It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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' ".
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.
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?
reply to post by 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.
ps I'd be interested to hear about your hypotheses, is there a link you can post?
I would really love to see your -experiments- and math that have an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.
re... 'math' that have an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.
re- an alternative way of describing a facet of movement.
"It" [time] most certainly exists on some level
Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)",
then re explaining it, ( no offense, but as you may see, yourself included).
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.
What I am suggesting is -perhaps, things -just- exist and move. period.
"It" [time] most certainly exists on some level
Could you show me the experiment that shows time exists?
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.
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.
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 would absolutely love to go over it! If you happen to take it as far as actually creating something from it
--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)
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...
thats where u are wrong, time does exist
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.