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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

mattmars
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.


Thats why we graduated to science and math centuries ago.
Semantics are rendered irrelevant to the greatest degree possible. "Philosophy," or what is being done here, has no countenance outside of the individual perception. This is one of the greatest advantages to using science, experiments, and math to explain our perspective rather than words.


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.


Yup, thats why we have moved on to math and experiments.




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.


You are entirely free to disagree, obviously! I would really love to see your experiments and math that have an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.



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.


Measurement of movement is done through a myriad of ways. Time is different than amplitude. To correctly describe the wave functions, we must use these different facets much in the same way that describing ones eyes will not do much to describe ones hair, height, or body weight.


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.


Paradoxes only show the limit of our understanding. And, not to be harsh, but there is next to no science in this thread, and definitely endless speculation (literally, seeing as how the proposition is that time doesnt exist).


(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).


Who called the action of comparing motion time? And it is very clear that time is referring to math within the scientific community. And yes, there IS a big mystery! Though, it isnt exclusive to this one topic. The "mystery" is why we do science in the first place. We are conceiving usable patterns based on the universe itself. The advantage of science over philosophy is that these results are yielded through actual exploration and repeatability rather than the even MORE limited avenue of solely individual experience and interpretation.


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' ".


Its not vague at all, though I would say it is incomplete. If something can be "here" and then "there," it happens according to a relativistic rate that we label as time. The "mystery" is that this does not appear consistent throughout the scales. I personally think it is a mistake to think that this either completely nullifies the concept universally, or that we need to force everything into the concept. Like I said, I have my own hypotheses, but this thread isnt about that.



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.


I didnt necessarily say time is mysterious. "It" most certainly exists on some level if we are questioning it right now. "It" is not hard to perceive. You misinterpreted what I said greatly.


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.


I never called motion time, and never said that it is hard to perceive. I said that our perception of it is flawed, and that it is a facet of movement through space as we understand it.


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?


The wording of this question makes many assumptions, and quite incorrectly. Its not an either/or proposition.

Our understanding of the pattern we label "time" is done through math. The pattern itself is a "thing" that exists, at least in certain systems (but perhaps not all). Math is just a human context for patterns that occur outside of our understanding. We put them into a form that we can understand, utilize, and replicate.

If you have come up with different math, backed by experimental results, that describe and explain the pattern.. I would absolutely love to hear it!


If not, then I will take my leave and leave an apology for bringing science and math into a philosophical topic (its not really the point of philosophy).




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


I thank you for your insult of assumption.

NO, I think the "idea" of human stupidity and lack of intelligence and knowledge is human nature if you realize that this "idea" has be repeated over and over since human consciousness.

Lighten up!


And I meant, that your book was the OP's that he had bought: to be clear,

so in reality: I agree with you
edit on 8-1-2014 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 

hi 'itsnowagain' - i think its always -just- -now-,
thanks for the video, i like to be scientific, great talk, but i kind of hate that 'everything is nothing you cant know what you know' kind of stuff , though i have read about zen koans etc and had a few odd experiences, i would still like to keep this discussion scientific, which even in mystical philosophy still has a value. all understanding, is of the one thing that might be understood,

i , am an 'is-ist' that is, how ever it is, that's how it is, and the best we can do is try to see how it 'is'.

but his video reminded me of a poem i wrote.

the stuff i use to see the world
is the same stuff that i see,
but most of it is doing something else,
and a little bit is me ;^)

matt marsden ( 'a brief history of timelessness', amazon)

edit on 9-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
In risk of retro-ing this thread. Time has always existed. What will you do with your's?



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Hi Serdgiam,
Ahhh ( sigh of relief) finally someone who respects the scientific method. Thank you very much for going through my post systematically, please note I am interested in many areas of thought, but in this matter my aim is purely science, without distraction. (I kind of like 'philosophy' but often find it inherently conclusion-less in practical areas).

And I think the area of time is one place where science may actually be being so unsystematic, that the problem is hidden in entrenched assumptions, that are being habitually, and defensively and broadly taken as confirmed fact, without actual supporting experimental evidence, to the exclusion of a certain logical alternative being objectively reviewed.

