Why Time Does NOT Exist!

reply to post by sirnex


Yeah, I can follow you, but you aren't leading anywhere. I can also write my name in the snow, and I have a long name, if you know what I mean, can you?

I would really rather not make this an adversarial discussion. Your argument has merit, but it is against the main stream. I think I see what you mean, once the situation of the world becomes the past, it is obliterated, a state of existence that we can never return to. I agree that this is a high possibility, that time travel can never be achieved. Still, the understanding of time as a fourth dimension is still a very legitimate way to view the world. Let me give an example.

You are viewing an object that is .1 light years away, so that when you physically see that object, it is at the position the object occupied in space a little over a month ago. Now lets say that you are also observing another object in the same approximate distance as the first, and that this other object was on a collision course with the first, or that they were to pass within confrontational range (as in two star trek type space ship encounters ). Now the results of that confrontation would appear to you real time even though it actually occurred more than a month ago, unless you had developed a way to communicate that is faster than life. Now lets say that one of those ships were heading your way at approximately the speed of light, but less than the speed of light. You could then know for certainty which ship will arrive, and what that means, before the ship arrives. I think this serves as a good example of why the dimension of time is valid.

As for the influence of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, considering the proven vibrational frequencies that all bodies display, I think there could be established considerable relationship between our aging process and the Earths revolution around the sum. Our very existence is one delicate balance of forces. The second law ties force to direction, which justifies the existence of time. As humans, our physical life cycle is dependent upon the forces acting upon us, and mathematically, the gravitational force of the sun on the Earth has its influence

I think that is a poor example of time and here is why. First we need to define two terms used in your example.

* Second: The number of oscillations observed in the cesium atom

* Month: The rotational period of the earth around the sun divided into twelve nearly equal parts.


The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. As we know, it travels that distance per a certain amount of oscillations observed in the cesium atom. The speed of light has never been observed to travel faster than that. When a particle of light is bouncing off your two ships, it can only travel at that speed.

So, if you have two ships away at .1 LY, due to the capped limit of C, you can only see what is reflected from .1 LY. If you know the distance of one ship coming towards you and it's speed, then obviously you can calculate with relative ease a point of intersection with your ship.

The rotation of the earth around the sun has no effect on age beyond the measurement of what we call a year. All matter is in a state of decay and automatically seeks out the lowest possible state of energy. But I'm jumping ahead of myself mentioning that ... What we define as a year has no bearing on physical and biological processes. We age because genetics doesn't allow for infinite cellular reproduction.

Imagine crossing a wide river, sticking out of that river are a multitude of stepping stones. As you cross from from side to the other, only a few stepping stones are actually alighted upon even though the others could function perfectly well if your path actually lead you to step onto them.

This is my analogy for the sequence of events that conspire to present the universe as we know it, albeit over-simplified. My opinion is that the universe as we can perceive it exists as an infinite series (yet parallel!) non-dimensional points. Past, present, future, they all exist and were defined at the point of the universe's dimensional creation. Time is simply a path through those points.

Since we're crossing the river one way to get to the other side, time churns out a predictable, apparently linear path, however, each point is defined in its own right and does not decay or cease to exist (per se) just because we have passed beyond it.

To my mind, this explains the possibility of a number of anomalous activites, from past life regression (multiple time points that "leak" for want of a better word), the concept of ghosts to space travel beyond light speed etc., etc.

Now I'm not trying to sell this as "the theory", merely stating that for me, it explains a lot and seems reasonable, possibly concurring with some of the dilemmas faced when explaining the "big bang" in that "time" doesn't appear to have to be constant - it simply being the path between the points and not a defining attribute for how "close" those points are to each other.

Maybe I'm just looking for the best fit scenario, but it works for me :-)

reply to post by SugarCube


First, we have to define what a dimension is. For our three dimensional universe we have, length, width, hight. From all observable instances, these are the ony three physical aspects of the universe that we know exist in reality and not just on paper. The how's and why's are not known as of right now and there are many theories and ideas which all disagree with each other and are highly controversial.

