Why Time Does NOT Exist!

reply to post by sirnex


Um, Discovery Magazine is more of a lightweight publication that is more concerned with entertainment, and introducing kids to science, which probably makes it perfect for you. The Journal of Theoretics is no longer in publication, and while a good concept, its short life span probably is the reason weaker posts were accepted. Your combination of arrogance and ignorance makes me think that you have never worked a job for very long, or that what you claimed was a job was probably Jr High shop class, which you probably flunked out of. When programming computer controlled machines, chances are that you entered position and precision values, which calculated the speed function which always uses the time coefficient. If you were half as intelligent as you have deluded yourself to believe, you would know this, but your constant rude remarks combined with your ignorant babble has shown all that it isn't worth the time to try and carry a discussion with you. Should you ever gain the emotional maturity to recognize what a jerk you have been on this forum, no doubt you will be highly embarrassed by your ill chosen personal attacks.

reply to post by poet1b


So basically you can't refute what I have said.

You do understand that the speed of the drill bit is nothing more then the measurement of the change in position of one arbitrary point on the bit to the next? Pick one spot, count the number of oscillations in the cesium atom, when that spot shows again then how ever many ticks you got is how long it took,

Unless you can show that movement REQUIRES an OUTSIDE force of time, then everything you have said (well, same thing over and over) is all just measuring movements and cycles. There is nothing observable in nature that shows any proof of a fundamental force of time. Nor anything that would allude to the possibility. Go play some pong, you might figure something out.

what is time ? time is a planet revolving around a star . all time is , is how long it takes us to travel the sun as we observe the night and day change . there is no such thing as time only now .

reply to post by sirnex


Actually the speed of the bit as it turns is critical to how well the material is cut depending on the type of the material and cutting tool, as is how fast the cutting tool moves in the direction in which it is cut. If you knew anything about machining, you would know that the rate at which the material was being cut (the timing of the machining operation) was extremely important. Look up cutting speeds. The rate is the amount of time the cutting tools takes to cut the material. It isn't completely independent from time in any shape or form. There are optimal rates at which most things should occur for many reasons, most of which have to do with efficiency, demonstrating that time is relevant to almost all operations.

If you knew anything about Tesla, you would know that his experiments were highly intertwined with frequency, of which the understanding of time is the very crux of the relationship. Tesla demonstrated that everything vibrates at a specific frequency, and he could tear down an entire building simply by tuning into the frequency at which it naturally vibrated, and applying a small force at the right time intervals. It wasn't the force that brought down the building, but the timing at which it was applied.

Why is it that light being emitted by the enormous power of the sun, moving through space with essentially zero resistance travels at the exact same speed as light emitting from a match on the surface of the Earth at atmospheric pressure? There are numerous time constants, if time was nothing more than a measurement of the rate of change, then why do these constants exist? If there was no consistency to time, then these time constants should not exist, such as in a cesium atom.

The speed of light, the constant time it takes for light to move through a measurable distant is observable, repeatable, and has been throughly tested and proven, and demonstrates that time is more than a yardstick.

Einstein theorized that time and matter warp space to create the force of gravity, which means that Einstein considered time to be a force, but according to you, Einstein was just another idiot in comparison with your enormous intellect, right?

So, bedazzle us with your computations that show that you know more about the subject than Einstein did.

reply to post by poet1b


Ah, but it is independent of time. For it to be dependent of time, you still need to show that it moves through time and not calculated based on the oscillations of an atom. This is what I keep saying and you keep avoiding touching it. Why?

Then you need to show that a fundamental force of time is needed for particles to vibrate through. Vibration is still a form of movement. When his device vibrated against the building, it wasn't 'timed', it was just oscillating at the right frequencies of th building to bring it down.

The constants don't exist, it's poor understanding that is the root of the problem. You can count can't you? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on. Now count how many day and night cycles there are. Five days right? How many ticks of the atom? Five right, so we'll call that five seconds. Where's the constants of time? All I see are objects doing what objects naturally do. It is you saying there is time there. All I see is you counting and calling it time.

I already explained the light issue. Einstein was a brilliant idiot. He obviously is wrong because everything is still in question. For had he been right, we would have all the answers. Einstein didn't discover that time is a force, he assumed it was part of the fabric of space.

Here is something else that is wrong, Thermodynamics. You can't get something from nothing. Yet, here we are. Here is our grand universe, a something born from nothing.

Heck, while we're at it, let's add the age of the universe to the list of things physics has wrong. I'm willing to wager that you wouldn't be able to tell me why it is wrong.


[edit on 8-8-2008 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


If all change is measured by units of time, than all movement is a result of a combination between matter, space, and time, oscillation is movement occurring at precise intervals of time, as is all constants demonstrated by vibration and frequency, and the fact that these changes in motion occur at a precisely measured, extremely constant periods of time demonstrates that they are influenced by some force that corresponds with the units we have devised to measure the passing of time.

I only need to show that particles can be observed moving in consistent, repeatable, measurable and predictable units of time to established that time does exist, as proof is established in all of science. You are the one who has to prove that all others who believed in the existence of time, who have conducted many experiments showing the existence of time to be wrong.

