Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wellwisher said:
If you look at the arrow of time, that runs parallel to a human life, from birth to death, things do not repeat, exactly. Rather there is constant change in our bodies via the stages of life and DNA. Life is not cyclic except in some abstract sense.

The human body replaces all the atoms in all its cells, every seven years. We superficially may appear to be the same person. However, seven years from now, we are totally renewed chemically. In a sense, there is a seven year repeat cycle to the human life. However, but it is not a repeating energy wave, but more like a spiral staircase.

If we look at a spiral in 2-D; look at the helix from above, a cyclic process or wave, appears to repeat, every seven years, like an energy clock. But in 3-D reality, the spiral never repeats, due to movement in the z-axis; entropy. Cyclic energy clocks represent time as a 2-D process, whereas an entropy clock explains time as a 3-D process. This is more advanced, but it is more realistic based on the arrow of time.

helix_1000.gif



If we look at the universal red shift, energy, over time, is actually following the path of a spiral. This is because the wavelength and frequency is changing with time; wavelength gets longer with time. The repeat cycle is getting longer and longer; center to perimeter. This can be attribute to the entropy increase implicit of expanding space-time.
spiral.png
Click to expand...

But that would depend where in the Universe you are .

What would be a red shift for us would be a blue shift for them for instance .
 
THE MOLD OF THE UNIVERSE

The philochron line is the mold that forms and structures the universe. When we focus a telescope into the space we see the past. For example, a star located a thousand light-years from Earth we see it as it was a thousand years ago. When we calculate the death or disappearance of a star we are looking to the future. The philochron line is objective because it is part of the essence of the universe.

In another sense, beings last due to the Internal Resistance to the Disintegration (IRD). In living beings the IRD is the good health and metabolism. In objects the IRD is the consistency. In industrial appliances and machines the IRD is the quality.
 
TIME AND CHRONOMETRY

Often terms of time and chronometry are confused. Time is a magnitude and chronometry its measure. The chronometry leads us to think that time is circular, when in fact time is linear.
In an effort to measure time (chronometry) the humanity has devised different artifacts: sundial, water clock, hourglass, pendulum clock, quartz watch and the atomic clock. We must add to this list the calendar.

Time is the duration of things subject to change (becoming). In the periodic becoming the duration is constant. This is the basis of chronometry. From the chronometry we also obtain the mathematical time (t) which is treated by the Theory of relativity as a dimension of space.

We can manipulate the chronometry, but not time. If we advance or delay our clocks we do not modify time. In movies and soap operas chronometry is changed, but not time.

The nature of time is moulded in the philochron line.

Elvis Sibilia
 
My answer is (5) Other
IMO, Time is a universal potential which becomes expressed as a result of duration of work or change.
Potential: "that which may become reality"
 
Now that I look at my posit again, I'll change my mind to (2) Subjective, but *latent* (not illusionary), in context that both time and heat do not exist independently, but are emergent as a result (subject to) of dynamical actions

I like Paddo's post of Sean Carroll;
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms
Click to expand...
I can see some clear similarities between the emergence of time and heat as latent potentials, becoming expressed and subject to physical dynamical actions.

The one difference I see, is the fact that time accompanies all existing things, whereas heat is generated by physical actions only.
Example, a stack of wood exists in time, whereas heat is generated by the burning of a stack of wood. When the fire dies, so does the generated heat, but time continues to accompany the ashes.
 
Last edited:
Time it seems is used by Einstein , the forth dimension of space , as a way of an explanation of gravity .

Thats all time is .
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
The one difference I see, is the fact that time accompanies all existing things, whereas heat is generated by physical actions only. Example, a stack of wood exists in time, whereas heat is generated by the burning of a stack of wood. When the fire dies, so does the generated heat, but time continues to accompany the ashes.
Click to expand...

Time is fundamental because it is present in all beings that make up the universe. Heat emerges from the movement of atoms.
 
THE AGE IN PHILOCHRONY

The age is a particular time of animated or inanimated being. For example: the age of the Sun, a person's age, the age of a tree, the age of a city, the age of a car, etc. The time is a general time (24 hours) relative to the meridians. It could say that date is a universal time. There are two different dates at a given moment. The age, the time (day) and the date (year) are intervals with a beginning and an end.

In another sense, the present or the becoming is the continuous change of irreversible moments. This is what really exists. The past and the future are mathematical abstractions originated from the sequential intervals. Time is never an illusion because the illusions distort reality.

Asexperia, Sibilia
 
Write4U said:
I like Paddo's post of Sean Carroll;
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms
.
Click to expand...
His description was quite reasonable and logical in my opinion.
The problem with some, is that any definition of "real" needs to be something you can touch, see or smell.
We accept the magnetic field and other EMR as real, simply by observed effects...so to can that be applied to the dynamics of spacetime.
 
Write4U said: ↑
I like Paddo's post of Sean Carroll;
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms
Click to expand...

As have been saying all these years . Finally , finally ; someone who people respect echos my thinking upon the essence of time.

Time is based on movement of objects .


paddoboy said:
His description was quite reasonable and logical in my opinion.
The problem with some, is that any definition of "real" needs to be something you can touch, see or smell.
We accept the magnetic field and other EMR as real, simply by observed effects...so to can that be applied to the dynamics of spacetime.
Click to expand...
 
river said:
As have been saying all these years . Finally , finally ; someone who people respect echos my thinking upon the essence of time.

Time is based on movement of objects .
Click to expand...
Have you? :smile:Congrats!! That means you accept that time is real, just as Porfessor Carroll is inferring.
 
paddoboy said:
Have you? :smile:Congrats!! That means you accept that time is real, just as Porfessor Carroll is inferring.
Click to expand...

Sean Carroll is saying that time is not real on its own . He is saying that the essence of time is based on movement.

Understand the difference pad ?

Write4U said: ↑
I like Paddo's post of Sean Carroll;
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms
 
river said:
Sean Carroll is saying that time is not real on its own . He is saying that the essence of time is based on movement.

Understand the difference pad ?

Write4U said: ↑
I like Paddo's post of Sean Carroll;
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms
Click to expand...
Carroll says and believes time does exist.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
note his first comment in reply to the Interviewer...
"You are right to think that"
and of course what follows exactly as I said.
time is real, as is space, spacetime, magnetic fields, gravity etc.....
 
paddoboy said:
Carroll says and believes time does exist.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
note his first comment in reply to the Interviewer...
"You are right to think that"
and of course what follows exactly as I said.
time is real, as is space, spacetime, magnetic fields, gravity etc.....
Click to expand...

Well so lets say time is real , it isn't, but lets say it is .

How does time have a force ? how does time force anything to do anything ?
 
river said:
Well so lets say time is real , it isn't, but lets say it is .
Click to expand...
If time is not "real", you'll have to explain why this post follows yours.

It is certainly experienced by every living creature. And, frankly, every non-living object too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top