We don't know how the universe came to be, we will probably never know the answer to that question. However, we can't justifiably say that a theory is a fact and most of what we push as facts are just theories. Time is a theory, we have never once observed some force or physical aspect that we can point at and declare as time. All we have been doing is measuring distances, velocities, and positions to denote some concept of time.

There is no reason to believe that there are parallel universes or multiple points in a temporal line coexisting together either. All of these are just theories as well with no known observable physical attribute in our universe. Since all measures of time are based upon the sequential movements of physical objects within our universe, it only makes sense that time travel cannot be possible unless you can somehow intrinsically force the universe into a reverse direction while locally keeping yourself in constant forward motion. For lack of a better way to explain it.

I'll be more than happy to brush up on past lives and ghosts later today despite it being beyond the scope of this topic, but right now I have to let my kids on the computer.

What would be interesting (and I'll do the same) is if we all take the day to think really hard about this subject. Create our own individual theories of what time is. Write them out in notepad or word, read, reread, and reread them constantly refining those theories and then post them. Would make for an excellent thought experiment. The discussion has been great, but I think it's time now to move beyond discussion and really lay this topic on the table.

reply to post by sirnex


I don't see how it matters which measurement of time one uses. You observed the confrontation between two ships .1 light hears away. You see the result of this confrontation when the light arrives at your point of observation. What you are watching occurred over a month ago, but you are watching it as if it was happening at that exact moment. Then you observe one of the ships approaching you. Because that ship is moving at a speed of nine tenths the speed of light, it appears to be traveling towards you at a much higher speed than it is actually moving. You observe a battle that took place over a month ago, and then one of the ships speeding towards you. The battle takes place almost a month ago, that you are observing now, the ship has been traveling towards you for a month now, but it will arrive at your destination approximately 3.5 days from when you observe the battle. This whole occurrence took place in real time coordinates. If the other ship takes off in the opposite direction, it will appear to be traveling much slower. If the other ship is going to a place 1 light year distance, it will be approximately a year before the ship arrives there, and slightly less time that the other planet becomes aware of the confrontation in the first place, if the fastest form of communication is the speed of light. Do you see the real world time implications?

Being that life cycles are very much influenced by the environment in which they exist, the distance of the Earth from the sun, and the time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun most likely has some influence on life cycles and therefore life spans of animals on the earth.

reply to post by sirnex


Actually, the passage of time is every bit as observable as length, width, and thickness. Because we are able to watch things move with our perception of light, we see things occur instantaneously. We watch something travel, able to observe it essentially continuously, we can calculate the moment of its arrival before it arrives. This is how we observe the passage of time.

reply to post by poet1b


I don't think your understanding the physics of what is happening even in your own examples.

A month in your example is based upon the calculations of one point to the next. You can pick any arbitrary point within the cycle of the earth around the sun as your starting point, observe the rotation until that exact point occurs again. Then, decide how many days you want in your month and divide it by the number of cycles between day and night from the point you picked following it's re-occurrence. We defined what a second is, we defined what a month is, we defined what a year is. Your thinking too hard. There isn't anything special about the universe that requires all these non observable things.

When you define the number of cycles that occur from the earths rotation around the sun and then divide, divide, and divide some more until you have all sorts of man made units of measurement, then you CAN apply those to determine when two points will interact based off that unit of measurement.

What you are talking about is the interaction of one physical particle with another physical particle. You are calculating a fictitious unit of measurement invented by humans to calculate an approximate point that these particles will interact with each other and with yourself. Just because this fictitious unit of measurement is useful to some extent does not mean it is a fundamental aspect of the universe. There is no force of time. There never has been, and just because ignorant people say there is, does not make it so. There are also ignorant people who believe in invisible deities, hundreds of them throughout history, but not a single one exists in reality.

The sun has minimal effects on our biological processes, and even less on the biological process of aging. The most the sun has there is with skin cancers and such. I would really love to get into the mechanics of how and why we age, I really would, but if you can't grasp the simple physics behind particle interactions, then there is no hope of you grasping more complex biological processes behind aging. Actually, even that isn't so complex either, but still beyond the scope of your understanding.

