Time Does Not Exist

[xyz]

Getting back to XYZ's formula:  0+1=0, I think I can help lend some proof to that:  I once owned an '86 Oldsmobile that was so poorly designed & manufactured that virtually everything that could go wrong... actually did.  So, I finally reached the point where I was going to "86" that stupid car if even one more thing went awry. Anyway, I climbed into it one Winter morning, almost late for work, and of course the damn thing wouldn't start.  So that was 'iT' as far as I was concerned..  I called the Junker and had it hauled away.  It was just that ONE more thing  that that broke the camels back, and led me to '86' my stupid '86 Olds...ending up, of course with zero cars to get me to work.

 

So anyway ...what it boiled down to was this simple expression: '86' + 1 - '86 =0.....               Ergo 1 screw-up = 0 cars.

And I'm now certain that XYZ will be ever so grateful for not having to resort to Hamiltonian Hieroglyphics to further befuddle us with his interesting postulate.

 

..............................................

 

Time, by the way, does exist.  If anyone's interested: it's a perception of ours, supported most likely by a very real form of significantly repressed dynamic flux, configured to keep Ol' Sol performing as a reactor, rather than going all Nova on us.  I see it as an important part of a Star-keeping Utility' that nearly fills our star's entire heliosphere, and which provides for that reactor's 'containment vessel' (Gravity) as well.....  I imagine Time as continuously interacting with Gravity, likely varying over a narrow control range so as to 'optimize' Sol's output.  (It would still appear to be a 'constant', noting that all of our clocking mechanisms would track it very nicely.)

 

Further, Time's quantized range of values must certainly be uniquely specific to each star, thus rendering that universal constant 'C' as being neither universal nor a constant.  (The value of 'C' is more likely just a 'locked-in average' over a short range of greatly attenuated solar dynamics). 

 

And further worth noting: all forms of energy entering any star's heliosphere will quickly align itself to that star's unique 'local C'. thus giving the inhabitants of that particular solar system the appearance of all energy being 'universal' in its velocity.

 

OK , that's enough...... Just thought I'd throw all that in, to provoke any number of people on this planet who may be less engaged than our esteemed colleague "XYZ"..

 

"Yes Virginia, there really is Time"  (or so goes this particular entry in the "Strange Claims" Forum.)

Thank you for your reply Bill, an interesting way of describing it. Maybe you will be interested in another way to look at it, imagine timing a pulse, starting at 0_t

 

We record 1 beat of the pulse, 0+1=1 beat , however continue monitoring the pulse  the true result would be , (0 + space = ''1''  +space=''2'' +space=''3'' =0   always returning to the zero point, 

 

To be honest though Bill after several years of trying, I think I am going to give up, I am sick of my ideas that are based on axioms being thrown out of main forum into things like silly claims and on other forums such as the calling  me stupid, deluded etc, it is like  a school yard at times. 

 

Just because I am not a ''scientist'' , the scientist do not believe other than themselves that people can think and have valid ideas. Very strange behaviour. 

Edited February 15, 2016 by xyz

[OldBill]

Believe it or not, I see the point you're trying to get across - and I see the problem, too: You're operating in a theater where the edge of semantic expression is "off-stage". Simply, there appears to be no axiom or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure, such as you propose, can be based.   It may simply lack any kind of aphorism that would inspire or induce that particular mindset needed to grasp your example, and (hopefully) rally to your point. 

Perhaps you're a whole generation ahead of your 'peers' - and doomed to suffer their slings & arrows.  As Einstein once famously observed: 

• "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
•  
• But regarding being cast down among the 'Strange Claims' group, I myself actually feel much more comfortable operating down here- mostly due to  the realization that my mindset still can't accept that all Physics is Math.... and believe (as did Einstein) that "Imagination is more important than knowledge"...to which I would add: "and numbers".

 

 

a

[xyz]

 

Believe it or not, I see the point you're trying to get across - and I see the problem, too: You're operating in a theater where the edge of semantic expression is "off-stage". Simply, there appears to be no axiom or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure, such as you propose, can be based.   It may simply lack any kind of aphorism that would inspire or induce that particular mindset needed to grasp your example, and (hopefully) rally to your point. 

