Time Does Not Exist

[Uclock]

The reason stars are fixed is because black-holes release space-time. I say 'release' because space-time is trapped in matter and as its broken down in a singularity space-time is released and they are not directly confined by the speed of light. Because space-time is expanding at the center of galaxies, its that much more distance-time for stars to travel in relation to the stars outside of the galaxies.

any how .. just adding my two cents..

Logically it can't be just black holes that 'release' spacetime, it must be All matter. All the planets, asteroids, dust, gas etc. causing space to be made up of bubbles of spacetime. The more the concentration of energy the more spacetime is 'retarded' which is what we experience as gravity, with a black hole being an extreme example of retarding spacetime.
As every object has a spacetime field these fields will overlap causing the galaxy to rotate at an almost fixed rate, similar to the way soap bubbles will all move together in a washing up bowl.
If it was just the black hole at the centre of galaxies releasing spacetime how come the stars on the edge of the galaxies cover a greater distance by moving at extreme speeds, compared to those at the centre, without being flung into deep space?

[labelwench]

That which we call 'time' is experienced differently by each of us, although we may use a clock to measure 'what' exactly?

Some of the things we tend to relate to time would be:

1. Distance/speed traveled. (Guys are big on this one, lol.....)

2. Birthdays and holidays. (Kids, young and old, relate to these.)

3. Production/Output. (Corporations are big on this one, which is really just another variant on distance/speed as relates to a quantifiable commodity.)

What happens when we quit 'measuring' time?

Is it still there?

How do plants and animals know 'when' to perform various stages in their development?

Why does a seed sometimes not germinate for decades, while the one beside it does, yet both are entirely viable?

(The seed one really puzzles me, as I am a gardener and enjoy observing the passing of each successive season, as no two are ever identical.)

As I transition between day shift and night shift weekly, I find the experiencing of time quite variable. Certainly much of this is purely subjective, yet I am observant and consistent by nature, and I am noting some interesting quantifiable and repeatable quanta and qualia associated with the energy of the night when compared with the energy of the day that is a common denominator across the subjects of my study.

Though we focus on the precise measurement of an interval and refer to this interval as 'time', that we may utilize the data so acquired, we might well be a wiser species if we focused on experiencing rather than measuring.

Just some thoughts on arising, having just 'switched over' from nights to my 'day' side of the brain, lol....

[austintorn@aol.com]

Time is a difference dimension, namely, the difference of space.

I would post more about it, but either time ran out or it doesn't exist.

[greenbug]

Logically it can't be just black holes that 'release' spacetime, it must be All matter.

I thought about rephrasing what I said after, but I figured you would get it..

If it was just the black hole at the centre of galaxies releasing spacetime how come the stars on the edge of the galaxies cover a greater distance by moving at extreme speeds, compared to those at the centre, without being flung into deep space?

Because the attraction of gravity is relational attraction. That is no matter what the distance is to an object the vast empty space between does not effect the relation of time between two objects. However if there are other objects in the vivacity then the relation is broken down due to the inability to relate the information.

The speed of light is not just a speed of distance but a difference of time over a distance. Because of this gravity, which is the effect of two relational points of space-time, is effected by the 'c' equivalent of the overall relation.

There is probably an easy way to say this but I'm tired.. Just think about it I'm sure you'll get why 'too much' near the center experiences lag in relations where 'not allot' becomes more attracted to more then what it has near.

[dipayankar]

For Black hole to gobble up, spacetime has to be either matter or energy. I dont think black holes can gobble up 'dimensions'

I thought about rephrasing what I said after, but I figured you would get it..


Because the attraction of gravity is relational attraction. That is no matter what the distance is to an object the vast empty space between does not effect the relation of time between two objects. However if there are other objects in the vivacity then the relation is broken down due to the inability to relate the information.

The speed of light is not just a speed of distance but a difference of time over a distance. Because of this gravity, which is the effect of two relational points of space-time, is effected by the 'c' equivalent of the overall relation.

