It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How time does not exist, what it really is and how it limits our life.

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
My point-by-point critique of your stunning revelations regarding one of the most intuitively difficult concepts ever conceived by mankind:

garbage-garbage-jargon-garbage-purple microdot-garbage-bu**sh*t-jargon-jargon-delusional-garbage-ganga-more ganga-another purple microdot-bu**sh*t-BU**SH*T-garbage.

There, that about sums it up. Well done, Einstein. This will undoubtedly form the basis for the new paradigm.

PS: By the way, while sitting on the john chewin’ up the last of my pyote buttons the other day, outta nowhere the answer to a mathematical concept I’ve been formulating lately suddenly struck me like a bolt of lightning. Damned near knocked me off the seat! Bottom line is this:

E=mc^3

I think it might fit right into your theories regarding the nature of time. We need to get together on this. Whadaya think?




posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Harte

soldier71
If time doesn't exist how do you explain time dilation.


It's only true for an observer outside the reference frame.
Any object in a gravity well (or traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light) with a watch will not notice any time dilation on it.
Harte


Harte is fully correct. For the person moving extremely fast or the person in massive gravity time appears to pass normally to them. To an observer watching them without those influences, time appears differently.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by soldier71
 


Hi Soldier,
RE if time does not exist , how do you explain 'time' dilation?

If you take a look at ‘on the electrodynamics of moving bodies’ (ie relativity paper 1)
sites.google.com...

, I don’t think you will actually be able to find any point where Einstein proves, or points to a proof, that extra to movement, ‘time’ exists, and passes, or is needed for things to be able to move.

Instead ( as per the link) his work seems to show that objects, trains, or smaller motors, can be moved or stopped, and there behaviour compared.
-----

However the work is written ‘as if’ a thing called time does exist and pass, and is worded as such.

e.g. If we look at Einsteins " light 'clocks' " objectively, we can see that perhaps they only really show that a photon can be "travelling between, or reflecting off mirrors" (see > www.youtube.com... )

Undoubtedly (as you point out) the core of Relativity is fascinating and deeply revealing a great deal about the effects of gravity and motion, but his work on light ‘clocks’ and ‘time’ dilation, may only show that ‘space can be warped’, and that ‘objects –change- more slowly’ in warped space.

While the vast majority of people (specifically qualified scientists) seem to blindly –assume- (without checking) that because Relativity shows so many amazing and true things – it must also be a proof that , extra to motion, ‘time’ exists – in my research I have found no one who has actually pointed to any kind of proof , or even a valid reason to ‘suspect’ there ‘is’ a past, or time that creates or flows into it.

Bearing in mind that the fact ‘objects –change- more –slowly-’ in warped space, is vastly different to the idea that ....

- a thing called time exists, and it ‘passes’ more slowly in warped space – from a place called the ‘future’ to a place called ‘the past’ – affecting the rates of change

Then perhaps 'time dilation' can be explained as 'an invalid or over complicated expression of 'rate' dilation'.

----
If this is wrong, could you point to a proof (eg on the internet) that this extra, and unseen thing ‘time’ exists, and is dilated, and is not just a false conclusion, based on assumptions about relativity that are not actually in the work?

Please note, I’m not being rude, just legitimately asking, because my extensive searches have only turned up more questions, speculation and circular arguments,

all of which (I think) can be explained if matter may just exist move, change, and hold stable or unstable formations etc (as we all seem to only, and constantly, actually observe)

Eg > www.google.co.uk...:en-GB
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&ei=K u7KUtvsMsqO7QaK5YCoAw

mm



edit on 6-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mattmars
 


There are a lot of free education sites out there. If you keep in mind that its more of a "how we currently understand the world" than a proposition of all-encompassing truth... then it can be extremely helpful on topics like this. Its not really a topic you can read a blog or two and understand it.

Everything from khanacademy.org to coursera.com can be helpful.

Anything we will ever know, perceive, or understand will ALWAYS be confined within the human context attempting to explain something that is far beyond all of us, even as a total system.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by noeltrotsky
 

hi Again, Noel

( I try to keep this short, but it's tricky , anyway),
Thanks again for your reply, and the m-theory link. I’ve checked it out, and many other similar pages also.