I'll go over your comments and get back to you. thanks again.

ps I'd be interested to hear about your hypotheses, is there a link you can post?
mm

edit on 11-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

mattmars
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Hi Serdgiam,
Ahhh ( sigh of relief) finally someone who respects the scientific method. Thank you very much for going through my post systematically, please note I am interested in many areas of thought, but in this matter my aim is purely science, without distraction. (I kind of like 'philosophy' but often find it inherently conclusion-less in practical areas).


I think philosophy is a great "stage" of science, if it is followed through with experiments, etc.

In fact, I think that trying to put realistic limits on it may stifle some creative avenues that we have yet to explore. To be clear, I wasnt apologizing to be condescending. It may even be more productive to remove the current scientific paradigm from the philosophical stage all together.


And I think the area of time is one place where science may actually be being so unsystematic, that the problem is hidden in entrenched assumptions, that are being habitually, and defensively and broadly taken as confirmed fact, without actual supporting experimental evidence, to the exclusion of a certain logical alternative being objectively reviewed.


In society, most people accept the "truth" passed down from science as the gospel. Its quite an interesting thing, really. The scale of many experiments makes public replication nearly impossible and motivation for public replication of experiments has also been driven into the ground.

Many will say that science is an ever-changing system, but it seems its adherents hold back its progress just as much as anyone else. Many of the events that truly changed science came from, at the time, "fringe" elements of society.

Like so many other things in this modern world, science is not immune from corporate agendas.


ps I'd be interested to hear about your hypotheses, is there a link you can post?


No link. Basically, it proposes time exists in this medium of space-time (our universe), but it is not present everywhere in existence. Its like an air bubble of space-time surrounded by an ocean of timelessness. Some primary forces are able to permeate both, but will have a physical impact in the surrounding space (like a bullet being fired into a block of ballistics gel). Who knows, maybe there are even more exotic "mediums" than just time-dependent and timeless.


But, in this thinking, one medium is not more "important" or "real" than the other, necessarily. They are both just part of the system in place that we know as our Universe.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Hi Serdgiam, I'm doing some other stuff at the mo, but please check out these vids if you haven't seen them, they may get you up to speed for my reply.

Note, I am of course aware what i am suggesting may be wrong, but, these videos are the result of a great deal of research and independent logical and thought. If you watch them, it's important to -actually- be (cautiously) open minded, scientific, and listen objectively to what they are suggesting - may- possibly be the case, (as opposed to -playing- at being scientific, with a closed mind, ie being sure that what you already think must be true, so you just have to argue how anything else -must- be wrong), and pointless otherwise.

If you just watch them -assuming- that an idea you first hear from your parents, or primary school teacher, -must- be correct because you heard it first, and therefore you should interpret everything else you hear as being wrong if it disagrees with your currently assumed truth, then that is not object scientific observation of a new possible analysis of what you actually observe, and what actually needs to be explained.

ie if you don't actually observe a past and a future, then you may not need the theory that a thing called time exists, to explain these other conjectured 'things'.

if in fact you only observe matter(energy) just existing, and patterns in your mind you 'call' (perhaps wrongly) memories of 'the past', then any 'theory' may only have to incorporate, and account for , matter existing, moving, changing, and holding formations etc.

So please, if you just watch them arbitrarily -defending- the view you have heard , and always just assumed -must- be true, then it may be like a flat earther, just, defending against the idea the earth may be round. i.e he will not be objectively listening to a different possibility, but, arbitrarily closing his mind to even considering it objectively, and seeing how it actually correlates to actual observations.




mm
edit on 12-1-2014 by mattmars because: we all make mistakes

edit on 12-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mattmars
 


I mean no offense with this, but watching those would be an hour and a half of my time. You have also continued to make many assumptions about how I progress my perspective. Please watch those in the future, they can lead to deceiving yourself on a massive level (in thinking that you understand anothers perspective after a few paragraphs of conversation).

The terse hypothesis provided is not anything like what is being suggested "in the classroom" or anywhere else. The only thing that comes close is the time-independent Schrodinger equation (which most are not even aware of what it is). And those who DO look into it, frequently dont go as far as to think about how it would actually manifest, which is the important part.

I think that we, as beings, permeate both time-dependent and timeless mediums. Though, different parts of us are limited to one or the other.

