Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're wrong.
Prove it. I am requesting you provide evidence of this, or retract your statement.

You're confusing time with moment.
A moment is a period of time. A moment is a duration. Nobody is confusing "time" and "moment" except, seemingly, you.

What's your definition of time?
I rather like the globally accepted definition(s):

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

As already explained, numerous times - the passage of time just is. Our notion and marking of time is decidedly human, and is based on the period of Earth's rotation and travel around the Sun. However, even if there were no humans here to measure it, time would still march on. It is merely our method of measuring its passage that requires us to be here to notice it.
 
1/ Time itself does not exist

2/ The past does not exist

3/ The future does not exist

NOW is the only moment in existence

Regarding 1/ try to obtain a book called The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville which goes in great detail of why time does not exist

What is normally regarded as time is better defined as AGE

AGE
is not time. Age measures, in arbitrary units, change

The rocks which do not move still change from a variety of forces to which they are exposed

The age of a person is marketed with arbitrary units and the forces acting on the person are clear to see

Please get and read the book which outshines my efforts here to explain why I think time does not exist

:)
 
6.4.1 Time Cannot Be Detected

Time has never been detected: no physical indication of a manifestation has ever been identified. Clocks are neither time detectors nor time emitters. Clocks are more precise than Nile floods, but they are only passive human-made devices, in so far as their functioning requires energy. Moreover, their accuracy depends on their level of technology, and it also depends on their environment, including gravity. The error is common: gravity disrupts the clock mechanism, not time; this is confirmed by all experiments with gravity (Ch. 8, 4)

From

The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville

:)
 
6.4.1 Time Cannot Be Detected

Time has never been detected: no physical indication of a manifestation has ever been identified. Clocks are neither time detectors nor time emitters. Clocks are more precise than Nile floods, but they are only passive human-made devices, in so far as their functioning requires energy. Moreover, their accuracy depends on their level of technology, and it also depends on their environment, including gravity. The error is common: gravity disrupts the clock mechanism, not time; this is confirmed by all experiments with gravity (Ch. 8, 4)

From

The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville

:)

If time does not exist, and cannot be detected...

Then what, exactly, is time dilation as caused by high-fractional relativistic velocities?
 
Prove it. I am requesting you provide evidence of this, or retract your statement.

A moment is a period of time. A moment is a duration. Nobody is confusing "time" and "moment" except, seemingly, you.

I rather like the globally accepted definition(s):

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

As already explained, numerous times - the passage of time just is. Our notion and marking of time is decidedly human, and is based on the period of Earth's rotation and travel around the Sun. However, even if there were no humans here to measure it, time would still march on. It is merely our method of measuring its passage that requires us to be here to notice it.

Time (duration) is the interval between two sequential moments (events).
A moment is a point in time.
 
Time (duration) is the interval between two sequential moments (events).
That does not prove your statement that time requires an event to exist. Time still exists, even if nothing else is happening.

Example - an empty room. At 11:00am, it is empty. At 1:00pm, it is still empty. Two hours have passed, yet no "event" took place beyond time passing.

By your definition, since nothing happened, then time did not pass. This is obviously, apparently, and demonstrably untrue. Thus, your premise is faulty.

A moment is a point in time.
A moment is a measurement of time - a vague and nondescript approximation, but a measurement none the less.
 
That does not prove your statement that time requires an event to exist. Time still exists, even if nothing else is happening.

Example - an empty room. At 11:00am, it is empty. At 1:00pm, it is still empty. Two hours have passed, yet no "event" took place beyond time passing.

By your definition, since nothing happened, then time did not pass. This is obviously, apparently, and demonstrably untrue. Thus, your premise is faulty.


A moment is a measurement of time - a vague and nondescript approximation, but a measurement none the less.

You don't take into account the air and the particles
of the walls, the ceiling and the floor. There are changes
in them (becoming).
 
You don't take into account the air and the particles
of the walls, the ceiling and the floor. There are changes
in them

That is irrelevant.

Example - same example, but in deep space, in one of the areas between galactic clusters. Take an imaginary one foot cube.

There may be some trace particles of hydrogen, but overall, there is nothing of mention there. Yet, time is still marching right along.


(becoming).
covfefe

Nothing is "becoming" anything. Quit trying to play with alphabet soup.
 
That is irrelevant.

Example - same example, but in deep space, in one of the areas between galactic clusters. Take an imaginary one foot cube.

There may be some trace particles of hydrogen, but overall, there is nothing of mention there. Yet, time is still marching right along.

How do you know there is nothing there? Imagining?

In the example of the empty room, how do you
know that the room is empty at 11:00 AM and continue
empty at 1:00 PM?
 
How do you know there is nothing there? Imagining?
Simple - it's my experiment.

In the example of the empty room, how do you
know that the room is empty at 11:00 AM and continue
empty at 1:00 PM?

Simple - it's my experiment. The room is locked down, nobody allowed in and out. Want to get super sandman about it? Anyone that tries to enter the room gets shot. Repeatedly.

Silly? Sure - but guess what - that's irrelevant. The example stands, and your inability to actually disprove it shows.

That said, I think we can call this tangent done. Time exists, even when nothing is happening.
 
If time does not exist, and cannot be detected...