I don't want you to take this message the wrong way, it's just extremely frustrating when you keep giving the same examples despite my attempts to show you how faulty they are. You are closed minded on the issue and have decided for yourself what the truth is without actively looking at all angles of the problem. That is just pure ignorance and a good example of why our limits of understanding are so low.

There is a great huge and awesome universe out there for you to explore, but until your ready, it will forever be closed off from you. You may be able to get by in life with what little you understand now, but why limit the lengths of knowledge you can learn if you just look?

reply to post by sirnex


And I keep repeating that you are too hung up on units of measure. When you talk about a second being a concept made by men, the same is also true for an inch or a mile, or a meter, or a pound. All of these are concepts made up by men, and all of them were made up to measure observable phenomenon of our world. The phenomenon that these units measure are real, whether you are talking about time or distance or weight, only the concept that men have created to measure these things is what we have defined. Time, distance, and forcer are all very real.

When you state:

"When you define the number of cycles that occur from the earths rotation around the sun and then divide, divide, and divide some more until you have all sorts of man made units of measurement, then you CAN apply those to determine when two points will interact based off that unit of measurement."

You ignore that you can determine when two points interact without applying units of measure, as a baseball player does when he hits a ball pitched at him, or musician does as he plays music. A realization of time does not need a human defined unit of measure.

You claim "The sun has minimal effects on our biological processes". Sorry, but without the sun, life would not exist on Earth. The sun sets our temperature that allows oxygen to fill our atmosphere, water to exist in a liquid state, and plants, that create our food, our physical source of energy. You need exposure to the sun for certain vitamins. The sun also helps to establish the tides, as well as the seasons. The heating and cooling cycles of the Earths relationship with the sun creates a huge amount of biological phenomenon, such as rain and weather, that has immense effect on the evolution of life.

reply to post by sirnex


Um, by the way, you are the one who seems to have no grasp of science. I have been working as a technician applying real world science for over twenty years, solving technical problems that others could not, working in research and development in an area that leads the world in the development of technology.

I keep trying to introduce you to a more advanced way of looking at things, but you just don't seem to be willing or capable of grasping the points. You wanted evidence to back up my claims, and I provided that evidence. The vast majority of the scientific community recognizes the existence of time, at the very least as a dimension. If you are going to prove the scientific community wrong, you need to come up with something better than claiming because a unit of measure of time is a man made concept, time itself is a made up concept, because all you are doing it pointing at the tress and saying, where is the forest, all I can see is all these trees. The existence of time is quite observable, and I have provided several examples to prove this.

reply to post by poet1b


The only concept of time that we currently have is BASED off these units of measure. You can't have your cake and eat too. You can't claim that time is part of the fabric of reality and then never ever show that it exists.

You have shown no evidence for time existing, and I have been patiently trying to point this out to you. Not once have you pointed at something and adequatly shown that to be a force of time. All you have been doing is pointing at interactions of physical objects intersecting at various points within the three dimensional matrix of space and then using the rotational period of the earth around the sun from one arbitrary point to the next and exclaiming "Behold! A month has past between this interaction and that interaction!"

You ignore that you can determine when two points interact without applying units of measure, as a baseball player does when he hits a ball pitched at him, or musician does as he plays music. A realization of time does not need a human defined unit of measure.

You under estimate the power of the brain to calculate distance, velocity, and angular approach. The human brain does not need a conscious calculation to determine the right point to swing. Yes, the mechanics behind it all are fascinatingly complex and poorly understood right now, but this is also not proof of some force of time.

The sun issue was in regards to aging. It's called reading comprehension and I would advise that you go back a page and reread the threads. The sun does not have an effect on the genetic reasons behind aging. What other effects the sun has on the health and well being of an organism are beyond the point of the concept of aging vs. time. Again, it's called reading comprehension.

