Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
noname said:
As a response to the OP — I would consider time real, since we do appear to get older every day, month, and year.
Click to expand...

That is age and not time

Age is change between one arbitrary moment and another arbitrary moment

:)
 
This thread has become a cartoon of word salad chefs.

'No, my salad is the best!'
'No mine is!'
'Mine uses my new theory of C.R.O.U.T.O.N.S.!'
 
DaveC426913 said:
'Mine uses my new theory of C.R.O.U.T.O.N.S.!'
Click to expand...
you can read that even backward
Snot, our "c", take on the speed of light. time in its top embodyment.
the french have the right word for everything (theory of)
PS: good analogy, croutons, delicious tidbits that add flavour to a possibly bland subject (mental meal), see also "mouse milk" definitely right, delicious, nutritious, but useless to us in these small amounts,
 
Last edited:
The philochron line is actually a RAY and the duration is a segment of that ray.

.................... duration
o---------- b ................. e------------ > time (dimension)

o is origin
b is beginning
e is end
 
Asexperia said:
The philochron line is actually a RAY and the duration is a segment of that ray.

.................... duration
o---------- b ................. e------------ > time (dimension)

o is origin
b is beginning
e is end
Click to expand...

Do you eat crap for breakfast and then come here and vomit it up?

:)
 
Kittamaru said:
Pretty much - it's all a bunch of word salad that, honestly, doesn't even look good on paper.
Click to expand...
Now it appears in post #1486 he is answering his own question in the same post
Hope he starts taking his medication again soon

:)
 
Asexperia said:
The philochron line is actually a RAY and the duration is a segment of that ray.

.................... duration
o---------- b ................. e------------ > time (dimension)

o is origin
b is beginning
e is end
Click to expand...
Right and it all requires the chronological existence of something, before you can associate time with it. It says nothing about time existing before the universe itself came into being.

The beginning of nothing and the end of nothing does not require time. The beginning of something creates the beginning of time (duration) associated with that something.
 
A good example of time can be seen on the ITV show, "The Chase." It is possible for a contestant to be one question from graduating and the chaser to be two spaces behind. Had you not watched the whole game one may incorrectly state that the contestant would have had two goes at the higher offer. However previously during the game the chasers may have been only one question away from catching the player. You must watch the game from start to finish to know the truth.
 
Write4U said:
Right and it all requires the chronological existence of something, before you can associate time with it. It says nothing about time existing before the universe itself came into being.

The beginning of nothing and the end of nothing does not require time. The beginning of something creates the beginning of time (duration) associated with that something.
Click to expand...
Since science seems to be going with energy in existence before the Big Bang producing particles popping in and out of existence it would appear to me the potential would be there to measures the intervals between one pop in and another.

However that would only give a age to the interval, it would not bring time into existence

And since my track record about TIME is well known I would contend nothing has changed TIME still does not exist

:)
 
For some, time does not exist because it is imperceptible. But it is something physical
because it can be measured. That is why time is magnitive.
 
Michael 345 said:
Since science seems to be going with energy in existence before the Big Bang producing particles popping in and out of existence it would appear to me the potential would be there to measures the intervals between one pop in and another.

However that would only give a age to the interval, it would not bring time into existence
Click to expand...

However, since there are so many pops overlapping, there is a time continuum; ages add up to time. going on forever, creating time by overlapping energy releases, popping means acceleration, so, you have time squared even, not only
time is real imho, but so must be timespace and energytime, because popping has to have location. and popping has to have energy. ALMA in alternative theories has the model.
timespace and energytime before the BB and still around us, our future, the time we expand into.
 
Last edited:
nebel said:
However, since there are so many pops overlapping, there is a time continuum; ages add up to time. going on forever, creating time by overlapping energy releases, popping means acceleration, so, you have time squared even, not only
time is real imho, but so must be timespace and energytime, because popping has to have location. and popping has to have energy. ALMA in alternative theories has the model.
timespace and energytime before the BB and still around us, our future, the time we expand into.
Click to expand...
No idea what all that is about

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
No idea what all that is about
Click to expand...
here, below is your answer, the ALMA thread is an elaboration on that.

paddoboy said:
doesn’t believe time is ever in motion like this. In the first place, he says, time should be regarded as a dimension of spacetime, as relativity theory holds — so it does not pass by us in some way, because spacetime doesn’t. Instead, time is part of the uniform larger fabric of the universe, not something moving around inside it.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/book-brad-skow-does-time-pass-0128
Click to expand...

Time must be even a fabric that existed before the universe.
 
OH MY GOD WITH THE ALMA THREAD ALREADY
IF I WANTED TO READ THAT THREAD I'D READ IT
ENOUGH WITH THE CONSTANT SHILLING ALREADY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top