Challenge: Prove Time Exist

if you can measure time it exists. This was proven by placing an atomic clock on an airplane traveling around the world and then comparing it to an identicle clock that was the control placed on the earth.It was proven that you could slow down time with the speed of an object,hence time does exist.

the problem with time is that you can only prove it with memory. We are forever int the present so it hard to prove a past or future. Since we can't move through time, it's almost impossible to prove it. If we couldn't move forward and backward, how would we prove that forward and backward exist.

please read above post

This thread has certainly produced a lot of food for thought, with some very insightful posts.

First, I must confess, I'm in no position to provide a proof one way or the other as to the existence or nonexistence of "time". On the one hand my intuition/instinct tells me, "Of course time exists. Otherwise my life has been an illusion, and my future but a dream.", but on the other hand I'm not convinced that "time" is in reality anything more than a conceptual model, or method of measurement, our brains have invented to put things/events in their rightful place. It's one of those things you can feel, but can't quite touch.

I kinow that Peter Lynds' ideas regarding "time" incite controversy, and that there are those who consider them as outright rubbish. But, there is also a respectable number of well established theoreticians who believe he might be onto something very basic and fundamental. I, personally, lean toward the latter. From reading some of his work, my gut tells me that he has struck a nerve, and that the implications of his ideas need more study and thoughtful consideration. I don't think he argues one way or the other as to the reality, or existence, of "time", but rather makes the argument that we have thus far not devised a model, or mathematics, to correctly describe the true nature or properties of "time" and it's relation to relative motion. Therefore, our concept of "time" needs a little tweaking in order to fit the "reality" that Nature presents to us.

Since I'm not very good at explaining this, I'm including something I read and copied from a physics forum I visited awhile back. I can't recall the link, but it's the comments of someone who went by the name of TDHawkes. It is this person's take on the ideas of Peter Lynds, which I personally tend to agree with. By the way, you can get a .pdf copy of Peter Lynds' paper titled, “Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminancy vs. Discontinuity,” at

arxiv.org...

Now, for the comments of TDHawkes:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
TDHawkes - The Work of Peter Lynds

Continuous Flow Dynamics – The Next Phase!


“Time enters mechanics as a measure of interval.”

“..there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process.”

Peter Lynds, “Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminancy vs. Discontinuity,” to be published in Foundations of Physics Letters.
cdsweb.cern.ch...


Mathematics and much of human thought, including language (words), is composed of established “processes” structuring the interaction between discrete “packets” of “something,” be that some kind of quantity or some kind of information, in order to communicate and make sense of experience.

This limits our ability to understand or communicate aspects of experience which don’t lend themselves to being quantified or encapsulated in a fixed form -- things like time.

Mr. Lynds’ work on time, which is generating such interest and controversy in the world of physics, has been criticized because it supplies no mathematical model to support its contentions. This is because our present mathematics has no adequate means for describing the continuous flow of energy, information, and matter which permits the Universe to exist.

Indeed, it maybe that our nervous systems have only in the last generation or two evolved to the point that we are capable of assimilating and organizing the massive amounts of information flowing continuously into our bodies from our environment, such that we can at last begin to conceptualize and organize our thoughts around what may be one of the central attributes of Nature – the Dynamics of Continuous Flow.

Our ancestors were so unsure of the flow of event and time that they actually believed if certain rituals were not performed at certain times of year that life itself would cease -- the sun would no longer rise, the rains would cease to fall, livestock and women would fail to bear offspring. They encapsulated their understanding and their experience into stories, rituals and beliefs which allowed them to feel anchored in the midst of constant change. In fact, if you examine most of the prayers and supplications of recent major religions (since about 2000 BCE) you will find that the God they postulate and petition is one who is changeless, static, and provides simple formulas for action which will permit life to continue felicitously.

All our philosophies and sciences were born within this conceptual framework postulating a static Universe composed of discrete elements interacting in precise, unchanging ways. But this was clearly just a stage in the evolution of our understanding – witness the rise of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and relativity theory.

So, we have been moving into an entirely different mode of perception for quite some time now. With the aid of supercomputers, we can move even further beyond the last vestiges of old conceptual frameworks rooted in the notion of “staticness.”

Simply put, we need a mathematics, a language, and a philosophy whose structures do not arise from fear of or resistance to change – a mathematics, language and philosophy which does not encapsulate Dynamic Continuous Flow into discrete moments, objects, or processes but indicates direction, intensity, duration, interactions, and contents of Flow.

Mathematics evolves as our understanding evolves. We have seen many new mathematics arise throughout history —Euclidean geometry, calculus and its many variations, and recently fractal mathematics. We see that language evolves continuously. We do not speak the same language our direct ancestors spoke. In fact, English speakers in this 21st century, can no longer easily comprehend what we now call “Old” English, so many things have changed.

