Time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeavensWarFire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of time as a human construct rather than an objective entity, arguing that time is merely a system of measurement akin to units like inches or feet. Participants debate the nature of time, questioning why events occur at different times if time is an illusion, and whether it can be equated to cause and effect. They explore the idea that time relates to change and duration, suggesting that without movement, the concept of time would be meaningless. The conversation also touches on the relationship between time and space, proposing that they may be distinct dimensions connected by change. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes that time is a label for measuring change rather than a tangible reality.
  • #31
HeavensWarFire,

For GOD's sake, it's a Ph.D., not a PH.D -- that's right, a lowercase h, and two periods. I suppose you learn these things when you go to Collage, but your young mind has not yet learned these concepts.

Keep tryin', junior. The bell tolls for thee.

- Warren
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
naw



No such thing. All they can do is ban me, but what does that prove?

I can always come back under a different name. So it isn't like they really can do anything. They can try, but i have gotten an education, and i have read enough to be able to hold my ground, so i do not worry the little ones trying to bite. I aint no spring chicken, and i certainly do not fear a challenge.

I really am sorry about the miss naming of who it was that i was addressing. But beyond that, i do not feel like i have to apologise for anything. Heck, according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ was nailed because he was preaching his morality. And like Albert Eistient said, "opposition has beset even the greatest of minds." Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
i forgot



I guess I am supposed to be an infallable speller too eh? So i am not a typing princess. Sue me. Not like that's a greater crime than not using English correctly.

As Voltare once said, "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms."

This is a discussion on theories, and concepts in general. To that end, i think all that you can demand of people is that they at least know what they are talking about when they start to type away.

Otherwise, you might as well start disqualifying posters on all misspellings. This is not a research lab, where we have to test things. This is a discussion board in which people expose their thoughts for others to see, and comment upon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34


Originally posted by HeavensWarFire

To that end, i think all that you can demand of people is that they at least know what they are talking about when they start to type away.

And that's why your getting on peoples nerves, because you didn't know what you were talking about when you started to type.

If you want to talk about physics at a certain level you have to make sure your knowledge is up to it, otherwise it's completely counter-productive and frustrating for everyone else.
 
  • #35
I have to admit that I'm just as careless and make frequent typos and more than the odd spelling mistake, but when you start to attack other peoples English you should make sure your own house is in order first.
 
  • #36


Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
As Voltare once said, "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms."
Perhaps you mean Voltaire.
Otherwise, you might as well start disqualifying posters on all misspellings.
You have told probably ten people in this thread alone to "learn English" and "go to Collage [sic]" and so on. If you're going to demand that other posters use English properly, it only seems appropriate that you should, also. Don't you agree?

- Warren
 
  • #37
this is what i don't understand



Everyone supposedly is getting all wrecked up about me, but yet, all i see are thoughts that highly allegational without any real grounds behind them. How is that different than from what i am doing?

And that's why your getting on peoples nerves, because you didn't know what you were talking about when you started to type.

If i have actually been wrong, then why is it that no one can show it?
 
  • #38
That's 'cos you're obviously wrong; time is emprical, it's effects can be observed quite clearly and it's easy to find ways of measuring it, it's not something that can just be 'transformed away'.
 
  • #39
Is it?



Emperical eh? Like a tree, or a rock is emperical? Where can i find a piece of this thing called Time?
 
  • #40


Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Emperical eh? Like a tree, or a rock is emperical? Where can i find a piece of this thing called Time?
No, I explained this already. Time is like the HEIGHT of the tree, not the tree itself. Its a physical dimension very much like the other 3. And you can also measure time according to the tree in various ways of course. Age for example.
 
  • #41
Likewise



I have explained my meanings, but no one is reading.

Time relates to change. I have explained this.

But we are back to semantics on the word "Physical"?
 
  • #42
What's unempirical about time?

I'd challenge you construct any model that tries to represent physical reality without time (though I am told that time disappears in the Wheeler-Dewitt equation).
 
  • #43


Originally posted by russ_watters
No, I explained this already. Time is like the HEIGHT of the tree, not the tree itself. Its a physical dimension very much like the other 3. And you can also measure time according to the tree in various ways of course. Age for example.
Russ, a pause, if you measure the distance something travels, then you measure the time, you are measuring space twice...