The constants are established by numerous experiments that show that light moves at a constant universal speed, and the same of the vibration of atoms, and a most object in general. If you knew a thing about methodology, you would understand how this has been developed, but your just a stupid kid who thinks he knows it all.

While it is obvious that Physics hasn't figured everything out yet, so what? Where is the evidence that you have figured everything out? Einstein my not have known everything, and he might have been wrong about many things, he was also right about a great deal of things, far more complex mysteries of the universe than you have ever solved. You want to see a big idiot, go look in the mirror.

I'm still waiting for your calculations to back up your bold assertions.

Wow your like on repeat aren't you?

If all change is measured by units of time, than all movement is a result of a combination between matter, space, and time, oscillation is movement occurring at precise intervals of time, as is all constants demonstrated by vibration and frequency, and the fact that these changes in motion occur at a precisely measured, extremely constant periods of time demonstrates that they are influenced by some force that corresponds with the units we have devised to measure the passing of time.

I'm sure you meant extremely constant counts of ticks of the cesium atom. Your still failing to show this nifty force of time. You can't utilize the counting of oscillations of an atom and protest "Seeeeee, time is real! Hmph!" Where is the force that these oscillations are moving through? How is that force measured that the oscillations move through rather then just measuring the oscillations themselves?

I only need to show that particles can be observed moving in consistent, repeatable, measurable and predictable units of time to established that time does exist, as proof is established in all of science. You are the one who has to prove that all others who believed in the existence of time, who have conducted many experiments showing the existence of time to be wrong.

Measurable and predictable counts of oscillations. one, two, three, four, ok fella's, there's our second. Still haven't showed the force that the oscillations are moving through. Have you bothered looking up how a cesium atomic clock works? Have you bothered to read about the guy who works with them saying what he is and isn't measuring? Damn guy, seriously... look this stuff up.

The constants are established by numerous experiments that show that light moves at a constant universal speed, and the same of the vibration of atoms, and a most object in general. If you knew a thing about methodology, you would understand how this has been developed, but your just a stupid kid who thinks he knows it all.

Ahhhh, you got me! Gosh your like so way more smarter then me! Speed of light is a constant huh? Inflation? Current universal acceleration? Experiments stopping a photon dead in its tracks? You assume that the incremental movements of a photon based on the oscillations of an atom is a constant count of ticks of that atom. What a silly thing to assume. You do know what they say about people who assu
me?

While it is obvious that Physics hasn't figured everything out yet, so what? Where is the evidence that you have figured everything out? Einstein my not have known everything, and he might have been wrong about many things, he was also right about a great deal of things, far more complex mysteries of the universe than you have ever solved. You want to see a big idiot, go look in the mirror.

Yea, so what. Your right, we can assume many things and espouse them as facts and realities. And and, if people dare question us, we can poke them and tell them their poop heads too! That'll show 'em right? Heck, we might as well all start believing in god too! Religious people assume that he exists, and no one has observed him either. But but, because people say he really really is there, then he MUST be! Oh man, I think I'm gunna convert now, I appreciate the magnitude of your logic! You've helped me realize that I shouldn't dare question assumptions! *bows down to you*

I'm still waiting for your calculations to back up your bold assertions.

If your going to assume that time is a force that the oscillations of the atom move through, then how can I show you that a second is just the measurement of a physical objects movement?

The burden of proof is in your ball park. You claiming that your assumption of a force of time is valid without being able to measure it directly or point to it directly.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by sirnex]

reply to post by Mysteri


I don't know who said this, though "time is an illusion that serves a purpose." We all can't exist at once, there needs to be seperation.
The way I see it is everything happened (happens) simultaneously and time is the illusion that allows us to experience our world in the small fragment of a moment in which we actually exist.

reply to post by sirnex


Sorry, but you will never get it. What happens in an atomic clock is that when a cesium atom receives microwave energy at exactly the right frequency, it changes its energy state. Its not the microwave itself, but the frequency of the microwave that changes the atom. The time interval between waves makes the change. Because this can be measured consistently it proves that time exists at an atomic level. Changes in the timing of waves can change the state of matter, which means that time has force.

Obviously the scientific method is completely over your head.

If time doesn't exist you wouldn't be able to read THIS would you?

It would just be a "blob". No space, no grammar, no letters etc.

But it has a natural progression in TIME that enables us to make sense of it!

How can I communicate this without time....

--------------------------------------------------------------

"yeah, i know im good. so lets see what yall have to say now eh?"

(If you think you read the above before...it must have been another time! )

reply to post by poet1b


Argh, you have it right there in your post! IT IS RIGHT THERE! Blissfully blind, right?

The consistency is in the frequency of oscillations being counted. Please show where time as a force is involved. Third time, you can count right? Changing the frequency of the oscillations will obviously change the states, but now you need to show that a force of time is required in order for things to change frequencies or movements.

Obviously common sense is out of your reach.

@nerbot:

Seeing as how there is no fundamental force of time, and all we have observed is objects naturally moving through space, your comment makes no sense. I ask of you as well, show the fundamental force of time that is required of all objects to move through.