We are involved in Flow at all times, and have always been. What we need now is to seriously probe Mr. Lynd’s tentative notions, rise to the challenge he offers and create a mathematics that will adequately describe the continuous Flow of the Universe. Then we can interface new technologies with this Flow, do things, go to places our ancestors could only dream of.
---------------------------------------------------------

And now, it's "time" to go. I enjoyed the thread - Thanks!


[edit on 6/29/2005 by netbound]

Maybe first one should define what it means to "exist". I think there are pre-existing assumptions in most people's minds when someone says the word "real" or "exists", and therefore this question of time existing or not cannot be answered without being more specific, without defining what exactly one means by "exists". For example, obviously time DOES exist in the sense that we all experience what seems to be a continuous flow of cause and effect, and motion. But is this a universal constant, is it a dimention, is it simply a product of our minds, is it something that can be measured or detected, or is it entirely subjective and variable? Is it just our common illusion or is it something more?

Given that the true nature of the universe (by that I mean all that exists) is that of having no beginning nor ending, I must conclude that time is nothing more than an illusion, because given infinity, the existance of time creates a contradiction which seems to only be resolved if time does not objectively exist as a universal constant. But the question I'd have then is, at what level does this illusion of time exist? Obviously it's not at the level of the conscious mind, because we cannot just "wish it away" consciously, it is something that persists and seems to be true for all people. But what do we really know about our subconscious minds?

My understanding is that, if you can prove that time simply CANNOT exist, then the question of "does it exist" would be resolved. And so to be more specific, is there a "universal constant" that we must "travel through" in order to get from "POINT A" to "POINT B" (assuming those points exist ON the "timeline", if there is such a thing as a timeline)?

The proof of why time cannot possibly exist seems to be pretty simple, and I'll use an analogy. If you have an infinite number line, there is no way you could ever arrive at any number by starting at the beginning or at the end of the number line, since there IS no beginning or end to infinity. So, if you wanted to look at the number 3 (for example), you'd have to simply hop directly to it, since once again, you cannot possibly arrive at 3 from either direction, because there is no beginning or ending to an infinite number line, there is no starting point. Well yes you could arrive at 3 from either direction but ONLY if you already HOPPED on another number that is a finite distance from 3. So yes if I start at 7 I can arrive at 3. But my point is that you cannot start at the END or beginning, since they don't exist in an infinite number line.

Now consider the infinite number line and just put in the word "timeline" instead. Since you can not have something out of nothing, then it is logical to conclude that SOMETHING has always existed, there was never ever a time when absolute nothingness existed, as absolute nothingness would forever continue to exist. Therefore, IF time is real, it must be infinite in both directions (past and future). And if it is infinite, then there is no way you could arrive at any point in this timeline by traveling from either direction, since both directions lead forever into infinity. The only way to look at any point of the timeline is to focus directly on the point, just as you'd focus on a number in a numberline.

There is only one problem. IF time was real, then there was no way you could just focus on any point in the timeline without having to cross all the points that come before it. Even if you have a time machine, it simply means you'd be crossing all those points faster than normal, but u'd still have to cross them. And as we have already determined, there are an infininity of points to cross, since there is no beginning or ending. Therefore, if time is real, we would not be able to exist at ANY point in time, because we'd still be trying to cross infinity before we could exist at that point in the timeline.

And since "crossing infinity" is impossible because infinity never ends, and because we DO exist, I must conclude that time does not objectively exist, and is just an illusion of some sort. Just like the infinite number line does not exist, but only in potential - we can hop to any number in existance, but there will ALWAYS be one number higher. We could never reach "the end", nor could we reach "the beginning". The difference between a timeline and a number line is, in a time line you HAVE TO cross every point that comes before any other point in order to arrive at any point, because otherwise it would defeat its own purpose, and would not be called a timeline! In fact, even if you are thinking of "wormholes" or "bending space-time" or whatever technique that might let you skip points, you're still crossing a FINITE distance between your current location (in space or time) and your destination. You could never cross an infinite distance, no matter how fast you are going - since infinity does not end.

Hence, time, as an objective universal constant, does not exist, because if it did, nothing else would exist since it would still be trying to get through infinity before it could exist at any point, since every point in time would have an infinity of time before it in the past that one must first cross, and you cannot cross infinity, since it never ever ends!

