Time does NOT Exist - Math Proof


by Billy T
Tags: exist, math, proof, time
moving finger
moving finger is offline
#181
Apr22-05, 04:24 PM
P: 1,603
Quote Quote by Starship
The theory fails to explain why space and time unification is more important than mass, energy and work unification.
I agree with the concept of work unification. Can I unify my job with someone else's job and take some time off?

MF


(ps - sorry, just a joke!)
Doctordick
Doctordick is offline
#182
Apr22-05, 08:59 PM
P: 625
Quote Quote by Tournesol
Causality doesn't cause anything. But events cause other events, so
causality must exist ...in some sense.
I agree 100%. And my position is that causality exists as a mechanism to make our experiences easier to keep track of. And I will explain that position throughly if you have the patience to follow my reasoning.

I'm still reading your posts.

Have fun -- Dick
Doctordick
Doctordick is offline
#183
Apr22-05, 09:14 PM
P: 625
Quote Quote by Tournesol
Well, quite. That is the traditional problem of time, causality etc -- how best to characterise them. Trying to dismiss them totally doesn't help because it doesn't work.
Absolutely correct! What I am trying to say is that you seem to recognize the problem but don't present a solution outside the common conclusions: i.e., presume that time is a real thing and not just a figment of your imagination.

Just reading your stuff!

Dick
Doctordick
Doctordick is offline
#184
Apr22-05, 09:57 PM
P: 625
Quote Quote by Tournesol
Notes on Barbour's theory:

1. Removing causality pulls the rug from under scientific epistemology

2. It also pulls the rug from under the notion of a 'time capsule'. Memory is disntinguished from imagination by having a certain kind of causal history. In the absence of that criteron, what is to stop me saying that my dreams are a 'time capsule' of the universe next door.

3. The mysterious role of proability in the absence of anything actually happening.
Apparently, more Nows of higher probability are 'more likely to be experienced'. Is that an
Appeal to consciousnessas a god of the gaps?
I really think we need to talk!

Dick
Doctordick
Doctordick is offline
#185
May8-05, 03:30 PM
P: 625
Quote Quote by Tournesol
Anyone who believes that neither space nor time exists at all should be bothered by the fact that combined space-time intervals are not dependent on
the choice of reference frame.
Now this depends very much on your definition of those reference frames. The reference frames themselves have characteristics which need to be established. Units of measure and methods of making measurements just to name two. Your phrase "the choice of reference frame" has been assumed to be limited to a very specific set of reference frames. You should read a little about Hamiltonian Mechanics; it might expand your view of the concept "reference frame".

Have fun -- Dick
Ron
Ron is offline
#186
May28-05, 02:51 PM
P: 5
The argument as to whether or not time exists might be found at www.btinternet.com/~author.ron

The paper, ‘The Nature and Cause of Time’, suggests that the spacetime model, although an excellent mathematical model for determining the position of any point or object in space and time, appears to be confusing our understanding about the real nature of time itself. The paper puts forward a hypothesis that assumes time and energy to be the same thing. As we know, energy is the source of all activities, therefore the cause of change, and as most can agree, change is a prime feature of passing time. Without energy, mass would be inert and changeless, which would mean the universe would be a pretty dead universe indeed.

As the eminent physicist, Paul Davies, stated in his book titled, ‘About Time’, ‘time and energy goes hand in hand – no energy, no time’. Now this gives a strong indication that there is a direct relationship between time and energy, and the above link agrees with Davies statement but takes it further by assuming that time and energy are in fact two features of the same thing.

The idea of ‘energy’ always relates to the capacity to do work, while ‘time’ usually refers to the passage of events that is measurable. When energy is exerted and work is done the consequence of that work is ‘change’, and a sequence of changes gives rise to the effect of passing time that has duration, which is measurable. And as a matter of interest the measuring system of time is energy also based. Both mechanical and electrical timepieces all need ‘energy’ in order to ‘do the work’ of measuring time.

In answer to the question, does time exist; it would seem it does, in the form of energy?
Jonny_trigonometry
Jonny_trigonometry is offline
#187
May31-05, 02:20 AM
P: 533
hey Billy T, how long did it take you to prove that time doesn't exist?
tino lin
tino lin is offline
#188
Jun13-05, 05:32 PM
P: 21
This idea of time do not exist/exist got me thinking about The Matrix.
My appology if this discussion has already been made since I did not have
time to read this whole thread.
Since it is hard to prove that time do not exist/exist in our world.
Let try to think of what kind of world that time DO exist?
My answer to this question (my answer may or may not make sense) would be the world like in The Matrix, where it is a simulated world tick by each CPU instruction, or actually CPU cycle by an oscillating crystal. Now this we can clearly say that time exist.
Is our world simularly created by a god of powerful mental or physical tools or was it just an accident? For the second case we cannot for sure say that time exist or not.
Ron
Ron is offline
#189
Jun14-05, 05:09 PM
P: 5
Quote Quote by tino lin