There is probably an easy way to say this but I'm tired.. Just think about it I'm sure you'll get why 'too much' near the center experiences lag in relations where 'not allot' becomes more attracted to more then what it has near.

[greenbug]

For Black hole to gobble up, spacetime has to be either matter or energy. I dont think black holes can gobble up 'dimensions'

A dimension is a perception of the universe, to say the universe doesn't interact with its self?! I really think you need to think about that for awhile before defending that statement.

But for the sake of argument.. The dimensions, if just a display of the universe, have bounds. Those bounds describe the limitations of our perception. We observe three or four dimensions at the same time. We know that length is separate from width, we define the difference vaguely, but they do interact with each other. We know that at extremes what we call the temporal dimension bends or changes the space dimension. But just how far do we define that interaction? When time becomes so slow, or space becomes so bent that objects don't appear to exit them. I think one might describe that situation as "gobbling" up.

In perception time flows, negatively or positively to our perception, the same. Space whether introverted or extroverted you might think that either we would perceive the same. I could agree with that. However how the different instances react to each other would differ. A point of space whose time is flowing negatively, by perception, would seem to be flowing outwardly for objects moving between the two. Given the right amount of time it is permeable but for an instant we perceive it to be a Solid, mass or matter.

That we have the perception of time as space or in some cases space as time, describes a limited focus. We say the earth is around 93 million miles from the sun describes. We are use to the arbitrary context, as we would never say that we are 8 mins away from the sun. If one did some one would convert the difference by means of the speed of light.

This particular forum is entitled time dose not exist. As any perception is arbitrary, defined by any logic we think we might have, the context for such differences is limited. We think we know how to properly describe our universe and we make statements like "I dont think black holes can gobble up 'dimensions'", but all we really know are the limitations that we set for our selves. The statement above could be rephrased to say 'I don't want to think of black holes gobbling up dimensions'. Why would such a statement be useful to me? It isn't, its an instigation for me to change your mind or at least futility try.

I don't know how to describe it in some one else's terms, sometimes I try. But its nothing that I can say that will change a persons perspective, they have to be willing and statements such as, I don't want to, underline no such desire.

[dipayankar]

Interesting read:

http://news.in.msn.com/international...mentid=4332342

[SteveA]

Hiya again, Greenbug.

I apologize ahead of time for my usually ramblings, but I enjoyed reading some of the comments and just thought I'd toss in few things to consider.

A dimension is a perception of the universe, to say the universe doesn't interact with its self?! I really think you need to think about that for awhile before defending that statement.

I tend to think that ultimately things are hierarchical, or at least logically we have to treat physical phenomenon in that manner. We can make something the cause of something else, but logically we can't make something its own cause and still have it change in time.

For example, consider a quanta at some fundamental level moving between two positions in space. It moves from A to B (implicitly when observed, otherwise we shouldn't know anything changed) and then let's say it hypothetical returns to state A when observed again.

Now the big question here is can it return to an identical state that it already existed in? The only manner in which this would appear possible is if some additional context has been added (and it would appear impied as a component of the observation as ones memory of these states) and that now this object is the "returned to A" state which is not identical to the "beginning at A" state, yet we can assume that there was nothing else distinquishing between these two versions of state A, except for a memory that could be seen to be nowhere "out there".

It appears that there are two ways we could measure motion 1) as an observation that relied upon a memory of change (though in this case we also have an issue of perceptions and intelligence determining what it was that changed - for example is the object at A a new object identical to what was at B (with the object at B no longer present) or a returning of the object that was at B to A. Notice that motion implies assumptions regarding conservation - if we did not assume anything was conserved, then it would appear we should have no assumptions of motion but instead that things continually disappear and other, uncorrelated/unassociated objects appear.