Thanks also for watching the video, and your comments. A fuller live talk is given here if you or anyone else is interested >


to restate, while I'm suggesting a possibility that i think addresses serious errors in the theory that 'time' exists - i ‘m also completely open to being wrong. ( ie I’m not blindly assuming that if i can argue people down physics will change to suit me


So,re M-Theory, and most articles i've found on 'time', it seems to make the error (imo) of initially -just- assuming a thing called time exists...

eg. From your wiki link "the universe is made up of multiple dimensions. Height, width, and length constitute three-dimensional space, and –time- gives a total of four observable dimensions;"

And right there 'time' is said to be an 'observable dimension' - which (imo) it absolutely is not(!) – I think we just observe matter, and motion, in 3 dimensions.

i.e. - who observes -the- past ?, and would they please look at the bit where Kennedy got shot and tell us all what happened? - and who observes 'the' future, and will they please tell only me the Lotto numbers?

Stuff seems to exist, and either be stationary, or moving if it has energy. And that is the point from which I think we should all start, and from which, see if anything extra is needed to explain what we actually observe.

-------------------------
However, as , with respect your own reply shows, im forced to start from an extremely uneven playing field. Because like us all, you have the default assumption that...

- energy, and, an invisible thing called time must exist for things to be able to move , and

-things move, therefore

-energy –and- 'time' must exist,

The problem being here - if I start a conversation insisting that , unless -Disproved- yetis definitely exist' - then there is -absolutely nothing- at all you can say to disprove this.

Worse still, all evidence will either be irrelevant to the matter, or 'not disprove it', or unclear evidence may be talked as 'possibly supporting the existence of yetis. (eg a smudged footprint in mud or snow ).

I see your main point here is the idea we can seem to measure time,

eg - as you say ....

"I can also easily measure how long it takes you to move up and down. Thus a time is associated with the movement. "

To show why I think this is an over extrapolation of what we do and observe let me use a couple of analogies. (scus caps, haven’t worked out formatting )

- I could create a steel cage, fill it with various bait, and –call- it a ‘yeti trap’

Now in simple terms it is basically a fact, that

IF yetis exist THEN my trap may catch one.

BUT, it is also a fact that

CALLING something a ‘yeti trap’ in no way at all proves (or disproves) that yetis exist.

Just as putting mince pies in the trap and calling it a ‘Santa Claus trap’ in no way proves that Santa Claus exists (sorry kids).

LIKEWISE

I can attach a battery to a motor and a hand on a numbered dial, and call it a ‘TIME Measurer’, thus it is also basically a fact that,

IF a thing called time exists, and passes, THEN my ‘time measurer’ may indeed show a useful example of its passing. BUT

It is similarly a fact that calling my motor a ‘time measurer’ in no way proves that (extra to the motion) something called ‘time’, also actually exists.

So re your measuring example,
from the simple observation you will find that I am either moving up and down ( if my gf is lucky
- or not. And if i am, then you could be observing me, and you could be comparing my motion to a rotating hand on a dial.

If say , I AM climbing some stairs, and you ARE observing me and a moving hand, THEN you can be comparing my motion to the hand. And the speed of my motion to the hand.

If I stop at the top , and you stop the hand, then we can choose to measure the distance from me to some arbitrary place, say the bottom of the stairs. We can also choose to measure the distance of the hand to some arbitrary place, say the top of the numbered dial. And we can choose to compare those distances.

No doubt we might get some useful information and numbers relating to my motion relative to the motors motion. We could even calculate that I can move 800 times as fast at the tip of the hand and so on.

But all of the above can be fully explained if matter can just exist and move, and none of it proves that as things are moving a thing called time also exists and passes. (or that as e move we ‘head into a ’future’, or leave a ‘past’ ‘behind us in an intangible extra ‘dimension’).

And no matter what units you call the distance between me and the ground, or the hand and the ‘12’, they are just distances.

CALLING the distance the hand moves ’10 seconds’ is only valid if you can also show there is a thing called time that exists and passes.