Perhaps you're a whole generation ahead of your 'peers' - and doomed to suffer their slings & arrows.  As Einstein once famously observed: 

• "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
•  
• But regarding being cast down among the 'Strange Claims' group, I myself actually feel much more comfortable operating down here- mostly due to  the realization that my mindset still can't accept that all Physics is Math.... and believe (as did Einstein) that "Imagination is more important than knowledge"...to which I would add: "and numbers".

 

 

a

 

I completely agree that thought is the former before the maths. I do not consider myself ahead of my peers, I just consider I am extending the peers lessons and looking at their thoughts from a different perspective, people miss the axioms totally. 

 

I agree I should of stayed in school and done my exams etc, it is true that I am not a sheep. 

 

However, I also know logically, that I am an individual, the peers may  never get to a future of my thinking without my individual thinking, all these ideas  I have will be lost in time. 

 

 

And in all fairness to strange claims sections, I suppose we can be blunt. 

 

 

P.s there is no money in thoughts that do not involve making things, in my opinion scientists  are only really interested in things that make money.  I even offered on one forum, at my own expense and time to travel within reason to a scientist or University , to explain my ideas in person with a chalk board etc, obviously no one took me up on my free offer . 

 

The simple axiom of time is this, anything after 0 is history, anyone can see this is true and nobody can measure anything after zero time without it being a recording of history.,   if we created time to be a reverse and not counting forward but counting down, then time would work but the value always remains zero  in reality. 

 

Try it , 

 

a journey takes 1 hour to travel , set your clock to a 1 hr countdown, when you reach your destination the clock says 0, the exact time it should say. 

 

 

This may make you giggle bill , I have just posted this elsewhere. 

 

 

Hello science, it is me again , 

 

I have just planned a journey, the journey will take exactly one hour at a set speed, so I have set my alarm to countdown from one hour, when I arrived at my destination, my clock still said 5 seconds, why did it not say 0, ''why do I not hear alarm bells ringing''.?

I can only conclude I experienced a slowing down of time or I can conclude that I did not account for starting velocity of 0 and the length contraction/expansion of time, of acceleration to get to my constant speed.  What do you think my mistake is?

I started off at 0 velocity, then it went like this -  5 m a second, 4 m a second, 3 m a second, 2 m a second, 1m a second, 1m a second,, 1m a second , 1 m a second. 

 

 

My constant speed was flat out, it was my terminal velocity. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by xyz

[OldBill]

Regarding those extra five seconds, my only conclusion would be that your clock was most likely made in China. :) 

 

Sorry... couldn't resist.  But I like your thinking.

 

And just remember: so far as 'Strange Claims' is concerned, you're in the same company as that Italian guy who thought the world was round...had people laughing for years!

[xyz]

Regarding those extra five seconds, my only conclusion would be that your clock was most likely made in China. :)

 

Sorry... couldn't resist.  But I like your thinking.

 

And just remember: so far as 'Strange Claims' is concerned, you're in the same company as that Italian guy who thought the world was round...had people laughing for years!

Lol Bill , and thanks , I have had some give on a different forum, some admittance. I have thought of several ways to prove some things. 

 

You know how a photon takes 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth?  not quite true, the photon would miss the earth because we are moving. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpSXxwcTIvQ

 

and I have done some relativity

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYC-7QaI2Qg

 

added- sorry should of said, the above video shows how point sources relatively to the Lorentz transformations observe each other relative to motion, and how the inverse square law has a limit where light fails to reflect the object, and the point source becomes zero point sources. 

 

In simple terms if the observable Universe was 93 billion lys in length, defined by two point sources, we can be assured that either side of A and B, there is another 93 billion lys, showing space is infinite. 

 

We can also consider that the constant of light speed, is not constant, the caesium  atom is measurement using light , the light variates as observed in the Keating experiment,  Relatively an observer in motion observes light travelling at a different speed. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by xyz

[OldBill]

I guess I can see your point, but still have to ask:  How long did it take those photons that are coming through my window right now to get here?

 

And if our Universe were truly 'infinite', why is it so frenetically pre-occupied with converting matter-into-mass-into-energy that it couldn't possibly need, or have any use for?

 

My take on that is that the Universe is a very finite 'Energy Organism' that is in still in the process of cleaning up its own matter-scatter mess, something it made (perhaps accidentally) some 14 billion years ago. 