Many facets of current science try to explain everything within our knowledge of the medium of space-time, but as you suggest, this may be a faulty assumption. However, there is far, far too much evidence to write off how things manifest within space-time to eliminate it as part of the equation. The medium we are looking at in the quantum is something we are trying to force into space-time, and how things act in space-time. I personally think this is a faulty way to go about it, but I could be wrong. Likewise, since the timeless medium exists codependently with the time-dependent, I think it is faulty to write off time entirely (and again, I could be wrong).

I think the most accurate way to explore this is to explore wave propagation and perhaps even get back to the "basics" of math. I have my doubts that going further and further into more and more complex mathematical systems will yield what we are looking for (answers).

Thanks for the conversation, feel free to PM me if you wish to talk further.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mattmars
 

Hi Serdgiam,

Sorry if i have misconstrued your words etc, or made assumptions about how you progress your perspective, not intentional.
- but trust me, you want to try making the point I'm suggesting. Virtually every single reply i make has to start out politely explaining why someone has not read or understood what i have said carefully, then re explaining it, ( no offense, but as you may see, yourself included).

Also, as you found with the videos, even if i give people all the information to explain what im suggesting, in clear and direct images and voice over, then literally 19 'minutes' is too much for them to hear how the entire universe, and their lives may be literally timeless, or with music jokes Lego animations and a live talk, they can't be bothered to passively listen or watch it.

And if i give it to them in short concise written terms, they think it cant mean much because I haven't said much ('
') , and in detail (the entire book www.amazon.com...) its too much to read, ( there's non so blind and all that). But i guess that's our nature, we go to a place specifically all about exploring a new possibility, then say we're too busy to hear about it ('
'), but this is the cross i have chosen to bear ('
')

If you are referring to [taking as default] an idea you first hear from your parents, or primary school teacher, , i don't mean to be rude, It's just that even top scientists openly state that they are building on an idea that they first heard form those people ( no offense to those people) - and don't seem to notice it might be worth consciously considering the origin of the seed of the idea.

No offense to anyone who is religious, but is it an incredible coincidence how many children seem to also believe, and take as defaulting to being correct, the religion that also happened to be believed by their parents and schools ?- often to the complete exclusion of considering another perspective... because they heard a particular one first?. I'm just saying we should be wary of assuming one scientific has special status, because we heard it first.

If you did not first hear about the idea of time from your parents I would have a word with them, they really should have mentioned it to you , like wise early teachers. : )

RE the vids, Sorry they might take a whole 90 'min' to watch, trust me they took a great deal more effort to make. I find it amazing how sometimes we go somewhere to possibly learn something new, but then want a great deal of information compressed even more, shorter, and clearer and with more detail, and easier to ingest than watching a video... or its too much effort ('
') I guess that's just our nature.

I just assumed that given the subject of this forum (How time does not exist...) they might be of interest to you, because, well that's only, and entirely, what they are about, but no worries.

Thanks again re your detailed comments on my other post, i agree with much of what you say, but re


I would really love to see your -experiments- and math that have an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.


You've entirely missed my point, (don't worry i get that constantly, its like the movie "Payback", no matter how often Gibsons character makes it clear he -just- wants his $70,000, everyone hears something different) -

What I am suggesting is -perhaps, things -just- exist and move. period.

The experiment to test this would be to look around and spot if you can see anything existing... and moving.
ie without exception, everything you see, and do, in the entire universe is an experiment that supports the idea things exist , and can move.

I can literally point you to trillions of ongoing experiments - look at a beach or an ocean or a field or the clouds or the stars or your cornflakes.

The question is, "if you think this direct observation is false, and have theory that something extra exists and is needed (time) - then what is your experiment to support the invisible intangible thing that you think "most certainly exists" "?

RE The experiment to disprove what i am suggesting (its not really up to me to define it) but i would suggest it would prove that extra to what we do observe there is also a past, and or a future... as opposed to just looking at patterns in your head and saying 'these things here now, prove the existence of a record of all events in another dimension'. Or that some other suggested aspect of this 'time' thing exist as more than useful maths.

the point being, someone who is suggesting 'things are exactly as they actually appear to be', has little to prove
someone claiming extra to this , invisible intangible 'things' or places or forces ( or however you define the 'time' that you state in your post "it" [time] most certainly exists on some level )with a flow and direction etc etc etc - the person making those claims - has to provide experiments to prove this

Note specifically just providing maths to back up a claim - without a single experiment , is not science.



re... 'math' that have an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.