-----------

the position im in (if im right) is a like saying the world is round, to a nation who 'agree' it –must- be flat. Thus..

A- everything i say 'must' be wrong, because ‘the world is flat’, and

B- they are sure the world cannot be round... for the 'obvious' reason, that ‘the world is flat’.

The point re 'B' and time here is that people seem to insist ‘time exists and passes’, and they are sure it must exist because they think ‘time passes’.

--------

As i say, i may be right or wrong, but just as a flat earther can’t see how the world may be round – if they insist on seeing only how it may be flat, they also will only see how it could be round if they try and see how the earth being round might explain all they observe.
-----
so perhaps I can show the possibility im suggesting from a different angle.

- first consider, to be very precise and clear, I am not suggesting a THEORY at all.

IF someone thinks time exists, and is needed to explain what we observe, then they have a theory, because they are suggesting an extra, unseen thing exists.

My work is thus not a theory, but an attempt to show why the theory ‘that a thing called time exists’, is not proven, and is not even needed to explain all that we observe. Ie moot.

So, Noel ( or anyone else reading (hi) )

if you believe the theory that, "extra to energy, things -also- need a thing called time to able to move", then , can you...

TQ1 - post any proof you can find that this time thing exists

TQ2- and, how this extra time thing works with matter and energy

TQ3 - (most importantly ) Show any example that cannot be explained if matter just exists and moves and changes, as it seem is constantly, and only, actually observed

One of Our fundamental reasons to suspect time may exist, seems to be ‘the’ past, so a final question that anyone assuming time exist should be able to answer to their own satisfaction is

TQ4- Can you in any way at all, show how ‘the past’ exists, in anyway other than just as an ‘idea’ existing only in the stable formations of matter existing in our minds?



I’ll stop there, scus the long post, sorry for typos etc
thanks again for your interest and intelligent response, + as i say , there's a more comprehensive video here if anyone's interested > www.youtube.com...
mm
edit on 6-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mattmars
 


Your not alone in believing Time doesn't exist. Here are a couple news stories you probably have considered but others may not have...

discovermagazine.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...

It's beyond me what's right, but it's an interesting discussion...even with mind altering chemicals added in for flavor.

Check out the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation if you want a scientific example of time disappearing in equations.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6-1-2014 by noeltrotsky because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2014 by noeltrotsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Hi Serdgiam,
Thank you for your thoughtful words, and the links, khanacademy.org looks very interesting, just watching 'The beauty of algebra'.

You are of course right, scanning blogs is interesting, but not the best source of coherent, verified facts
And sites like Khan (featuring videos of qualified lecturers) is much better. I have watched a lot of experts videos and learnt a great deal ( I appreciate tremendously what the internet offers - I may well follow the whole algebra course)

Writing my own book (a brief history of timelessness - www.amazon.com... ) came about from an experience similar to Wisdomer's, which lead me to very carefully read a few tens of (old school) books on the subject - firstly with the purpose of finding out what i must have got wrong. And then, the more i thought i had found an unaddressed issue, to get my facts straight as i developed the idea to write my own book.

Eventually i reached a point where each new book contained virtually no information i had not already grasped, so i realised i should switch from research to writing ( otherwise the book never gets written :^)

I know what i am suggesting is against the scientific 'Argumentum ad populum', but please rest assured I have at least done my research to the best of my abilities.

And I'm aware that I may be too close to my own idea to see if it has critical flaws, but I'm also pretty sure no one else has seen quite the possibility I am suggesting, and examined, researched, ruthlessly and pedantically, analysed, and written about it to the extent I think and hope, I have. ( If they have done so they seem to have kept all traces of it off the net, and out of the book stores :^)

As I say, I'm aware i may be wrong, but there reaches a point where one has to cease endlessly, -safely- and anonymously researching, and 'publish and be damned'.

And, as your post suggests, it would be pointless to 'wait' until I thought I knew absolutely everything about the subject, becasue perhaps we never quite can be certain as to what is in the universe.