Apparently it's gotten pretty good at doing what it does, but it still has a long way to go, and has to have somewhere outside of itself to eject those supermassive black turds that are left over. :)

[xyz]

I guess I can see your point, but still have to ask:  How long did it take those photons that are coming through my window right now to get here?

 

And if our Universe were truly 'infinite', why is it so frenetically pre-occupied with converting matter-into-mass-into-energy that it couldn't possibly need, or have any use for?

 

My take on that is that the Universe is a very finite 'Energy Organism' that is in still in the process of cleaning up its own matter-scatter mess, something it made (perhaps accidentally) some 14 billion years ago. 

Apparently it's gotten pretty good at doing what it does, but it still has a long way to go, and has to have somewhere outside of itself to eject those supermassive black turds that are left over.  :)

 '''How long did it take those photons that are coming through my window right now to get here?''

 

To be honest Bill a question I am thinking about and have been thinking about for a long time.   The questions I ask myself is do I personally observe single photons at all, do I observe the whole of light, do I observe a speed of light, relative to me , light  is not moving and it is I that is moving, a lot to think about really so at this time I am still unsure.   One thing is certain, we need light to enter our eyes to see, we observe  ''clear light'' between ourselves and an object,  but I do not think light needs to reflect of an object directly in to our eyes to see, like the video shows a photon would miss a moving target , 

 

As for your other question and idea  Bill I will digest them for a while and do some reading then get back to you on them.  Interesting phrase using organism, 

[A-wal]

:doh: You're still at it and you still can't grasp the basics.

In simple terms if the observable Universe was 93 billion lys in length, defined by two point sources, we can be assured that either side of A and B, there is another 93 billion lys, showing space is infinite.

Utter nonsense! If you measure a length you can be assured that the same length exists either side of proving an infinite universe? That makes no sense! You still haven't grasped the concept of curvature in space.

 

We can also consider that the constant of light speed, is not constant, the caesium  atom is measurement using light , the light variates as observed in the Keating experiment,  Relatively an observer in motion observes light travelling at a different speed. 

No. The speed of light is always the same from the perspective of any inertial frame of reference. If two objects are in motion relative to each other and light moves past them, they'll both measuring it moving at the same velocity relative to themselves, in other words they'll both see it passing them at the same speed. The reason they can observe the same thing moving at the same relative velocity despite being in motion relative to each other is because they measure different lengths between any two points  in time and in the spacial dimension they're moving through relative to each other.

And there's no such thing as 'in motion'. Objects can only be in motion relative to other objects and you can define any object as stationary with other objects moving relative to it. It's a completely arbitrary choice of a coordinate reference frame. Any 'moving' object can be thought of as stationary.

Edited February 21, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

:doh: You're still at it and you still can't grasp the basics.

 

''Your'e still at it and you still can't grasp the basics''.  Consider your words and consider the section I am in. 

 

If I was replying in the main forum to other people and defending science, I would be insisting that space-time, curvatures of space , fabric of space, time dilation, single photons entering our eyes , etc, were all ''true''

 

 

However as you can see I am in the strange claims section, I am claiming you have it wrong , I know your information and know science have it wrong in places,. So why do you keep replying with present information, as if trying to ''force'' me into accepted what I have already learnt , that I deem wrong?

 

It comes across like religion when science or individuals  does that. A belief system, theory , are just that, facts are facts. 

 

 

What you fail to grasp is the constant-'constant

 

What you fail to grasp is that we do not actually observe space curving, we have a theory that suggests this without concrete proof. The standard model is far from complete unless somebody can prove a ''fabric'' exists. 

 

 

Try this - air is transparent and allows light to pass through it without revealing any spectral content,(colour),  the air is see through. space is see through.  The air and space is ''transparent to sight''. 

 

 

You can observe a distant object and your hand simultaneously, 

 

 

Imagine a Photon starting its journey, from (A) to (B)

 

 

The problem is we do not observe single photons. 

 

So imagine the ''invisible man'' starting a journey from A to B

 

 

That is the context we are looking at. We can observe the start and finish at the same time, but we cannot visually observe the ''invisible man'' travelling his journey. 

 

 

I understand very well I am afraid, too well. Einstein's relativity thinking of seeing an object in the past, and not seeing it in its correct position is incorrect. We observe the entire visual universe as a whole simultaneously.