So when the Bible says "In the beginning, God created...." you must always ask, "What did he do for the infinity of time before that?". And if you're not yet told to shut up, or you're given some answer, you can continue "Oh wait, you can't do ANYTHING for infinity and THEN create something after that, since infinity never ends!". So there is no ultimate creation of all things, no beginning, and there is no ultimate destruction or ending. Of course, that won't fly with religion, because then you'd have no possible use for any "Creator God", and religion just can't exist without a concept of God and without you having to obey his commands and fear his threats if you don't obey, etc! So don't go telling your pastor that you suddenly had a moment of enlightenment and it didn't look good for religion to say the least, cuz he won't like that and might revoke your Church membership!

Consider that religions are a dime a dozen, and when humanity begins to travel to different planets, we'll suddenly realise that we're not the only ones that were controlled through religion, and after we see about 1000 variations of "God" and the "creation story", we'll eventually just be sick of hearing it! So we'll just go to a planet and they'll be like "Oh we must tell you the truth, you must obey our God in order to be saved, and here are the things you need to do..." and we'll say "blah blah blah, been there done that, heard it all before! Wake up silly fool!".

But I wouldn't recommend hopping planets and trying to snap people out of their religions. It doesn't work on our planet either! The simple solution is, either an individual "gets it" or they don't. But until they do, they'll easily believe the most contradictory nonsense and swear by it, and there is nothing anyone can do about it! Free will and all! Besides, we each learn our lessons in our own time, in our own way. Until we're ready to SEE and snap out of our own personal illusions, nothing anyone says will matter!

Ok rant is over ;o

[edit on 1-7-2005 by lilblam]

Ok Quest how about this one?

energy X space
oscillation * =Time

* Frequency of wave rotation relative to other energetic formations

From: www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il...

Space, energy, and time function as one unit, which constitutes an integral part of energetic matter's activities. Space is expanded and time is prolonged, or expanded, in proportion to the increase in energetic activity. Since energetic matter is found in closed, spiral rings/quants, time is a obviously a component of these structures as well.

...snip>

....time's very existence is dependent on energetic matter. In the absence of space or energy, the natural phenomenon of time is both irrelevant and impossible.

...snip>

In other words, time decreases relative to the decrease in energetic matter’s space. Loss of energy means loss of time and space, while an increase in energy is synonymous with larger space and extended time. Time thus depends on the size of and amount of energy in a wave.

...snip>

...like all forms of energetic matter, even the universe undergoes life cycles and is not infinite. Consequently, absolute time is similarly finite and proceeds along its own cycle.

Dr. Tejman also has an interesting theory on the 'Backwards' Time Paradox which IMO is also relevant here.

After all, the velocity of light is determined by energetic matter, which consists of shrinking energy, space, and time. Every activity of energetic matter is thus linked to space and time. Consequently, time travels together with the other two media. Energy, space, and time are all composed of formations that are not constrained by either form or size and are open to many other possibilities as well. Consequently, time is not merely a philosophical or imaginary dimension, but -- like energy and space -- it is a tangible element. Every movement of energetic activity has its time and space, which are preserved in the genes. Each of these genes can be thought of as another frame of a movie that are followed one after the other and together form the entire history of energetic matter (space, time, and energy).

Backward time, backward space, and backward energy are beyond the powers of our imagination, but I have made an effort to describe these concepts with the assistance of the two-loop structure. This article merely provides the rudimentary ideas behind backward time, but its possibilities in both minute and vast formations are endless. It is hardly surprising, then, that this topic intensified the endless debate between Einstein and Plank. However, wave theory’s two quants in a single wave formation has finally united the two ingenious yet divided camps.

No way to know if the good Dr. has it figured out with his Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory or not. But his site is a good read, especially if your interested in understanding the nature of Time.

Nothing exists but what our brains percieve. Thought is the basic principle of all exsistence, and without thought we wouldn't exsist. Everything today that we can think of was created by man, and yes time was also created. Our current perception of time is wrong. Time is a frequency not an event of passing moments.

Here is a good thread if you are interested in Time.


The 4th Dimension is Time



edit: to fix link

[edit on 7-2-2005 by CPYKOmega]

yes your right ,the 4th dim is time and the 1st,2nd,and third are all intertwined together.Which in turn is this reality ,hense time exists by your example.

It seems that you're not looking for an answer like "events pass, and things decay and change, therefore time exists", or something like "this equation proves the 4th dimension, which is time" because you wonder if all of this is in our minds, right? If it is, then all of these points would become invalid. Because of this, I doubt any real answer will come of this discussion. I'd offer my 2 cents and say that if everything is in our heads, then time must be passing for these thought processes to occur, but if it IS in our heads, who knows what time really is and if it's changing? Whether it's in our heads or not, I believe our very definition of time is wrong. The question of how the universe began is a paradox, and proves that something is flawed. I wonder if our view of time will ever change...