Again, you've misconstrued my point as i state throughout my work -perhaps- relativity is entirely correct, but because nowhere does it prove or point to a proof of a past or future existing - but just assumes this - then - perhaps all of its -maths- are entirely correct - but -just- about the rates at which things may be changing 'now'.

and re


re- an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.

Again you've completely missed my point. I'm saying look around you , literally ' now' all you see is 'movement' - and all i am saying , and i say it often and clearly 100 different ways - is -perhaps there is only movement - and perhaps all we do is compare movement - i do -not- have an alternative way of describing a facet of movement - im saying (perhaps) there is just movement , and all we do is compare movement,

Anyway, thanks again for your feedback, interesting hypothesis, i always like original thought,

One final question, it's clear i have the position that im strongly suggesting there is no such thing as time, while you say (direct quote)...



"It" [time] most certainly exists on some level


Could you show me the experiment that shows time exists? - one that cant be explained in terms of just matter(energy), and movement existing, and which doesn't rely on 'begging the question', en.wikipedia.org...or circular reasoning?



(wiki
Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)",


If you find you can't answer that question, or some sensible interpretation of it (ie don't get caught up on the kind of 'ahh this word might be taken 2 ways' kind of distraction, or responding with another question etc , or any response that doesn't actually point to an experiment in its answer, or you have to avoid the question in any other way, then it might be worth thinking why that actually is.

yours, not rudely , just logically, matt marsden
edit on 13-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

mattmars
then re explaining it, ( no offense, but as you may see, yourself included).


No one can read your mind, much less interpret the signals in the way that you do. Even a word as simple as "house" will have an individual and unique interpretation to every person reading it.


If you are referring to [taking as default] an idea you first hear from your parents, or primary school teacher, , i don't mean to be rude, It's just that even top scientists openly state that they are building on an idea that they first heard form those people ( no offense to those people) - and don't seem to notice it might be worth consciously considering the origin of the seed of the idea.


You mean the same cultural story that you are subject to? Everyone is, really. It goes much, much, much deeper than just philosophy or science though. Many scientists are subject to living within the same paradigm they were taught, but plenty are not. And its from those people that the "revolutionary" discoveries tend to be sourced.


What I am suggesting is -perhaps, things -just- exist and move. period.


Thats what I am saying too. Its just to turn that understanding into anything useful, we have to learn about how "things -just- exist and move." By learning how these things move, we can build new technologies based on that knowledge.

The past and the future are philosophical concepts. That said, what is happening right now happens according to a pattern. Exploring this pattern, and how it happens, is science. We use the concept of time to identify a part of the pattern of what is happening.




"It" [time] most certainly exists on some level


Could you show me the experiment that shows time exists?


Read my statement very, very carefully. The last part is the most important. Whether or not it is indicative of reality as a whole is not relevant to the statement. Here we are sitting and talking about "time," proving that it exists on some level. You have your concept of it, I have mine, and they are both made up of very real physical processes that are happening unique to this particular event. Even if that "level" is only in brain waves, thoughts, and computer code, it exists in that way.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


HI Serdgiam, Sorry been busy with comments on my vid,
thanks for the reply,
re


The past and the future are philosophical concepts. That said, what is happening right now happens according to a pattern. Exploring this pattern, and how it happens, is science. We use the concept of time to identify a part of the pattern of what is happening.

(my emphasis)

Yes, I basically agree, without a shadow, the past and future are at least philosophical concepts, I think that was cleared up in the very first posts.

I'm addressing (as i consistently state very clearly), whether they , and Time, are just concepts or, terms that relate to more than useful 'ideas'.

EG, as many professional scientific experts directly suggest, 'things , or places, (or however you want to describe 'them') that 'genuinely 'exist'. To the extent that we are traveling through, or might travel to them, eg 'back into "the" Past'.

re "what is happening right now happens according to a pattern"

yes agreed, you kick a ball north east, it moves north east, you create patterns in your mind as this happens, they exist in your mind ('now'). And the science of how things move, and how electrons etc flow are flowing in your brain , is science.

But does the 'pattern' also relate to an extra, and genuinely existing 'physical' ( or however you want to term it) phenomena, that the word time also relates to ?. Thats the question im addressing in 'A Brief History of Timelessness'.

I notice re my question...