Although I should add, I think we can on occasion be almost completely certain about spotting incorrect assumptions we have asserted, e.g. like 'phlogiston'. Where our reason for suspecting a phenomena is shown to be flawed, and no proof of the phenomena is found, -and- an alternative, simpler, verifiable, observable and quantifiable, explanation that fits all facts, without leaving loose ends is found. (as per Occam's razor).

And who knows, it's a very long shot, but perhaps the idea that matter and energy -just- exists, moves, interacts and transforms, may be enough to replace 'time' and it's phenomenally complex multitude of loose ends?

Yours
Matt Marsden

(If you're interested, please check out 'time travel answers to Brian Cox's lecture' > www.youtube.com... or www.timelessness.co.uk )

edit on 6-1-2014 by mattmars because: I can



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Harte

crowdedskies

Harte


Will you now claim that distance is illusory as well?

Harte


Yes it is as well.

So, can you see over the counter?

How?

Harte

Your question is based on my comment that distance is also an illusion .

Yes, I can see over the counter - because I can move. If I moved at the speed of sound then there would be hardly any space between me and what is behind the counter.

If I can move at the speed of light , there is no space between me and the moon.

If I cannot move because I am like a stone then the space between me and that tree over there will only exist if something else (another human, a bird , dust or whatever) can move between me and it. If nothing can move between me and the tree then There is no space between me and the tree. Space is relative to movement.

If nothing moved the world would be two-dimentional - much like a photograph. Strangely enough, moving extremely fast (eg the speed of light) also makes the world two dimentional.

edit on 6-1-2014 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

crowdedskies

Harte

crowdedskies

Harte


Will you now claim that distance is illusory as well?

Harte


Yes it is as well.

So, can you see over the counter?

How?

Harte

Your question is based on my comment that distance is also an illusion .

Yes, I can see over the counter - because I can move. If I moved at the speed of sound then there would be hardly any space between me and what is behind the counter.

Yet you can see over the counter even if you're not moving.

Spoiler - you can see over the counter because you are taller than the counter.

Your length is greater than that of the counter in the y direction.

Hence, length (distance) is not illusory.

Harte



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Harte

crowdedskies

Harte

crowdedskies

Harte


Will you now claim that distance is illusory as well?

Harte


Yes it is as well.

So, can you see over the counter?

How?

Harte

Your question is based on my comment that distance is also an illusion .

Yes, I can see over the counter - because I can move. If I moved at the speed of sound then there would be hardly any space between me and what is behind the counter.

Yet you can see over the counter even if you're not moving.

Spoiler - you can see over the counter because you are taller than the counter.

Your length is greater than that of the counter in the y direction.

Hence, length (distance) is not illusory.

Harte


I was thinking seeing behind the counter.

It does not matter really. If we are talking over the counter, I would stil need to stand up if I was initially in a sitting position or I would need to move towards the counter first.

You have actually disproved yourself. You are talking about my height. Well , I was only 2 feet tall at one time and I grew up. This is a perfect example of my assertiom :

Time is : MOVEMENT (in space)
Space is : MOVEMENT (in time)

Remove the bracketed words and you have the real meaning of Space and Time

edit on 6-1-2014 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by noeltrotsky
 

Hi Noel,

Thanks I'll check out those links. Here's a piece I cobbled together re the wheeler de witt equation etc,

sites.google.com...< br />

It's true there are a few versions of the idea that time does not exist out there, but in each ( as above) i seem to always find at least one tiny impurity, i.e. a place where they re-include time etc. And none (e.g McTaggarts A-B time, or Julian Barbours Plationia etc) are actually similar to what i am suggesting.

In fact as i wrote 'timelessness', i deliberately did not read any other work on the concept, so i could be sure it was just pure thought based on my own experience and research.

Moreover most of these alternatives actually try to 'explain time', (or even explain away 'time') - and also often try to explain/include 'the' past and 'the' future... (which , with respect, Wisdomer (hi), also does to a degree) and, in my opinion, all of which are redundant if there simply is no such thing.
(i.e. it's a bit like explaining how and why there are no Dragons. A pointless thing to do, we need only explain why we are wrong to ever assume there are Dragons).

(I hope Wisdomer and I may exchange some thoughts on these details).