Is our world simularly created by a god of powerful mental or physical tools or was it just an accident? For the second case we cannot for sure say that time exist or not.
In the natural world time exists because of atomic oscillations, that is, because of the emission / absorption of quanta. This results in atomic change, where change creates the effect of passing time.
tdunc
tdunc is offline
#190
Jun21-05, 05:02 PM
P: 64
I still remember the day I realized that "time" does not exsist. I thought I was a genius when I figured it out. But Its really very simple, everyone will at some point get it. Note though there is more than one definition and usage of the word time, like many words in the English language. Time as it is used in mathmatics and as a measureing tool is real, nobody should argue that. Its the other definition of time the one that we are instinctivly born that goes with human perception that Billy T is talking about does not exsist. And its not so much that is does not exsist, its the understanding of what it is. Time is relative and independent. < Once you know exactly what this means, you will get it. Its also important to visualize on the atomic scale. Atoms in motion = relative time forward, Atoms not in motion = relative time stoped. Atoms slowed = relative time slowed (can relate to temperature). Our perception of those atoms in motion is time. Take any object and reduce it to its fundemental componets, atoms, atoms in motion.

Thats is all there is to it folks! 13 pages of what the hell you guys are talking about who knows, Im not gonna read it.

(for those who dont know I keep a journal and going back you can read the day I discovered what time is, I also elaborate quite a bit on what I said above)
Ron
Ron is offline
#191
Jun22-05, 01:18 AM
P: 5
Quote Quote by tdunc
I still remember the day I realized that "time" does not exsist. I thought I was a genius when I figured it out. But Its really very simple, everyone will at some point get it. Note though there is more than one definition and usage of the word time, like many words in the English language. Time as it is used in mathmatics and as a measureing tool is real, nobody should argue that. Its the other definition of time the one that we are instinctivly born that goes with human perception that Billy T is talking about does not exsist. And its not so much that is does not exsist, its the understanding of what it is. Time is relative and independent. < Once you know exactly what this means, you will get it. Its also important to visualize on the atomic scale. Atoms in motion = relative time forward, Atoms not in motion = relative time stoped. Atoms slowed = relative time slowed (can relate to temperature). Our perception of those atoms in motion is time. Take any object and reduce it to its fundemental componets, atoms, atoms in motion.

Thats is all there is to it folks! 13 pages of what the hell you guys are talking about who knows, Im not gonna read it.

(for those who dont know I keep a journal and going back you can read the day I discovered what time is, I also elaborate quite a bit on what I said above)
Be careful when you consider yourself a genius, you might be taken for a crackpot. Einstein was classified as being a genius but he never, ever admitted it publicly. If you are a genius why are there so many spelling mistakes within your postings? A professional scientist would be put off by them and stop reading your ideas. I often rush through my writing and sometimes make spelling mistakes in the process, so I always use a spell-checker before posting. This is just a piece of advice so please don’t take this personally.

As for your remark that you will not be reading our postings, well that is your privilege, but by doing so you will be advertising your immaturity as well as missing out on some interesting counter arguments. That’s what this forum is here for, to ask questions, share ideas, and to offer counter arguments to any idea we oppose. Personally, I do not accept you view of time, but having said that I still find it interesting to read. Amongst professional scientists / philosophers and even undergraduates and post-graduates there are differing opinions. Some say time exists, others say it doesn’t, and because of that we discuss our differences with hopes of drawing up a common conclusion. We don’t get one scientist or undergraduate shutting the other out or say I refuse to read your work because it doesn’t agree with mine. That’s an unhealthy attitude that will grind progress to a halt. But, as I said, that’s your privilege. You will miss out on some healthy discussions by doing that.

As for my hypothesis that explains the nature and cause of time, I am not claiming my work is THE answer to time’s dilemma. It’s simply a logical deduction based on our current knowledge and understanding of physics that appears to give an answer to the problem of time. Professional and non-professional scientists have read my work with mixed feelings. Some have responded very positively by saying that my work appears to offer an interesting answer regarding the nature of time, while others have expressed some doubts. That’s how it is with research. A new hypothesis or theory is only acceptable as being a viable one through validating it through repeatable experimentation, which then becomes an accepted fact.

Personal Website: The Nature and Cause of Time.
www.btinternet.com/~author.ron
Solasis
Solasis is offline
#192
Jun22-05, 04:45 AM
P: 2
I don't have time to read the whole thread to see if this has been said already, and if it has, just ignore me, but Time is the medium through which change flows; I'm with Billy inasmuch that Time does not cause change; rather, time allows change to occur. It's like the ancient Aether through which matter flowed.
tdunc
tdunc is offline
#193
Jun22-05, 05:27 AM
P: 64
You misunderstood the context in which I said I thought I was a genius. I'll tell you right now I'm not a genius. The more I know, the less I think I know. Understanding what time is, was a personal breakthrough if you will in understanding "how it all works" and I reasoned that the solution of "what is time?" is quite simple, and it is.