Could you show me the experiment that shows time exists? - one that cant be explained in terms of just matter(energy), and movement existing, and which doesn't rely on 'begging the question', en.wikipedia.org...or circular reasoning?
(wiki Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)",

If you find you can't answer that question [directly, in physical terms, as we might experimetally explore energy, or motion etc], or some sensible interpretation of it (ie don't get caught up on the kind of 'ahh this word might be taken 2 ways' kind of distraction, or responding with another question etc , or any response that doesn't actually point to an experiment in its answer, or you have to avoid the question in any other way, then it might be worth thinking why that actually is.


Without being rude, and I'm not picking on you, but I think your answer got caught up in concepts and patterns, precisely the kind of thing I've found in basically all the books* I've read on time, clear question, getting a 'response' ,ie extending the conversation,but not exactly a firm answer. (ie the stuff i mentioned to watch out for in the 2nd part of it).

* 'A Brief History of Timelessness', Bibliography.

Anyway, I'm focusing on the comments turning up on

(sorry it puts in such a big picture each 'time' )

Be happy to continue there, don't worry you don't have to sit through the video


Yours sincerely Matt.




edit on 17-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

mattmars
But does the 'pattern' also relate to an extra, and genuinely existing 'physical' ( or however you want to term it) phenomena, that the word time also relates to ?. Thats the question im addressing in 'A Brief History of Timelessness'.


You arent the only one asking this question. Anyone who is participating in science is asking the same thing, on a myriad of topics.

What we come up with are limited interpretations of what is happening. This is why science even exists in the first place, and continues to exist. Though, it has become quite zealous in what I see as its "teenage years" (modern science). We use math to better utilize the patterns that are in place, to both our benefit and destruction. It turns into a completely different picture when one attempts to use their philosophy to create inventions upon the ideas. At that point, we at least know that we have a facet somewhat correct (at least mathematically).

Anywho, once you bring science and math to your philosophy, I would absolutely love to go over it! If you happen to take it as far as actually creating something from it, that would be revolutionary and exciting. Until that point, have fun on YT!



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Hi S, I see your online,
Just to clarify,

I'm being Scientific , I don't need extra maths (that's the whole point), and it's not philosophical (collequal usage).

Yep I know I'm not the only one asking this question, ( I actually just answered this point on a reply to 'Julio' in the current video comments), but as far as I can tell (from searching the net, and books etc), I'm the only one presently examining it from the basics, in such detail.

REwe at least know that we have a facet somewhat correct (at least mathematically).
Yes, but the conclusion that the math proves a 'past' etc really exists seems Highly incongruent, otherwise one would expect professional scientific pages to be evident where searching...

Google 'scientific proof that time exists as a real thing'

RE once you bring science and math to your philosophy, I would absolutely love to go over it! If you happen to take it as far as actually creating something from it

As stated, I have no contention with the existing maths, and the existing maths concurs with all that i am suggesting, and no additional maths or science is needed to prove my point.

All i require to prove is that "matter(energy) exists and changes", which any one assuming "matter(energy) exists and changes... over time", agrees with, but, they need to scientifically prove the extra 'time' bit of their claim.

If I'm wrong (which I am open to being), what is needed is scientific proof that Relativity is not just about warped space, and dilated rates of change in it, happening 'now' and/or, scientific proof that other 'times' than now exist.

re philosophy, no, I'm being completely scientific, dealing only what can be reasonably experimentally shown to exist, and drawing conclusions that resolve others philosophical conjecture, and 'paradoxes' etc.

As you, yourself clearly stated, - direct quote...
The past and the future are philosophical concepts.
(my italics).

The (Sophistic) angle "'time' probably really exists in some way unless disproven", is not science.

The idea, we can scientifically and experimentally, hypothesis and 'prove' beyond a reasonable doubt that "things exist and move", is science. And that's all I'm claiming, and with that, questioning your (and others) Philosophical conjecture that a past and future and thing called time exist.

You said it yourself, The past and the future are philosophical concepts. That's Philosophy, not me. You cant keep changing horses mid discussion.

re


I would absolutely love to go over it! If you happen to take it as far as actually creating something from it


Dude, seriously?...err...