[A-wal]

You're failure to understand it doesn't make it wrong!

Curved spacetime isn't the cause, it's the effect. Time dilation and length contraction are the cause. It's allows you to plot a course in a four dimensional coordinate system which creates a curved path.

If you're talking about the universe as a whole, it's the only way to have a finite amount of space without the universe having an edge. I don't believe for a second that anything can have infinite value. Infinity is a mathematical concept that has no place in physics other than to show that an equation is wrong.

Light moves at a finite speed, roughly 186,000 miles a second and this has been tested many, many times. You're staring with assumptions and trying to fit facts into them rather than trying to understand how it actually works. You think you know better but you're delusional.

[xyz]

You're failure to understand it doesn't make it wrong!

 

Curved spacetime isn't the cause, it's the effect. Time dilation and length contraction are the cause. It's allows you to plot a course in a four dimensional coordinate system which creates a curved path.

 

If you're talking about the universe as a whole, it's the only way to have a finite amount of space without the universe having an edge. I don't believe for a second that anything can have infinite value. Infinity is a mathematical concept that has no place in physics other than to show that an equation is wrong.

 

Light moves at a finite speed, roughly 186,000 miles a second and this has been tested many, many times. You're staring with assumptions and trying to fit facts into them rather than trying to understand how it actually works. You think you know better but you're delusional.

Objects curve space-time etc etc, yes I know all that, you are just repeating yourself and Wiki pedia. 

 

I know all that, I know what is said, which part can't you understand about that I understand and have the same information you have. 

 

Have you ever considered in trying not to think what the books tell us and try to think things through yourself?

 

I observe space in front of me, I observe this space to be clear in nature unless in a position of darkness. I observe my hand, the computer screen, my window, the houses outside, the clouds , the sky, at the same instant, instantly. 

 

I do not observe single photons, I do not observe solidity of space, I do not observe curvatures in space, I do not observe light or space moving, I observe a whole constantly,  simultaneously. 

 

 

An observation of a single particle photon would be of the imaginary nature.

 

'' I don't believe for a second that anything can have infinite value. Infinity is a mathematical concept that has no place in physics other than to show that an equation is wrong.''

 

And what do you think maths really is?  

 

Numbers represent things, it is just another language of quantity of words. 

 

Numbers do not really exist without the thing they relate to. 

 

We do not actually ''predict'' things.    

 

I observe you walking across a 1 mile field, I can time the time it takes  you to travel the one mile, on average every journey you take 5 minutes. In the future I can predict your journey will take approx 5 minutes. 

 

The reason I can do this, not because the maths plays any key roles, because I can see the start and finish at the same time because the space I am observing through is not opaque. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I don't believe anything just because that's what I'm told and I strongly disagree with certain aspects of the standard model, including the big bang and general relativity so don't pretend I'm one of the far too many people how just parrot back what they're taught and only pretend to have any understanding of it!

 

Yes you do observe single photons. What you see as an image is the collection of all of the photons entering your eye at that moment. All those photons moved at the speed of light on the way to your eye, this has been confirmed by experiment countless times and the results are always the same. To deny shows either just how little you understand or just how delusional you really are.

 

I observe you walking across a 1 mile field, I can time the time it takes  you to travel the one mile, on average every journey you take 5 minutes. In the future I can predict your journey will take approx 5 minutes. 

 

The reason I can do this, not because the maths plays any key roles, because I can see the start and finish at the same time because the space I am observing through is not opaque. 

Wow! You think that example shows that space isn't curved and that light moves at infinite velocity? Okay I'm out, this will be my last post. You're so far beyond help that it just isn't even worth trying.

 

I know this is hard for you to accept but you're not correct about how you think this works. You're dead wrong and the evidence proves it. You're assuming that the evidence is wrong, not you. You're delusional and you need to realise that your inability to understand isn't due to failures of the model but due to your own limitations. You will never be capable of true understanding until you accept this.

[xyz]

I don't believe anything just because that's what I'm told and I strongly disagree with certain aspects of the standard model, including the big bang and general relativity so don't pretend I'm one of the far too many people how just parrot back what they're taught and only pretend to have any understanding of it!

 

Yes you do observe single photons. What you see as an image is the collection of all of the photons entering your eye at that moment. All those photons moved at the speed of light on the way to your eye, this has been confirmed by experiment countless times and the results are always the same. To deny shows either just how little you understand or just how delusional you really are.

