time is not fundamental .
if you change time in any equation , it will not effect the out come of the equation .
because time has NO fundamental , innate , physical properties .
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
time is not fundamental .
if you change time in any equation , it will not effect the out come of the equation .
because time has NO fundamental , innate , physical properties .
Í prefer Professor Carroll's expertise and answer on the matter, if that's OK with you?
refer to what authority you need to make your point .
Just trying to convey to you some real accepted proper scientific thinking.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/whats-real-about-time
fair enough
time is confusing because it has NO fundamental physical properties .
Sure, that's why even reputable recognised cosmologists have different interpretations. Most though accept time is real.
of course , because time is based on BB emergence .
which means that time and space came about at the same moment . both are intertwined .
hence they think of time as a natural thing .
yet they don't delve into the essence of time its self .
I did , hence time , the essence of time , is based on movement .
Great! The BB is overwhelmingly the best theory we have on the evolution of space and time, known as spacetime. I've been trying to drub that into your head for ages river!
Now you have spoilt your credibility river. Shame, and you were going OK.
Delusions are not a good quality to have.
Great! The BB is overwhelmingly the best theory we have on the evolution of space and time, known as spacetime. I've been trying to drub that into your head for ages river!
Now you have spoilt your credibility river. Shame, and you were going OK.
Delusions are not a good quality to have.
no delusions from me .
lets go deeper
movement , the basis of time , is found in the atom and in the quantum . movement is the essence of all things .
the atom has the dynamics within it self and the dynamics between other atoms . rotation , magnetic fields , vibration ...
Hmmm, OK, I just thought you were indicating you knew more then what those professionals in the applicable field did. My mistake.
Hmmm, OK, I just thought you were indicating you knew more then what those professionals in the applicable field did. My mistake.
not know more but think deeper , upon time .
if I were to meet any one in this field , I would not present my case any different .
You don't have a case. You have rhetoric. If you had a case, you would be presenting a paper for professional, proper scientific peer review.
I have a case but who would read it ?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
We JUST finished showing this to be false, not 30 posts ago.
You contradicted your own assertion. I called it out, to wit:
R: duration is the movement of an object .
D: So ... objects have to move to have a duration?
R: yes
D: Huh! All these rocks sitting around not moving - just up 'n vanished!!
R: why would they vanish ?
D: Because they have zero duration. You said "duration is the movement of an object". So, no movement = no duration. Poof.
[Yet] you say [the rocks] are really there. And I agree.
Which directly contradicts your assertion that they have zero duration if they have zero movement.
Duration is not movement.
Last edited:
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
The time ("la hora" in Spanish) is the duration of the day.
The current date is the duration of the year.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I listed two distinct values that referred to the same time event, one of them has nothing to do with the current year.
So, you have one event, described by two different methods, whose durations have nothing to do with each other.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
The Unix time has a duration since January 1st, 1970.
- Status