--the 90 odd page searchable website,

--forum discussions around the web, answering countless questions directly and politely,

--the simple and direct questions that show people the vagueness and philosophical circular reasoning in their own answers, and

--the 23 (twenty three) you-tube videos... (The latest 'Brian Cox and Time-Travel solutions') with over 2,000 hits)

--And the 500 page book,
With 43 sections, covering ('Timelessly') rethoric, semantics, 'memories' , the past, present, future, logical reinterpretations of SR and GR, light clocks, resolving temporal paradoxes, persistent illusions, common logical fallacies, cause and effect, Aristotle, Romer, Kepler,Ptolemy, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawing, Cox et al, black holes, warped space, temporal order, quantum-mechanics,and 'c'.
(plus some other relevant stuff)


err That's not bad going for free, (well the book's a £2.53).

That's all I've created from it. But none of it may mean a thing to anyone not objectively reading, understanding, and considering it, as being possibly, in essence, right or wrong.)

matt marsden ('A Brief History of Timelessness')

edit on 17-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

mattmars

--the 90 odd page searchable website,

--forum discussions around the web, answering countless questions directly and politely,

--the simple and direct questions that show people the vagueness and philosophical circular reasoning in their own answers, and

--the 23 (twenty three) you-tube videos...

--And the 500 page book,
With 43 sections, covering ('Timelessly') rethoric, semantics, 'memories' , the past, present, future, logical reinterpretations of SR and GR, light clocks, resolving temporal paradoxes, persistent illusions, common logical fallacies, cause and effect, Aristotle, Romer, Kepler,Ptolemy, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawing, Cox et al, black holes, warped space, temporal order, quantum-mechanics,and 'c'.
(plus some other relevant stuff)



Yes, you have done that. I should have said "when you apply your philosophy to an invention (or even just math), rather than just words discussing it, Ill give it another look."

Good luck.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 

Thanks Serdgiam,

If you check any of it out, I hope you find some of it at least thought provoking. I think (if what I'm suggesting has any value), no new maths (just a hopefully logical reinterpretation of accepted, 'provable/proven' knowledge), is reasonably elegant. Sorry no new inventions, that's up to the 'practical' guys (and girls).

Thanks for the polite and intelligent conversation, If you have any questions please comment on youtube.
mm



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

rival
Time is a measurement of movement.

We humans measure time relative to the movement of the sun and earth.

I am fifty years old...on Jupiter I would be five

Without movement there is no time...


Glad to see you understand...

www.youtube.com...

Thanks, but I won’t be here very long, as I get tired of telling what I know to be true to so many fool, felons and feds.
My mission in life is not to wake the dead for I am not the “Jackass Whisperer”.

Most all people view time as being linear and it is from our prospective.
Some aliens are able to jump around on the Carousel of time and there is a man that
Claims to have done that for our government way back in the 70’s.
Look up the name Andrew Basiago on you tube and listen to his reported interviews.
I first heard of the project back in the mid 60’s but at the “time” had a hard “time” believing the story.
As the baby boomers begin to retire you may see more of them come forward with more reports of very secret projects.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
thats where u are wrong, time does exist



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

ilikeblondes
thats where u are wrong, time does exist


Yes, time does exist, but it is perceived to us as linear.

We are trapped in linear time and time is and can be both linear
as well as non-linear in nature.

I saw myself as an old man back in the year 1965. If it was true,
I should be getting close to the time when I return to that year.

If I do get the opportunity to go back in time it will be kept secret
from everyone.

I came to this belief recently based on three bit of information
received over many years.

Andrew Basiago said he was used as a time traveler when he
was very young.

Most people will never believe his report because it sounds so
unreal and impossible.

If you don’t believe time travel is real…you are forgiven!



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by waltwillis
 


I comprehend that it would have to be a particle isolation chamber and reverse or accelerate a surrounding area and because everything is made out of particles.

Its a mental state one enters, a shift in consciousness to a previous body or later manifestation.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Wisdomer
reply to post by waltwillis
 


I comprehend that it would have to be a particle isolation chamber and reverse or accelerate a surrounding area and because everything is made out of particles.

Its a mental state one enters, a shift in consciousness to a previous body or later manifestation.


I have no clue as to how it all works, but according to Andrew Basiago it works and we have had it for some time now.

Now give it some thought as to why the government would not tell the public about this newfound technology?

My best guess would be that they have no intention to share such power gained from knowing the future.

Now that is not too hard to believe!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join