Time isn't real so what does that mean?

a reply to: Nothin

Good points and your last point sums it up. You said:

In other words: perhaps we are imposing our thin and limited observational skills, on reality, and then calling our observations truths?

This is Plato and the Allegory of the cave. People just can't accept that the world they experience isn't an objective reality. Einstein showed the distinctions between past, present and future is just a persistent illusion. There's no objective now in 4D space-time.

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent ‘now’ objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

In the Allegory of the Cave the people in the cave wanted to kill the person who was freed from the cave. Heisenberg said this.

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

― Werner Heisenberg

People can't accept there's no such thing as a subatomic particle. When people hear the word particle they think of a particle of sand or a particle of salt. We're really dealing with subatomic states or excitations of an underlying quantum field which Quantum Field Theory says.

QFT treats particles as excited states of an underlying field, so these are called field quanta. In quantum field theory, quantum mechanical interactions among particles are described by interaction terms among the corresponding underlying quantum fields.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's another quote by Heisenberg,

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

originally posted by: Artemis12

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

We try to bend time one way, by tweaking our observations, and then the frigging uncooperative universe bends it the bleeding other way...

Mountain folks may live longer

It made me think after I posted that, about Tibetans. I remember reading articles about some in that region who have lived up to 500 years old, according to records kept by governing forces. So yes, it's a matter of perspective I suppose, to each their own. Could we each be living in our own Universe, connected but separate I mean, If everyone is right, who's to say what's accurate and what isn't, right?

Indeed: perspective seems to be how we experience everything.
Can one really say that the supposed objective observations of science, are absolutely true?
Facts and statistics can be twisted, to draw opposing conclusions.

So why get attatched to any of it all?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Artemis12

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

We try to bend time one way, by tweaking our observations, and then the frigging uncooperative universe bends it the bleeding other way...

Mountain folks may live longer

It made me think after I posted that, about Tibetans. I remember reading articles about some in that region who have lived up to 500 years old, according to records kept by governing forces. So yes, it's a matter of perspective I suppose, to each their own. Could we each be living in our own Universe, connected but separate I mean, If everyone is right, who's to say what's accurate and what isn't, right?

Indeed: perspective seems to be how we experience everything.
Can one really say that the supposed objective observations of science, are absolutely true?
Facts and statistics can be twisted, to draw opposing conclusions.

So why get attatched to any of it all?

I think that the attachment is our Human curiosity in overdrive. The need to know, pushes us regardless of the facts placed in front of us. Like an insignificant mad man once implied when he stated that, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."

a reply to: neoholographic

You have a beautiful vision of this, that goes from science, and also resonates with philosophy, and spitituality.
Your strength seems to be science, but you still see it.

Is not living in this QM golden age, a most wonderous thing?

a reply to: Artemis12

Perhaps we have made a few too many leaps-of-faith?

Are we convinced of our stories, and beliefs, then we call them truths?

Is science a story, belief, truth, ...?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

Is there an implication here, that all subjective observation is illusion?

If so: illusion according to what reality?

Maybe it is when seen from a skewed perspective. Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. Even if it is difficult to determine. All of reality is not some psychological magic act. If you see the earth as flat does that make it true for anyone but you?

Is perspective not always skewed?
Do you have any examples of objective truth, pertaining to time? (Other than the video you posted).

One sees what they see, and it seems to go through a lot of filters, before one reaches a conclusion.
Are these conclusions truths, or beliefs?

Is not science also observation, with the possibility of skewering reality?

Neo posted about human frame-rates. Perhaps this is one of the ways we perceive reality, and if so, then perhaps we are searching for intervals in nature, whether they are there or not?
In other words: perhaps we are imposing our thin and limited observational skills, on reality, and then calling our observations truths?

Yes. Thank you for agreeing with me.

a reply to: neoholographic

I am afraid to continue. I like you and I don't want to put you in the hospital.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

Is there an implication here, that all subjective observation is illusion?

If so: illusion according to what reality?

Maybe it is when seen from a skewed perspective. Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. Even if it is difficult to determine. All of reality is not some psychological magic act. If you see the earth as flat does that make it true for anyone but you?

Is perspective not always skewed?
Do you have any examples of objective truth, pertaining to time? (Other than the video you posted).

One sees what they see, and it seems to go through a lot of filters, before one reaches a conclusion.
Are these conclusions truths, or beliefs?

Is not science also observation, with the possibility of skewering reality?

Neo posted about human frame-rates. Perhaps this is one of the ways we perceive reality, and if so, then perhaps we are searching for intervals in nature, whether they are there or not?
In other words: perhaps we are imposing our thin and limited observational skills, on reality, and then calling our observations truths?

Yes. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Thanks, but please let it be noted that no agreements were acquiesced.

Just pondering what QM is revealing to us, and seriously challenging our previous beliefs of the solidity of time, and the universe.

It is nice to see the glimpses, of folks opening their minds, and thinking beyond established paradigms.

a reply to: toms54

Einstine would tell you the sun revolving around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun is relative. Since in reality they circle the center of the barycenter of the mass of out solar system. Everything in out solar system circles a point near the sun because that is where the largest mass is. Every single object in the solar system, from the Sun to the tiniest speck, exerts a gravitational pull on everything else. The solar system is basically a massive game of tug of war. With everything pulling on everything else finding thr center of thr mass isn't easy.

This is the reason why suns wobble people get stuck on the idea of gravity wells. This is a misunderstanding of gravity. People have seen the rubber being stretched and thinks that explains gravity it doesn't. It's a vast over simplification of what's going on.