 

Wow! You think that example shows that space isn't curved and that light moves at infinite velocity? Okay I'm out, this will be my last post. You're so far beyond help that it just isn't even worth trying.

 

I know this is hard for you to accept but you're not correct about how you think this works. You're dead wrong and the evidence proves it. You're assuming that the evidence is wrong, not you. You're delusional and you need to realise that your inability to understand isn't due to failures of the model but due to your own limitations. You will never be capable of true understanding until you accept this.

I know this may be hard to accept for you, you observe nothing that is outside of your brain, all the images you see are in your brain, you certainty do not observe single photons, you only observe a moving picture. 

[A-wal]

Yes! :) I know I said I wasn't going to post again but I completely agree. What we perceive only exists within our minds, it's entirely subjective. The universe doesn't look, sound, taste, smell or feel like anything, that's just our interpretation of it.

 

But photons move with a measurable and finite speed, meaning that the further away the object that you're looking at is, the further back in time you're seeing it and all inertial observers agree on light's velocity so they have to be measuring the same time and space to be different lengths.

[Maine farmer]

 

 

'' I don't believe for a second that anything can have infinite value. Infinity is a mathematical concept that has no place in physics other than to show that an equation is wrong.''

 

And what do you think maths really is?  

 

Numbers represent things, it is just another language of quantity of words. 

 

Numbers do not really exist without the thing they relate to. 

  

 

 

I had a Calculus instructor in high school that would use the phrases "increasing without bounds" or "decreasing without bounds" in place of "infinity." I feel that is a better choice of words, and I have graphed enough equations in my day to have gained an appreciation of the concept.  

 

I urge you not to be so down on the field of mathematics. There is  beauty and elegance in the mathematical relationships of every aspect of our existence, and this has led me to the belief that mathematics is a discovery and not an invention.  

 

As for your assertion that numbers do not really exist without the thing they relate to, I counter that neither does anything else.  We are all connected, from the smallest particle, to the most distant star!

[xyz]

Yes! :) I know I said I wasn't going to post again but I completely agree. What we perceive only exists within our minds, it's entirely subjective. The universe doesn't look, sound, taste, smell or feel like anything, that's just our interpretation of it.

 

But photons move with a measurable and finite speed, meaning that the further away the object that you're looking at is, the further back in time you're seeing it and all inertial observers agree on light's velocity so they have to be measuring the same time and space to be different lengths.

If the Universe is an interpretation in our mind, how do you derive that a photon exists or moves at all?

 

But in regards to thought , it doesn't work like that, that is what I am saying is wrong, If you actually here me out and listen and discuss the idea, you will also see why it is wrong. 

 

 

Let us imagine we are plotting a vector to a distance star , drawing a straight  line from our starting point 0 to our finishing point 0.  The reason they are both zero is the journey is bi-directional, it can be made from either A to B or B to A and the result is the same. 

 

You travel from A to B, v=c

 

I travel from B to A   v=c

 

 

 

We start our journey simultaneously. 

 

 

 

My journey takes exactly  1 hr, can you tell me how long your journey takes?

[xyz]

I had a Calculus instructor in high school that would use the phrases "increasing without bounds" or "decreasing without bounds" in place of "infinity." I feel that is a better choice of words, and I have graphed enough equations in my day to have gained an appreciation of the concept.  

 

I urge you not to be so down on the field of mathematics. There is  beauty and elegance in the mathematical relationships of every aspect of our existence, and this has led me to the belief that mathematics is a discovery and not an invention.  

 

As for your assertion that numbers do not really exist without the thing they relate to, I counter that neither does anything else.  We are all connected, from the smallest particle, to the most distant star!

I really like that definition , it could be considered with or without numbers.   I do understand the beauty of maths, some maths I really respect, must of been really hard work to develop . 

 

I quoted your infinite elsewhere , hope you don't mind, I like that . 

 

Distance is the perceived image of space, expanding away from the observer, increasing without bounds or constraints.

 

We can add the maths 4/3 pi ∞³ to represent this 

 

Length is the perceived imagine of space, expanding away from the observer to another point, within the bounds or constraints of measurement. 

 

Which we do like this 4/3 pi r³

Edited February 22, 2016 by xyz