Time is not a physical thing he is right about that, it can be measured, but it has no solidity.....in my past posting(s) I had mentioned that time was 'limited' at around lightspeed, but even that is an "Illusion" (of sorts) as a Black Hole's gravitational well must have speed(s) exceeding lightspeed as escape velocity, ergo even light speed is an "Illusory Benchmark".
 
  • #44
Originally posted by jcsd
What's unempirical about time?

I'd challenge you construct any model that tries to represent physical reality without time (though I am told that time disappears in the Wheeler-Dewitt equation).
Simple, "end point" and "start point" are identical in physical construct, now explode it out into Xx pieces, energetically enabled to reconsruct itself into it's own (identical) origin, the motions within result in having "No Relative Meaning" with respect to any (individual/collective) metering of them, as the end result is gauranteed, all your measuring is the motions of them.
 
  • #45
But you cna't define the 'start' or 'end' without time.
 
  • #46


Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
If i have actually been wrong, then why is it that no one can show it?
Because you have made no falsifiable statements. Physics works this way:

  • Alice: I claim that my theory says the value of parameter \alpha should be 2.

    Bob: My experiment measures the value of \alpha as 4.1 ± 0.23 with a confidence interval of 99%. This means your theory is probably incorrect.
It does not work this way:

  • Alice: I claim that time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object.

    Bob: But time is like space.

    Alice: It depends on how you define 'time.'
Notice the difference. In the first case, the claim is falsifiable. One can do an experiment and reach one of three conclusions:

a) The theory agrees with experiment within experimental error.
b) The theory does not agree with experiment within experimental error.
c) The agreement is not well-established due to experimental error.

In the second case, the claim is not falsifiable. It does not make any predictions which can be used to gauge the claim's validity. No one can say whether or not it is right or wrong. It is philosophy.

This is the reason why no one can show why you're wrong: because you're talking about philosophy, not physics. All we can do is go on and on about what your definition is, what my definition is, and so on. Philosophers seem to enjoy this kind of dialogue, but physicists don't usually care too much for it. Note carefully that our disinterest in your philosophy does not mean your philosophy is right -- it simply means we don't care about it.

- Warren
 
  • #47


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ, a pause, if you measure the distance something travels, then you measure the time, you are measuring space twice...

Time is not a physical thing he is right about that, it can be measured, but it has no solidity.
Well, then maybe we do need to define what "physical" or "physically real" means. Because obviously whether time is or isn't follows directly from the definition.

You appear to be defining "physical" as having dimensions in space (length, width, height). By that definition, its axiomatic that time isn't a physical dimension.

The dictionary is not that specific: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical
1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature
2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena

Clearly by these definitions, time is physically real: Time is something we can observe, measure, and experience in the physical universe (nature in the first definition). And time is a connection between natural phenomena that pertains to the the laws of physics (second definition).
I had mentioned that time was 'limited' at around lightspeed, but even that is an "Illusion" (of sorts) as a Black Hole's gravitational well must have speed(s) exceeding lightspeed as escape velocity, ergo even light speed is an "Illusory Benchmark".
Ironic choice of example - by definition, what lies inside of a black hole's event horizon is not a part of the physical unverse. All we THINK we know about the inside of a black hole is from data collected outside the event horizon.
All we can do is go on and on about what your definition is, what my definition is, and so on. Philosophers seem to enjoy this kind of dialogue, but physicists don't usually care too much for it.
This is of course because scientists and engineers all agree (implicitly) to a set of rules and definitions as a starting point for all discussions. The terms don't have to be defined at the start of a conversation because they've already been accepted. Its a lot like learning a language really.

Applied to the points above, if you want to argue the definitions, you do that in the philosophy forum. If you want to argue the implications and physical to the laws of physics, you do that here. But by posting here, it is implied that you accept the accepted definitions.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
HeavensWarFire, your whole argument seems to be based on calling other people names and being generally unagreeable to anyone who doesn't agree with your 'theory' (which i'll have to say is quite wrong imo). I think you should stop calling people names when you can't spell above an elementary level and try to READ and COMPREHEND what people are telling you.
 