You say you do not accept my view of what time is...

Well Ron let me just reply to this. I read your article, nicely done, and I agree with it damn near word for word. You get it congrats, I mean you took it upon yourself to personally figure out what time is; that aside from what others think. Makes you wonder what we thought time was otherwise? I dont even remeber, its not important, whats important is that the question is answered, my personal curiousity has been satisfied, I have 'solved time' in my mind and have long since moved on to other questions; so you'll understand why I do not wish to read and ingage in a lengthy discussion about it. Change is a keyword indeed. So when you say that you do not agree with my view of what time is, you dont really mean it because you know time like I know time I just probably do not express my thoughts out as well as you do (in the past, I'm getting better as a writer) and felt it unnecessary to go into elaborate detail as you have done. But again I would like to comend you for your effort, and will recommend anyone to read it. I'd would even ask you to go write something on wikipedia under time or make changes where you feel necessary. Ya sure we could add more to it discuss it more, but again I personally just dont have the desire to do such, you'll have to excuss the way in which I entered this thread; I got an email link from this forum and it caught my eye with the amount of replies it had, not based on the fact I find the topic interesting anymore. I just dont see what there is so much to talk about... I guess I'll never know ;) Or I dont want to know, some people really get carried away. Keep things simple when the answer is simple is my moto.
Ron
Ron is offline
#194
Jun22-05, 07:19 AM
P: 5
Hello tdunc. Thank you for your kind reply. It's been a pleasure speaking with you.
agnostictheist
agnostictheist is offline
#195
Jun22-05, 10:42 AM
P: 57
It seems to me, not that i have read the thread totally, that at the beg of this thread. Time is cusality, need it be so?

currently and i ask the physics mind people hear help me out or correct me if need be, time is defined to be the lenghts between points (however certian elements need to use our notion of time to formulate "qunatities", even "timeless descritpions" while themselfs require no need of time, what of the elements that are used?? .


When we talk of an event, assumingly in time, if such a case is true maybe time is not about just "change", or rather while chnage is a suffient condition of time, chnage is not nesscery for time. simlaiy motion is simply the characterisic descriptions of "interactions" of energy, or lack of exchange, both would still count as an event, an effect - but both would not be described as cause and effect, or T2 was caused by T1 in fact maybe we should talk about two sense of time, the tenseless, and "tenser" theories of time...in one Time merely stops all things happening at once, its treated merely has a demension!! this needs not required a sense of chain of events, or causal relationship, rather the relations are refered via over-generalistions, based on induction.

But current theories seem to suggest when talking about time, motion etc such things are not absolute and for that matter the importance to things lies in relationships between points (which can differ, from oberver A to that of B, even those they are reffering to the same thing) not adding the concept of time to it, as it does not change the system. However even if time loses its importance or its centre stage thats no reason to assume time is an illusion rather it might bring back the question, what is time? or is there a different type of time. its been argued before that time is motion (but that solves nothing for motion is having different spatial demensions at different times!! - this is a function of/in? time, not time itself!!!!!!), but if we can talk of things merely in "acts" or "events" and NOT case Cause and effect, rather merely action then it might suggest that time need not be "change", for there is no chnage in something going from state A to state A (the special relationship of to itself!!), even those there is a state of affairs eg ( an effect). tenseless!

time as we know it, or rather infer it, dependent on lang, and a contigency in "reality".
Ivegottheskill
Ivegottheskill is offline
#196
Jun24-05, 05:49 AM
P: 11
I don't think "Time" as a real, concrete and reliably measurable quantity exists. The theory I've read that seemed to make a lot of sense to me was that time is a "shadow" of motion (i.e. changes)

It could be suggested that evidence of this is that measure or perception of time changes with changing velocity (closer to light speed) and changing gravity (as in black holes). Both of which directly affect matter in the form of motion
timestill
timestill is offline
#197
Jun24-05, 07:37 AM
P: 8
The math that you worked out, I think that it can not be validated at the quantum level.... especially in describing the spin proprieties of fermions...
I am not a pro but I also think that being that the arrow of time does not change it implies that it represents a strong argument on the reality of time as a dimension... Abstract constructs as light cones are another argument...
cronodragon
cronodragon is offline
#198
Jul30-05, 04:32 PM
P: 11
Do we notice time because of the repetive events? Would be notice time in a place where nothing happens twice? :/


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Indisputable Proof that Electrons Exist? General Discussion 69
what if time does not exist General Physics 207