they were being you? :)
 
Should you have nothing, you may be able to summon everything by dividing five by zero.

But surely this is dangerous?

If one divided by zero is one, and two divided by zero is two, then surely "dead" divided by zero is "dead" (just to be safe.) :)
 
Last edited:
TheFrogger said:
Now, should we summon some-one, would you be able to hear their thoughts? I.e. if you WERE them, or if they were being you? :)
Click to expand...
Watch Anil Seth. He explains and demonstrates the experience of being in someone elses body by reversing the output of two virtual goggles between interacting persons (shaking hands, etc) so that each actually experiences the other's actions as their own. The mind readily accepts the reversal as its own experience. Verrry interesting.
 
TheFrogger said:
To divide by zero you may add one to what you are dividing, add one to what you are dividing by, and then subtract one from the total.
(((1+1)÷(0+1)-1)=
((2÷1)-1)=
2-1=
1
Thus one divided by zero equals one, two divided by zero equals two and so on.
Click to expand...
Write4U said:
Seems to me that mathematically if you divide anything by zero (iow not dividing it), you always end up with the original value.
1/0 = 1
x/0 = x
Click to expand...
OK, so no only has this forum been taken over by science illiterates, but it seems now it's being consumed by arithmetic ignoramuses.
 
Please post on topic, and try to make some sense.
Yes, anything divided by zero equals whatever you are dividing. No divisions equals the whole.

(((A gram of ecstacy+1)÷(0+1))-1)=
(((A gram of ecstacy+1)÷1)-1)=
((A gram of ecatacy+1)-1)=
A gram of ecstacy.

BUT you must take it step by step ((+1÷+1)-1). Then you can summon something from nothing.

I know this because I tried every possible mathematically.

+=1 ×=2 -=3 ÷=4

1×2×3×4=24

This is how I know to divide by zero. :)

Please enjoy, but PLEASE bring your boyfriend to life again. x :)

PLEASE REMEMBER, you must do it each step at a time.

(((n+1)÷(0+1))-1)=
((n+1)÷1)-1)=
((n+1)-1)=
n.

:)
 
Well why not try this first?

(((Dead+1)÷(0+1))-1)=
(((Dead+1)÷1)-1)=
((Dead+1)-1)=
Dead.

:)

Any number divided by one equals the number you are dividing. (1÷1=1) (2÷1=2) (3÷1=3)

Dividing by zero includes this, but you are dividing by zero. Summoning by nothing.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top