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

Thanks and that link is interesting.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: toms54

Einstine would tell you the sun revolving around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun is relative. Since in reality they circle the center of the barycenter of the mass of out solar system. Everything in out solar system circles a point near the sun because that is where the largest mass is. Every single object in the solar system, from the Sun to the tiniest speck, exerts a gravitational pull on everything else. The solar system is basically a massive game of tug of war. With everything pulling on everything else finding thr center of thr mass isn't easy.

This is the reason why suns wobble people get stuck on the idea of gravity wells. This is a misunderstanding of gravity. People have seen the rubber being stretched and thinks that explains gravity it doesn't. It's a vast over simplification of what's going on.

Yes yes. It can be seen that the sun revolves around the earth. It's kind of the long way around an makes everything a lot more complicated. And a little autistic. I was just trying to illustrate a point.

Second part ???? Please explain.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

But your examples confuse objective reality with subjective experience. For the lightning train, lightning hits both ends simultaneously - objective. 2 other people - subjective. They are not seeing the true perspective. Clocks don't matter. They could compare their clock data with each other to arrive at the (objective) truth. 1 person could arrive at the truth if he knew the speed of light and all the relevant data. Just because something appears different to 3 people doesn't mean all are correct. Even if they make an accurate observation it is an illusion.

Is there an implication here, that all subjective observation is illusion?

If so: illusion according to what reality?

Maybe it is when seen from a skewed perspective. Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. Even if it is difficult to determine. All of reality is not some psychological magic act. If you see the earth as flat does that make it true for anyone but you?

Is perspective not always skewed?
Do you have any examples of objective truth, pertaining to time? (Other than the video you posted).

One sees what they see, and it seems to go through a lot of filters, before one reaches a conclusion.
Are these conclusions truths, or beliefs?

Is not science also observation, with the possibility of skewering reality?

Neo posted about human frame-rates. Perhaps this is one of the ways we perceive reality, and if so, then perhaps we are searching for intervals in nature, whether they are there or not?
In other words: perhaps we are imposing our thin and limited observational skills, on reality, and then calling our observations truths?

Yes. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Thanks, but please let it be noted that no agreements were acquiesced.

Just pondering what QM is revealing to us, and seriously challenging our previous beliefs of the solidity of time, and the universe.

It is nice to see the glimpses, of folks opening their minds, and thinking beyond established paradigms.

I suppose everyone hears what they want to hear. When you post a statement like "In other words: perhaps we are imposing our thin and limited observational skills, on reality, and then calling our observations truths?" that all who read it feels supports their position, no matter what it is; that's some talented writing.

a reply to: toms54

If that was intended as a compliment: thanks.

'T'wasn't really a statement tho.
Was a question, attempting to provoke/invoke contemplation.

As we question our interpretation of everything, is anything sacred, or does it all get passed through the filter?

If we give-up all of our current descriptions of time, and look deeper, to see what the experience is, at the base, where we have now covered-up with all of our fancy descriptions, theories, and measurements, what's left?

What is the phenomena underneath time, that we are trying to describe?

How do we experience this that is, underneath time?

Is our experience in chopped-up little blocks of time, or is there an apparently seamless flow?

a reply to: neoholographic

It could be the attempt to explain that time is man-made but doesn't have any foundation in chemistry.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: neoholographic

That was a very thorough explanation of time relativity and the nonexistance of it, it really does put it all into perspective in regards to time relativity. Here is something you may find interesting.

www.independent.co.uk...

The world's most accurate clock has neatly shown how right Albert Einstein was 100 years ago, when he proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age.

Thanks and that link is interesting.

This type of clock experiment is mentioned everywhere. It makes me wonder just what we are measuring. Take a disk and draw 2 radii in it. When the disk spins the outside goes faster even though the elapsed time from any point on the radius to go to any corresponding point on the other radius remains constant. So it would seem we are somehow measuring speed rather than elapsed time.

a reply to: toms54

This example shows that time remains the same. Rather, it is the distance that is expanded.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neoholographic

I am afraid to continue. I like you and I don't want to put you in the hospital.

LOL, You don't bother me. I have been on this site for years and I just have never seen someone come into this forum and make such an asinine comment like this:

I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.

If nothing you say is backed by science and you can't find any scientific papers then why are you in a science forum? You can make any stupid argument and then when someone says where's the evidence to back it up, you say:

I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.

a reply to: neoholographic

In my last posts, I used an example of a spinning disk and made a statement that the outer edge moves faster than the the inside. How can I document this? A high school textbook? It is so simple I just don't believe a journal article has ever been written about it. And I don't believe that you are unable to understand it without an explanation. It doesn't go against science. I doubt you are able to show a scientific paper be it a journal article, quote from a book or article or any source that says the edge does not spin faster.

Must everything be a memorized quote? Yes it is a science forum. I''m not writing a journal article. I am trying to make an observation about the subject at hand.

a reply to: toms54

You made the asinine comment.

You can say the moon is made of green cheese. Someone could ask where's the evidence. You would say:

I don't have access to a library and I don't have any scientific papers.

Have you ever heard of Google Scholar LOL?

I have heard some troll responses through the years but nothing this bad.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: neoholographic

You have a beautiful vision of this, that goes from science, and also resonates with philosophy, and spitituality.
Your strength seems to be science, but you still see it.

Is not living in this QM golden age, a most wonderous thing?

Thanks for the post and yes, this is a great thing.