Then what, exactly, is time dilation as caused by high-fractional relativistic velocities?

I'll need to go back to the book. A while since I read it but I think a explanation is in there

Stand by please

:)
 
Then what, exactly, is time dilation as caused by high-fractional relativistic velocities?

8.3 Time, Space, and Relativity
Interactions without gravity are described by special relativity, while interactions in
the presence of massive systems are described by general relativity. The parameters used to measure the states of relativistic systems, are no longer invariant, apart from some constants like the speed of light or the spatial constant p; the information which is received, is distorted compared to the information which is emitted. The covariance of the parameters is caused by:
• The high speed of the object relative to the observer (relativistic speed).
• The propagation of information at the speed of light.
• Gravity during interactions with massive systems.
8.3.1 Special Relativity
The theory was published in 1905 by Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Information,
emitted by a relativistic object is distorted when it reaches the laboratory; con-
versely, information emitted by the laboratory is distorted when it reaches the relativistic system. The parameters lose their invariance: the object looks smaller, its mass and its temperature look higher, etc. In relativity, parameters are covariant.
Time seems to flow more slowly, durations look longer, and chronological age thus increases more slowly. In contrast, biological age and aging increase more quickly because of gravitational stress, which is not taken into account in theoretical
physics.
The formulas we owe to the French mathematician Henri Poincaré (1854–1912)
and the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (1853–1928) restore values of the data
provided by the relativistic system, given values of the received data. Let us look at
the alterations of space and time:
• The contraction of the length of an object is such that
l0 ¼ l 1 -
v2
=c2 1=2
in which “l” is the real length of the object and “l′” is the length of the object when it is observed from the laboratory.

• The dilatation of duration of an event is such that
t
0 ¼ t 1 -
v2
=c2 -
1=2
in which “t” is the duration of a relativistic event and “t′” is the duration measured
with the laboratory clock.
A traveler moving at speed v = c/2 (150 000 km/s) sees the scientist in the
laboratory smaller than he is: 1 m 47 instead of 1 m 70. According to calculations,
the scientist is 13.4 % less aged (theoretical chronological age); in fact, the traveler
will not be able to see this, because less aged does not mean younger (biological
age): the scientist does not rejuvenate. The phenomenon is reciprocal: the scientist
makes the same findings about the traveler (Fig. 8.1). Ultimately, they both pre-
serve their respective integrity. These relativistic mirages are caused by the co-
variance of the parameters.
The lifetime of the p+ meson is 2.5 10−8 s in its own reference frame, but in a
synchrotron where its speed is increased to 0.99995 c, the lifetime observed is c. 2.5
10−6 s. It seems that its life lasts 100 times longer at this speed: this feeling is belied
by the relativistic correction of the measures ([3]: Ch. III).
It was essential to rebuild a parametric invariance; we observe with interest that
this achieved thanks to a mathematical combination of the two abstract parameters
whose physical inexistence has been demonstrated:
ds2 ¼ c2
dt2 -
dx2 þ dy2 þ dz2
The time parameter “dt” and the space parameters “dx”, “dy”, and “dz” are no
longer invariant. The new invariant parameter “ds” is called the elementary interval
of spacetime, due to Minkowski.1 This is an original concept which replaces time
and space and remains to be defined.
According to the definitions of time and space, two states of a relativistic system
allow us to define the invariant concept of spacetime interval: this concept is more
Propagation
REFERENCE <--------------------------> RELATIVISTIC
of information
LABORATORY <------------------------> SYSTEM
at speed of light
Fig. 8.1 Reciprocity of the covariance of parameters
1
Hermann Minkowski, Baltic mathématician (1864-1909).

From

The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville

The cut and paste from the book has mangled the formula and at 2am on holiday in Bali I'm to lazy to try to fix it but I hope you get a feel from the text

Cheers

:)
 
Ignoring biological age et al, though, we still have the fact that if someone "at rest" records a 24 hour period, and compares it to a stopwatch doing that same 24 hour period whilst going half the speed of light, there will be a fairly significant difference in the times shown.

Which, again, circles back to - if time, as a dimension, doesn't exist... then why the discrepancy.
 
Ignoring biological age et al, though, we still have the fact that if someone "at rest" records a 24 hour period, and compares it to a stopwatch doing that same 24 hour period whilst going half the speed of light, there will be a fairly significant difference in the times shown.

Which, again, circles back to - if time, as a dimension, doesn't exist... then why the discrepancy.

:) Have mercy. It's now 2:30 in the morning and I'm on holiday and get woken up by a KMart bladder and stupid brain says check your emails. Now I'm debating the Universe

Please find and read the book as I really do not wish to cut and paste all of it and honest some of the details are beyond me

I find I get tangled if I try to put it into my own words. I do have saved somewhere a personal type of explanation but it does not deal with your question

Funny thing is nobody has thought of a answer to the explanation either :)

Cheers :)

Now see if I can turn this off before another email pops up

:)
 
Einstein showed that both time and space were not absolute as once thought.
There is no universal "now". The question that needs to be asked is if time is fundamental or otherwise. Many cosmologists accept that time and space are real, although there is ongoing debate on the question.
Again, I like Sean Carroll's explanation.
For those adverse to watching long videos [as am I] this is only 8 minutes long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top