  • #49


Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP...sorta...)[/color] Well, then maybe we do need to define what "physical" or "physically real" means. Because obviously whether time is or isn't follows directly from the definition. O.K. "physical" is tangible, having mass/shape/and longevity of existence...[/color]
You appear to be defining "physical" as having dimensions in space (length, width, height). By that definition, its axiomatic that time isn't a physical dimension.
The dictionary is not that specific: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical
1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature
2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena
Humm, you state that the dictionary is "NOT that specific", then state that by these definitions "time is physically real" but NOTHING in those definitions says that! [/color]
Clearly by these definitions, time is physically real: Time is something we can observe, measure, and experience (Only as an "Idea" not as a 'physical' {Tangible} phenmenon)[/color] in the physical universe (nature in the first definition). And time is a connection between natural phenomena that pertains to the the laws of physics (second definition). Ironic choice of example - by definition, what lies inside of a black hole's event horizon is not a part of the physical unverse. All we THINK we know about the inside of a black hole is from data collected outside the event horizon. This is of course because scientists and engineers all agree (implicitly) to a set of rules and definitions as a starting point for all discussions. The terms don't have to be defined at the start of a conversation because they've already been accepted. Its a lot like learning a language really. (SNoP)[/color]
Humm, O.K.(?) (why are you telling me this?) you mean like the 'outside' observation of the fact that light does not escape from the interior of what would otherwise surely be emitting light, (as evidenced by all of the energetic activity in the immediate area) from whence we draw the conclusion that the escape velocity must exceed lightspeed...you have a problem with this kind on logic/knowledge@work?[/color]
 
  • #50
I agree.

Time is a man made increment to describe observable events.

Time does not exist except as a mathematical relationship between distance and the increment required to get from place to place.

For example. Point your finger at a star, then move it quickly to the next nearest star. If you extend the plane of your finger - then how fast is the plane moving as it arcs to the next star.

In feet per second it would be astronomical, but if you decided that it represent 1 star (star1) second it would seem slow.

Einsteins prediction of E=mc2 was correct that mass has an enormous amount of stored energy, but since it requires that time exists as a dimension - it is obviously flawed.

If Einstein predicated that E=(m)(Star1) would he have been wrong?

The reason his prediction seemed so accurate was likely due to the relationship between primary force (gravity), light and the creation and evolution of mass through the accumulation of accelerating force.

I believe that light is the stimulation of primary force and that it does not travel at all.

Yes, the observation of it appears as though it is traveling at a high speed, but in reality it is not moving - it is doing nothing more than creating a ripple in the nearly solid force field. That is why the speed of light appears to be constant whether you are traveling toward or away from the source at any speed.

You are not seeing the light, but are seeing what the light did to the force field.
 
  • #51
Sorry, MRP, those definitions were so straightforward that I can't reword them in any way to make them more straightforward. All I can say is try reading them again (though you even used the word "longevity" - a reference to time, so it almost seemed like you got it).

And my point about the black hole was simply the irony of your trying to describe something in the observable universe by citing an example not in the observable universe.

Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
 
  • #52
Originally posted by jcsd
But you cna't define the 'start' or 'end' without time.
They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable...because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...
 
  • #53
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, MRP, those definitions were so straightforward that I can't reword them in any way to make them more straightforward. All I can say is try reading them again (though you even used the word "longevity" - a reference to time, so it almost seemed like you got it).
And my point about the black hole was simply the irony of your trying to describe something in the observable universe by citing an example not in the observable universe. What I've used is observable, the event horizon, and the 'blackness' indicative of a lack of "luminesence" that tells of the inability of light's escape...[/color]
Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
From that site russ; "Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." the definition of "physical" but time is neither energy nor matter, but a measurement of a comparitive cycle rate agaist the motion to establish differences betweens motions...point being the cycle rate that is choosen is entirely arbitrary, nd there is NO physical entity that tells us what the exact/correct/right/precise/UNIVERSAL time actually is, cause ther is none.