Anyway, no mega post this time. thanks for the links.

mm

edit on 6-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mattmars
 


Yeah its hard to explain such things to people who have always viewed things as they are.

That's a new definition of the state of mind, i haven't come across it before. I know it as the Spiritual vision in the Qaballah which is the neutralisation of all influences.

When smoking the more passive you are to the experience, the more it feels like time does not exist i read somewhere and it made me think of when i was that time.

i just believe i enter'd a state neutralization where i stepped out of my perceptions for a split second and i saw things for as they are, rather than as i am.

Thank-you for reply.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Harte

It's only true for an observer outside the reference frame.

Any object in a gravity well (or traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light) with a watch will not notice any time dilation on it.

Harte


There is such thing as time, but i am saying it is a measurement and nothing more than a clock.

What people are misconceiving to be time/distance, is just space been measured. These are measurements for space.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

mattmars
And who knows, it's a very long shot, but perhaps the idea that matter and energy -just- exists, moves, interacts and transforms, may be enough to replace 'time' and it's phenomenally complex multitude of loose ends?


If things move, then there is a measurement of time. Of course, our perception of it is flawed inherently because this universe is quite an incredible place.

That said, I do agree with this statement, though I would whittle it down to "only energy exists, just in different forms." The relative movement between these forms is measured in many ways, one is including time (which is mathematically done in a more abstract way than a simple clock).

For many calculations the function of space-time is used, which does not make a distinct separation from time and space. When things happen in space, there will inevitably be a "time" associated with it. The term used isnt entirely relevant, but the math behind it most certainly is! I am sure you have been over and understand these equations though, since they are exactly what you are attempting to explore and perhaps even disprove.

I also think that you are looking in exactly the right spot for new discoveries. Hopefully you have the math and experimental skills to back it up! I have my own hypotheses, but since they include time, are not relevant to the OP.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Hi Serdgiam,

Thanks for your reply, this ended up being a bit lateral, but sometimes it's ok to show a real 'tangentially different' way to look at things, -And, I have a question for U at the end.
anyway, re.



"perhaps the idea that matter and energy -just- exists, moves, interacts and transforms [explains what we wrongly call time]"
I do agree with this statement, though I would whittle it down to "only energy exists, just in different forms."


Yes it makes sense to say "only energy exists in different forms". But what I'm trying to explain to people is how there might absolutely not be any such thing as time, at all (other than as useful maths). Doing this, (as Wisdomer is probably finding out), can be extremely! Difficult. Because, 'time' is the number one noun in the English language, and it is used in countless diverse ways.

If you look at the sentences I have to construct, in...
“explaining the possible 'non-existence' of an unproven, invisible, intangible 'thing', that the scientific community provides no proof of, cannot even agree on a description of, yet assumes 'must exist', - and is not even open to having it disproved”,

you will see, each sentence has to convey a great deal of information, first explaining possibly wrong, yet assumed 'facts', while also explaining radically different alternatives to each fact.

Doing this is hard enough, but trust me, mentioning additional complex tangents such as that 'matter and energy are interchangeable', and all the other caveats one could include, would make each sentence exponentially more complex. And lose even more of an audience which are probably only half listening because they are sure I 'must' be wrong from the outset.
(but yes you are right :^)



RE: If things move, then there is a measurement of "time".


With respect, in my opinion, NO, Absolutely not, this is my whole point.
Scientifically at the 'moment' there is a big problem called 'the problem of time'. And I'm saying, if we want to solve this problem, then it makes sense to be extremely careful and logical and check our most basic facts for the very start.

And be absolutely clear as to what we mean by certain terms. If by time we just mean some directionless maths, then fine. But scientists absolutely don't mean that , they think 'time' is a thing with a past and a future and a direction etc - and they have a 'problem' with 'it'.

E.g. On page 161 of 'A Brief History of time" Hawking says "we can see 'the past' but not 'the future'"-


Implying that experts think 'time' is not just maths, but a 'thing', with a 'past' and 'a future' which are different, and mysterious.

