[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Tina

Don't you think the patterns of day, season, aging process suggest progression of measured time?

I agree Tina;

I think the time/space/motion continuum are interlinked, and you can't have one without the others.

Best to all,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

"That’s just making it more complex than it need be. Time is not created by anything other than the human mind; at least here on planet earth!"

That's just it, Dave, the universe is greater than planet earth; just like the universe perspective is must be greater than what can be perceived by the human mind.

I agree wholehertedly, though, that the mind creates time. The mere idea of a mind at all can easily accomplish that.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"That’s just making it more complex than it need be. Time is not created by anything other than the human mind; at least here on planet earth!"

That's just it, Dave, the universe is greater than planet earth; just like the universe perspective is must be greater than what can be perceived by the human mind.

I agree wholehertedly, though, that the mind creates time. The mere idea of a mind at all can easily accomplish that.

Yeah, and the mind is nothing more than, at base, photons___The long journey of which, created the mind. All of your imaging Nobody, is imaged within the mind, using photons, or you couldn't see the visions to talk from, because, at base fundamental levels, we see nothing but photons___abstractly real, and cognitively real. All images are read by our eyes as projecting/having photons, since and thus, photons is all we truly see. Yet, the underlying absolute matter particle formations, i.e., real objects, are absolutely real condensations of matter waves, and most likely of photonic origin, since that's the smallest entity, the mind is capable of processing___So far...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

And if you know anything at all about photons, Lloyd, you will know that photons are ironically and mistakenly believed to be timeless.

Maybe you can get your head around the point of origin of decay, true timelessness, to realize that there isn't one - neither universal nor particulate - whereby we can ask what exactly the decay claims are based on.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

And if you know anything at all about photons, Lloyd, you will know that photons are ironically and mistakenly believed to be timeless.

Maybe you can get your head around the point of origin of decay, true timelessness, to realize that there isn't one - neither universal nor particulate - whereby we can ask what exactly the decay claims are based on.

Zero entropy motion has nothing to do with your illusory timelessness, since it's eternally moving. The question is why is it moving? Why does zero entropy substance radiate, or why is zero entropy FS substance radio active? I think you may find the harmonics of tuning forks will supply part of the action. Just an example, yet only a theoretical one, to get our heads around the issue; What happens as substance motion approaches zero entropy, and the matter/waves reach super-position of frequencies/harmonics? IMO, the harmonics would drastically multiply, just as a tuning fork does, or as in H-bomb explosions, so sound frequencies/harmonics must play a very important role in zero entropy matter motion, evolving to matter motion's mass entropy, matter/wave state space changes. I'll let Dave take this one into his wave dynamics theory, if he pleases, since I now see the possibilities of motion from pure motion sources, as thermodynamics is the exact same mechanics[equivalence principle] of all and any motion accelerations/velocities...

Decay claims are based on our very extensive physical library of empirical/evidentiary knowledge of the tick, tick, tick of the cesium atom, as the most accurate clock, our very direct cognition of the suns/stars radiation, and all the a-priori logic of the other radiations. The easiest one to understand is the physical evidence of exploding H-bombs... And Nobody, if you're talking about absolute decay, no nothing decays, it's just our linguistic differences again, which most should be aware of. All decay, decays into lesser states of matter/substance, and finally FS, since we all know matter/energy/whatever is always conserved...

Lloyd

p.s.
You know Nobody, you'd get further if you'd stop trying to be such a linguistic prankster. Stop using obfuscation, and state your entire point, up front...

[dleviwing]

Spin is only one type of uniform motion. When we look into the cosmos, everything seems to be spinning. When we look into the microcosm, everything seems to be vibrating. Any type of uniform motion allows the natural bonding property of the FS to increase and thus causes the FS to condense. Opposing motions disrupts the bonding causing expansion of the FS. Both are processes of destructive or constructive interference.

Originally Posted by Tina

Don't you think the patterns of day, season, aging process suggest progression of measured time?

NO! Why would you think that? They are just our references!

[N0B0DY]

I don't think there is a scientist alive who would buy into zero-entropy motion, Lloyd. It is like the aristotelian unmoved mover. Though I agree with you absolutely because both imply true rest mass.

Your statistical mechanics and relativistic mechanics are not in question, but you not conceding the dependency of the false vacuum to create any decay rate at all - absolute vacuum, no motion, no decay rates.

Me stating my entire point is absolutely pointless. In the sense that literal points of time and space don't and can't exist.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I don't think there is a scientist alive who would buy into zero-entropy motion, Lloyd.

Actually Nobody, there are many scientist who do just that; they just refer to it as an ultra hot infinitely massive singularity and the cause of the big bang. Entropy is meaningless outside discussions of thermodynamics though. Hot and cold are not meaningful terms until you define them relative to a form of motion.

[N0B0DY]

Point taken, Dave, but the term is misleading. If it weren't for renormalization, near-absolute/near-zero would never imply absolute or zero.

There are scientists who claim a near-zero density, infinite density, infinitesimal density, indefinable, etc.

I really don't know why it is so hard to concede that the degrees of freedom are required for physics measurements, and that they don't exist from what would be the absolute perspective. Like you said, outside of relativity they are meaningless.

A singularity implies a single changeless state, why would it feel the urge to change and how exactly? If the concept is based on continual radiation, what could possibly exist as the point mass of the singularity other than zero mass, no mass, no motion?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

A singularity implies a single changeless state, why would it feel the urge to change and how exactly? If the concept is based on continual radiation, what could possibly exist as the point mass of the singularity other than zero mass, no mass, no motion?

Hi Nobody;
In my Toronic blog I try to point out that “mass” is not a quantitative function of substance but a quantitative function of uniform motion. In most cases it works as a quantity of matter only due to the measure of particle numbers. In reality the same quantity of FS in an electron can be the same that is in a quark. Greater uniform motion promotes stronger self bonding of the FS and thus increases the inertia value that translates to mass. If you consider motion to be absolute for all systems of FS then FS with all its absolute motion in the state of linear velocity would produce only one degree of freedom. This is absolute zero just as much as no motion of the FS is absolute zero. We think of cold as being the removal of motion (energy) from a system but in reality we are converting random motion of the system to uniform motion. Current concepts of absolute zero are basically removing the random vibrations between atomic structure but not the random vibrations within the atom itself.

This is where Lloyd and I disagree most. A universe of zero entropy translates to the FS in a total state of radiation equivalent to absolute motion; CAN’T HAPPEN.