I believe I said this before, time is the religious dogma of science, amongst other things. It is assumed that a force of time exists and most of our physics is based upon this ASSUMPTION.

Religious nut jobs also assume that god(s) exist, without ever encountering one. In their world view, our universe couldn't exist without god(s) creating it.

If both assumptions can be held as true, then why not just believe both? If people in this thread already do, well then ... phooey, shame on you for believing assumptions are facts. Sad state of affairs when humanity can't reason for itself.

reply to post by sirnex


You are the one who refuses to see the water in front of your face.

Changing the frequency IS changing the time interval of the wave. The only thing that changes is the TIMING of the waves. Not the force generating the waves, or the particles that carry the waves, only the timing of the waves.


tickticktick from tick tick tick, get it?

reply to post by poet1b


That is all fine and dandy so long as your defining time as a measurement of physical objects and not as a fundamental force. As I have been trying to explain, all concepts of this temporal force of time are measured not through the force of time that objects supposedly move through, but is instead measured (counted) by the number of oscillations, or cycles of physical objects.

Basically, using our calculations of the earths rotation around the sun was broken up into ever so smaller increments of a concept of time, not as a fundamental force.

Do particles REQUIRE a force of time to change speed and direction? If they do, then rather repeat the same garbage over and over, show it. You can't measure something and stomp your feet in protest saying it's something else.

Minkowski space

Lorentz transformation

Time exists, whether we like it or not. The incredibly accurate world of quantum physics requires it to exist in a very specific way, not just some arbitrary measurement. Same with Relativity.

However, I have a feeling my post will be met with philosophical backlash that can do no more than postulate against hardcore physics.

If I am wrong and it is scientifically proven through physics, then I'd have to accept it. Until then...

[edit on 9-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

"Time exists, whether we like it or not. The incredibly accurate world of quantum physics "

while i agree with you that time does exsist in a very real way i must say that quantum physics is all about probabilities and isnt presice in anyway until it can be quantifiably tested it remains a science of probability and at this point is as much philosophy as science

time is not a force it is a dimension in which we are moving

www.revver.com...

maybe this will end some of the nonsensicle assaults on each other

if you want to attack people take it to abovepolitics or somewhere where that type of behavior is tolerated this is sci/tech why fight thats real scientific

[edit on 9-8-2008 by constantwonder]

Firstly, I didn't mean for my post to come off as an attack, and I apologize for that. I simply made an observation that people who give evidence that disproves the threads title receive backlash. Furthermore, that a lot of evidence for time not existing is philosophical postulates.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's how things can get started. Someone has an idea, postulates, hypothesize, then tests start. The important part is the science of it all, though. Science right now seems to indicate that time is real, but as I said, if it is scientifically proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I obviously have to accept.

Secondly, Quantum Physics has to be incredibly accurate and precise. It tracks and predicts things such as black body radiation, electron orbits, particle collision results, and many more things.

Time is here and now...this very moment,... nothing mystical,... just now,...very simple, straight forward,... and from that "nowness"... arises,... a sense of intelligence,... that you are constantly interacting with the reality,... always,...one by one,...spot by spot,... constantly,...we actually expierience fantastic prescision,...always,...
but,... we are threatened by the now, so we jump to the past,...or the future,... and that is not trusting the "nowness" properly,... "that" what is actually expierienced now , is very powerful,...possessed alot of powerful things...it is so powerful, that we can't face it... therefor, we have to borrow from the past, invite the future...

-Zeitgeist

umm, that and the "stuff" that makes up the little red ball are popping in and out of existence constantly.. so... therefore it is changing always, everything is changing always, nothing is ever the same... I get what you're saying,.. and I agree but you are going about it incorrectly.

The fact that there are sooooo many time lines would indicate that there is no such thing as time, or that it is most definitely NOT linear.

Time = Change and change = a movement of some sort, and as far as I know, there isn't ANYTHING that is stationary in the entire cosmos/universe.... except for maybe time.. and perhaps we move around it.. or jump around on the many "points" of time.... haha lol



[edit on 8/9/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]

Maybe you are all just a figment of my imagination, or your imagination or, phhhhhhhhhh, I don't know.

It is generally accepted that time exists as a legitimate dimension, that if you want to participate in this world you have to do things at certain times, whether it is hit a baseball, make a left turn, or finish what you are doing at work. You have to be at the right place at the right time, and that is just common sense.

Time as a force is not quite proven, but a great deal of evidence demonstrates that it might be. Einstein apparently looked at Time as a force, with his theory that time and matter warped space to create gravity. Or a more accurate view would be that time is an inherent factor to all force.

If time does not exist, if past, present, and future were all the same, than how could motion exist? Matter itself would not be able to exist as we perceive it, physically or spiritually. At least in my opinion.

reply to post by PuRe EnErGy


I think the point I was trying to make is:

We all perceive "Time" in a different way,...
Heck,... I feel time "slowing"(especially when I am hungover)... or "accelerating"(when I am having a really good "time")... in my life...(at least perceivably)...

[edit on 9-8-2008 by coastlinekid]

[edit on 9-8-2008 by coastlinekid]