You have shown a simplistic superstitious view of how thing's work. You point at one system and say it's proof of another system. I find you to be a fully arrogant, narrow minded, ignorant person who has no interest in learning anything once your mind has been made up ... for you. I have tried and tried time again to show you how your so called advanced concepts are ill informed and faulty to the fullest extent. I have shown you very very very simple examples that any open to learning would have easily picked up upon. You refuse to except anything that rocks your narrow minded world view because you refuse to understand and realize that the answers we have are not absolutes. The scientific community is coming to terms with the issue that time does not exist, there are numerous issues facing the theory of time that cannot be explained, has not been explained, and has no foreseeable explanation in the future. If you have no interest in doing a little research and learning, then by all means say so.

I call your bluff.

reply to post by sirnex


Sorry, but I have provided numerous examples that prove the existence of time. Time has been proven to exist as validly as anything can be considered to be proven in science. This was stated in the article you asked me to provide as evidence.

The existence of time can be easily proven because it is observable and predictable and inherent to all laws of science, and that is how anything is proven in science.

phyun5.ucr.edu...

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

You have proposed this theory that you claim proves time not to exist, but until you prove this by testing it, all you have is just a theory. Where is your tested predictions that show that time does not exist?

Tests such as establishing the constant of the speed of light and sound, use of time constants for the transmission of light and sound, radar, or even establishing the cutting speed for precision machining all prove the existence of time. If you don't want to recognize this, then that is nothing but your personal choice, the rest of the world sees things differently. The fact that you can look up the local time of the sunset and uses the clock on your cel phone and observe the setting of the sun at the time it has been predicted that the sun will set using an electronic clock shows that the existence of time is a valid theory.

reply to post by sirnex


By the way, the suns influence on life cycles is obviously completely over your head, and the fact that you have resorted to personal attacks shows your complete lack of maturity or intelligence. The only thing you have offered to show that time does not exist are extremely absurd situations that could never be tested, and two badly written articles that would never receive any legitimate attention in the scientific community. I'm sorry I ever bothered trying to engage you in an intelligent conversation.

reply to post by poet1b


#1 Particles move in incremental steps through the fabric of space

#2 Time is nothing more than a measurement of incremental movements of particles and/or physical objects.

#3 Time does not exist as a fundamental force of nature.

#4 Observation: A particular length of time is not measured through a fundamental force of time, but through the observation of rotational periods from one point to the next.

#5 Observation: A period of one second is the measurement of the oscillation of the cesium atom and not a fundamental force of time

#6 Observation: There is no observable force that can be measured nor pointed to and declared as a force of time.

#7 Observation: The fundamental nature of time has only been shown to exist on paper and has never been observed as a physical attribute to this universe.

I could go on for quiet some time. Now it's your turn. Define time without using the measuring of other physical objects within this universe. Until you can show that some fundamental force exists outside the NEED to measure the cycles of other physical objects, then time does not indeed exist. There is no medium of time that we move through, and beyond theory, we have never seen this medium to physically exist. There are no experimental instances shown that time is a physical attribute of the universe.

I understand that you may not get the difference between GENETIC reasons for aging, but that is not my problem. As I said, if you have no interest in learning, then pipe up and say so. Constantly regurgitating the same nonsensical dribble without showing a shred of evidence for something, does not mean it is true. This is the reasoning behind religious thinking and it is destructive.

If you have no intention of explaining why the physics of light being able to only go so far based upon the number of ticks in the cesium atom is wrong, then please do so. I have attempted to refute and explain why you are wrong on ever account. You have not once touched a single thing I have said, instead you have chosen to mind numbingly regurgitate the same example in different forms. It's very frustrated dealing with you.

reply to post by sirnex


That is essentially what time is, the incremental measure of change, just as space is only the absence of matter. If you add a scale to length, width, depth, and time, you can orientate the location of objects. All science proves this to be true. My contention that time is in reality a force is not proven, and I never claimed that it was. When you hit a baseball, the bat must be in the right place at the right time. Why haven't you been able to figure that out? This doesn't prove that time is a force, it proves that time is a dimension that identifies a particular location.

I think that time might be a force, but that hasn't been proven, and I never claimed that it has. Tesla experiments on countering the natural frequencies of object to tear them apart seems to go towards proving that time is a force.

You have gotten all hot an bothered over a claim that was never made.

reply to post by poet1b


If time is just a measure of incremental change, then it can't be a fundamental force. For it to be a fundamental force, something that change moves through, then it must exist outside change. It must be something that can be measured in and of its own self and not through indirect means of another objects obviousness to change position and velocity.