To see how this mystery may be false, I suggest we do not just ‘assume’ the existence of the most amazing and esoteric things, and then rush on to endlessly wonder what they ‘are’, without any legitimate initial reason or proof to even suspect that they exist in any way at all.

In other words, (and note im not being rude etc) where you say



“If things move, then there is a measurement of “time”,”


To be very precise, this is imo, most likely an extremely incorrect and misleading suggestion. Instead.

IF things move, THEN there is a measurement of MOVEMENT. Period.

Only if we can prove there is an extra thing called time, then can we legitimately talk about movement in terms of the other thing. Otherwise (to use a deliberately zany example), it is as nonsensical as me just 'saying'...

If DOGS exist then there are DRAGONS.

And then going on to conclude these dragons must be invisible because I never see them, and wondering how they 'fly', and how they breath fire, and what language they speak, and where they came from, and what they eat, and where they live etc etc etc.

So, just, and only, seeing that dogs exist, but concluding that (unseen) dragons exist, with all their amazing and hard to explain attributes, would be the start of completely illogical and unscientific nonsense, and endless speculation.

Likewise, If we only see, and measure 'movement', and decide to call 'movement' “TIME”, and just 'say' that 'time' exists, and is mysterious, and may be merged with space, and may have a 'predictable' or 'unpredictable' 'future' and have a 'fixed' 'past' – which might be 'traveled through' , to create paradoxes, or merged with space and 'folded back on itself' etc etc etc, is likewise, imo, possibly the start of completely illogical and unscientific nonsense and endless speculation.

(i.e. its fine to call the action of comparing motion 'time' - but we should be absolutely clear if we mean 'time' is just this maths- and Hawking and hundreds of others are completely wrong to then ask about 'the past' and 'the future' - or if we mean 'time' is a real thing with a past and future, that we are doing maths about, and Hawking etc are completely right, there is a big mystery).

The problem is, the more we leave the above vague (in a stunningly unscientific way), and discuss the conjecture and speculated 'properties' of this 'time' thing, the more we loose sight of the fact we -just- 'stated' -"if we see motion then there is 'time' ".

Just as the more we speculate and finance research into 'how' dragons 'are' invisible, the more we loose sight of the possibility we -just- (as in only) saw a Dog, and just concluded therefore dragons exist, and decided to talk about dragons as if we had a reason to suspect they were real, invisible, and mysterious.



( re 'time') Of course, our perception of “it” is flawed inherently because this universe is quite an incredible place...
For many calculations the function of space-time is used, which does not make a distinct separation from time and space.


This kind of shows exactly the point I'm making, you (as we all do) have both agreed with me 'time' is just and only the maths we use to compare motion - and there is only motion.
and also said
'time' is a mysterious thing, and 'it' exists, and 'it' is hard to perceive, and 'it' 'is' scientifically merged with space, and it may be traveled through in theory and so on.

So, its a tricky point of logic, “our perception of “it” “ - implies 'it' (time) exists and is something, and, that 'it' is hard to perceive... while I'm saying No. Perhaps there is no 'time' that is hard to perceive. Perhaps there is just, and only what we actually observe, matter (energy), and motion – period, that's all you observe, and that’s all there is.

“Dragons, and the mechanism that enables biological creatures, to literally breath fire, and be invisible”, are not hard to observe because the universe is an incredible place, they are hard to observe because just calling a dog, a 'dragon' is in no way at all reason or proof to think Dragons exist – and we have no reason to suspect they exist.

Likewise (imo) 'time' is not hard to perceive because the universe is incredible, it may be hard to perceive because just calling motion 'time' is not proof it exists.

My Question to you Serdgiam, is this, are you saying you think TIME is JUST maths, or TIME is a thing that exists and is mysterious, and merged with space etc?
edit on 8-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

crowdedskies

Harte

crowdedskies

Harte

crowdedskies

Harte


Will you now claim that distance is illusory as well?

Harte


Yes it is as well.

So, can you see over the counter?

How?

Harte

Your question is based on my comment that distance is also an illusion .

Yes, I can see over the counter - because I can move. If I moved at the speed of sound then there would be hardly any space between me and what is behind the counter.