"In an infinity, there can be/is no time", if this universe is born of the infinite, then the 'time' that we so frequently use, in the Universe must be some sort of "illusion", it is how that little dilema gets resolved as even though it is a highly practical tools, it is not based upon anything other then an idea...the practising of an "Ideal"...but no substatiation, no "meter" ('cycle counter' AKA clock) that can be proven as having "relative meaning" to the entirety of the Universe. (Ain't there)
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable...because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...

You must define the distance in time between them otherwise you can only obtain time indpenednt solutions which will not give you as good results as time-dependnet solutions.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
From that site russ; "Of or relating to [bold added] matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." the definition of "physical" but time is neither energy nor matter
Time is most certainly a piece of information relating to matter and energy in the same way that length and width and mass are.
"In an infinity, there can be/is no time"
I'm not sure where that quote is from, but its quite simply wrong. That would rule out length and width as well.
They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable...because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...
[?] [?] So you've never been in a race before? I can certainly tell the difference between the start and end of a 5k and my sister looks a lot different at the end of a marathon than at the start.

It seems as though you are starting with the assumption that there is no time and using that assumption to define things like "start" and "end." You are free to do that (in philosophy anyway - physics already has definitions you must use in physics) but even assumptions have to agree with applicable observations - and yours do not.

And I'd like an answer to this challenge:
Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Originally posted by russ_watters
Time is most certainly a piece of information Please read the title, "...Invalid as an actual object"[/color] relating to matter and energy in the same way that length and width and mass Sorry, NOT mass! as that is physical and you cannot show me a physical component of time[/color] are. I'm not sure where that quote is from, but its quite simply wrong. That would rule out length and width as well. infinity does that, "un-measurable"[/color]

[?] [?] So you've never been in a race before? I can certainly tell the difference between the start and end of a 5k and my sister looks a lot different at the end of a marathon than at the start. In the Analogy that I had set up, (to provide jscd with a MODEL!) I had stated that the beginning point and end point were identical, please follow along with what is written, or the way it is written, (not what you would like to think is written(?))[/color]

Russ. of all of the cycles of motion that I can use to establish a "rate of timing" (earth time, Jupiter time, Mercury time, Solar time) which one of the right one? the universal one, which one arises from physicality?? or physical reality??
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ. of all of the cycles of motion that I can use to establish a "rate of timing" (earth time, Jupiter time, Mercury time, Solar time) which one of the right one? the universal one, which one arises from physicality?? or physical reality??
All are equally valid and which to use depends only on the specifics of the application. There is no universal one. If your argument is based on a lack of a universal time, that's the same as saying there is also no universal length, width, or height.

Again, the fact that the UNITS of time we use are arbitrary does not mean time itself is not real.

Also:
Describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
...this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere'...whenever...
 
  • #59
Originally posted by russ_watters
All are equally valid and which to use depends only on the specifics of the application. So your use, is just as arbitrary...[/color] There is no universal one. If your argument is based on a lack of a universal time, that's the same as saying there is also no universal length, width, or height. Good point...and is there?[/color]

Again, the fact that the UNITS of time we use are arbitrary does not mean time itself is not real. Humm, don't know for certain just that one, but clearly it doesn't prove that it is real, and (sorry) you haven't either...[/color]
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere'...whenever...
"whenever" is a time reference - and beyond that, an incorrect time reference. "Whenever" implies that it has always and will always be here.
So your use, is just as arbitrary
I never said it wasn't. What's your point?
Good point...and is there? [universal spatial coordinates]
No.

Be careful here, MRP, whether intentional or not, you are spiraling rapidly down into what ends up looking like an attempt to prove that "reality" itself does not exist.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

I Time travel is a fact or fiction.?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
A Modeling the damping of a physical rigid pendulum
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
List of Questions I want to ask regarding physics, philosophy, mathematics, etc.
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculating Total Time Dilation in a Falling Photon Experiment
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Are you a kind, benevolent Master?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
A Twistors and celestial holography
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
A A Proposed Black Hole Entropy Calculation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Frustrated by how physics is generally explained/taught
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
How Does Gravitational Time Dilation Affect Our Understanding of Black Holes?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
The Kantian Wall - The Meaning of Space, Time, and Mass in Modern Physics
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K