Again, the brain is an immensely complicated calculator which is calculating distance, velocities, and angular approaches to hit that ball. You know you need to hit that ball, and hit it hard in an attempt to get a homerun for a winning score. The brain calculates the amount of force needed to hit the ball at a precise position of your arms length based upon the perceived angle, velocity, and distance of the ball. This is the third time I have said this now and the third time you have not shown how I am wrong. You are still regurgitating that some calculation of time is needed. SHOW IT.

Tesla's work with electricity and magnetism deal with .... electricity and magnetism. An ability to use those two forces to tear apart the physical bonds of an atomic structure is far from showing an existence of some temporal force that physical objects move though.

Yes, you have managed to get me all wound up on this issue because you are still regurgitating the same example without showing why it is proof. You have yet still to refute why I am wrong, and you have yet to show why there should be a fundamental force of time.

I would affirm that time is not a "force", no more than width, height, depth are forces as 3 dimensional axis. However, it is clear that 3 dimensions so exist since we inhabit that "space". I think the real question should be whether the 3 dimensional state that we exist within can occur *without* a 4th dimension of time existing?

Without time, any movement by particles would render them co-existent in 2 discrete spacial points at the same time - but no discrete period of time between them. This is interesting from the point of view of travelling large distances, however, the mechanics are squirley to say the least.

reply to post by poet1b


Just wanted to brush up on a couple things.

and two badly written articles that would never receive any legitimate attention in the scientific community.

I am rather surprised by this remark. It just goes to show the level of ignorance and ignorance a person can show. Both Discover Magazine and the Journal of Theoretics are both peer-reviewed scientific journals. Discover magazine "dumbs" down current scientific discoveries for the average person to understand and often times has articles written by the scientists themselves. So I highly doubt your ignorant remark has any merit and I also doubt you even took the time to look at the links and read the material.

For instance, when we get down past plank time, the lowest measure of time possible with current instruments, time ceases to exist. It, for some reason or another, just disappears. You would have known this had you bothered to read and educate yourself with two highly upheld scientific journals.

constants for the transmission of light and sound, radar, or even establishing the cutting speed for precision machining all prove the existence of time

Time is not needed. For example, I used to do work routing designs onto knife handles. The drill bit moves along a predetermined path and at various points along that path the drill bit speed is increased and lowered. In the programming of the software used, time is not equated, just position.

The fact that you can look up the local time of the sunset and uses the clock on your cel phone and observe the setting of the sun at the time it has been predicted that the sun will set using an electronic clock shows that the existence of time is a valid theory.

Faulty misunderstanding of the mechanics behind what your observing here. What is happening is the cell phone has a quartz oscillator inside, this oscillator's vibrations are counted in the same fashion we count the ticks of the cesium atom. Since man has already predefined the arbitrary point to arbitrary point that coincide to make up a year, it wasn't hard to break down that cycle in even more smaller incremental units of measurement. The quartz oscillator is set to the observed cycles of day and night, so it really shouldn't be to hard to understand how the clock seemingly 'predicted' the sunset.

An interesting tidbit on the history of time keeping for you. Since 1956, the length of one second has had to change twice due too .... I'll let you learn why yourself, but the answer to this is the reason we changed how we determined what a second was and why we now use the cesium atom.

to end all of this, time does exist out of the 11 dimensions as the 4th dimension i believe, i do alot of research into things but time does exists, as do multi universes with unlimited possibilities, otherwise there is know way to understand the singularity the start of our universe.

so please do research before doing stupid posts.

Cobby



[edit on 6-8-2008 by CobbyJ]

reply to post by CobbyJ


Yes ... Ummm... Please do.

The problem is, we will never understand where the universe came from. We can theorize and put down on paper anything we want, but that will never prove or show what existed prior to the observable universe.

The issue surrounding eleven dimensional space is ... no proof. It's on paper only. So please, do some research before you write stupid posts.

The horizon æternitatis cannot be crossed by man either in thought or deed...