Yet you can see over the counter even if you're not moving.

Spoiler - you can see over the counter because you are taller than the counter.

Your length is greater than that of the counter in the y direction.

Hence, length (distance) is not illusory.

Harte


I was thinking seeing behind the counter.

It does not matter really. If we are talking over the counter, I would stil need to stand up if I was initially in a sitting position or I would need to move towards the counter first.

You have actually disproved yourself. You are talking about my height. Well , I was only 2 feet tall at one time and I grew up. This is a perfect example of my assertiom :

Time is : MOVEMENT (in space)
Space is : MOVEMENT (in time)

Remove the bracketed words and you have the real meaning of Space and Time

Fact, you can see over the counter.

From this fact, logic demands only the deduction that your height is greater than that of the counter.

Therefore, length is not illusory.

Q.E.D.

Harte



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Wisdomer
 


Hi Wisdomer,

Yep, it’s hard to explain, because there are so many things that have to be explained all at once, and in my experience if you try to re-explain everything people think proves time exists in one go, its too much and too complicated. And if you don’t explain everything they tend (naturally) to think anything you haven’t covered you must be wrong about :^)

(I try to keep replies short, but it’s extremely hard, especially when you’re not in a dynamic face to face conversation)

My problem is I’ve chosen to try and test the idea of timelessness out completely and to explain how it might be possibly true , to the scientific community. (At least you’re just enjoying chatting about it : )

The one think i wanted to say, having seen some of your posts, is i think you may have still not quite got it (or at least how i see it).

Eg you say


Time is a unit of measurement, on a clock, any kind of clock, we use this clock to count, to count how long it has taken to get to the shop,


But i think things are even simpler. The trick , and you are one person who might actually get this is to STOP, clear your mind of ALL preconceptions, and then just think about the most basic things you actually observe.

In my opinion these are that things can exist, and move. (change, interact etc).

The word ‘clock’ is subtly misleading. Any such machine is in fact of course just a motor.
(see this > at 20:36 for a break down of a clock)

(and, Wisdomer, 03:47 for the description of my experience of your epiphany)

In my opinion, if you consider that everything literally just exists and is changing, then you can see you don’t ‘count how ‘long’ it has ‘taken’ to get to the shop”

Instead,
- you either are going to the shop or you are not going to the shop,

- And a hand on a numbered dial either is going round or it is not.

- But you, the hand, the shop, the dial, and anything else is always just somewhere, doing something.

- What all the stuff is doing, may be changing, but nothing starts and nothing stops.

- And nothing is ‘taking’ amounts of a thing called ‘time’.

We never measure ‘time’, we just see motion and in places chose to compare 2 examples of motion (‘now’), and (misleadingly) choose to call one of them ‘time’.

We may look at the position of hands on dials and do some maths, but i never ‘take’ time to do anything. I, you , and everything else is –always- just somewhere in relation to everything else (eg the shop or whatever), and either moving towards or away from other stuff.

As I said in my first post to you , imo, you may be more right, and things may be ‘simpler’ that you first realise.

Ps don't get annoyed etc with people who don't get what your saying, or seem a bit cheeky in response, it's a tricky subject, hard to grasp, and likely to prompt a few off the wall responses... just go with the flow man : )
mm


edit on 8-1-2014 by mattmars because: I'm wild and crazy



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AK907ICECOLD
 





I will laugh at you when the OP signs your book at a signing after he's compared to Newton, etc.. by the community.


So you are under the impression this is a new idea.


This philosophy of no time and there is only now started with Confucius or Buddha a few 1000 years ago.


Its how I live, in the moment, extremely hard to do and much focus and training of the mind and body required.



OP,

The journey that you realized you are on is one of amazement and wonders, pain and joy.

Keep walking my friend and maybe we will meet at the destination or better yet our paths might cross or join before the destination.

Living in the moment tells me our paths have crossed right here right now.

Yet we are oblivious to each other as people, amazement and wonders.....



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
We have "time" all wrong. It dosen't occur in spurts, instead it is like a flowing stream. The past, present, and future all seamlessly connected. The only time that ever truly exists is NOW.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   




top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join