Fundamentally, conservation (which appears to some extent required for a motion of a persisting object to exist) is based upon quantities or numbers. So it would be natural to assume that motions arise from a quantitative property describing objects in order that that quantity (as a distribution of a perceived property) can exist in an altered context.

In that case if we recognized a volume of potential perceptual states for which only 1 at a time was active, then this, by the above definition should correlate with a motion, whereas some increase or decrease of a quantity would not be. An interesting idea here would be to view two objects that appeared identical, but one was rotated into a profile identical to another, yet both had different unobserved depth components (notice that in this example, the "conserved" quantity regarding the rotated object would have to be a mental construction still retaining the concept of a component of unviewed depth, though perceptually this would not, at that moment, be present, so it would appear that moving objects contain the equivalent of a potential energy as well that is subject to a mental context).

I'll stop there, as I've drifted a bit, but my main point is that observations and interactions appear creative and objects gain features over time. Motions would appear to be transformations of these features as conserved "kernels" represented in different forms (for example, witnessing an object moving in space is an accumulation of information that is not directly present in the object at any moment, hence we could see this as either a memory of an "external" event (not that it can truly be entirely external) or the creative construction of something perceived as memory - I've had at least one event in life convince me that simply because something "feels familiar" as a memory, it doesn't necessarily mean the assumed memory was actually ever experienced - for example, deja vu http://science.howstuffworks.com/sci...uestion657.htm.

Then again if we doubt the validity of memory, then most everything falls apart, so maybe it's more consistent to assume that such a familirity is valid, though specifically when or where something occured is unknown ... which is an interesting view and it would at least be a way to treat memory as something consistent and accurate, to whatever extent it's available.

I believe that when we see something that appears to be interacting with itself in a closed fashion, it's because the entirety of the change is not being observed and that time always goes "forward", though isolated segments of phenomenon can appear to remain stationary or "go backwards".

Notice also that just as our observations of objects changing in time require a memory in order to determine forward motion, we can similarly require (an even larger memory) to determine that something is reversing its changes in time (for example, a ball can't go backwards unless we already know what the forward direction is and similarly houses can't "unage" unless we have expectations or assumptions regarding what it would appear as in that condition). So time can always go forward, though motions relative to memories or expectations can appear to go counter to expectations (once again though in isolation and within a limited context ... if everything "went backwards" in time, I'd assume that would be consider the "normal" forward direction).

[SteveA]

Interesting read:

http://news.in.msn.com/international...mentid=4332342

Thanks for the article and I tend to agree to an extent, but it seems pretty dang tough to rule out the possibility. How much of everything are we really seeing? For example, he comments that:

In his latest book titled "The Grand Design", Hawking writes: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Why is there such a "law" as gravity? (and do we know that gravity is a law or if it is simply an empirical observation based upon our perceptions as they are?) Also, why does this universe possess it? Could there exist a universe without gravity?

He rejects Isaac Newton's theory that the universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by God. He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

Another question to consider here is whether or not this would simply be understanding the mind of man or ones own mind and not necessary anything else mind?


Personally, I assume it's best to go with what makes sense and seems right. What else is available? ... but I personally don't see much of any way to rule out lots of possibilities and even if we assume some very top level version of things is completely neutral relative to anything and everything else (not too difficult to see as quite likely true), that doesn't mean that we are or that the universe is immediately under that version and we could be multiple links in the chain between here and there with differing opinions along the way.


Actually, I assume every thing is ultimately "free" to be itself - which isn't anything specific. In a sense, reality and value arise from choices and having restrictions as well, actions are only valuable in a relative sense to what actions were not taken and that though I don't believe there is any ironclad ruler around that dictates everything, in effect anytime we're experiencing more than nothing, there are automatically some rules and asymmetries involved and so in some ways life could be seen as an acquiescence to some forms of "subjugation" in order that complete freedom does not exist. If you want to rest your hand on a table, then your hand can't have complete freedom to move through it and the eyes can't have complete freedom to see infinitely distant if you want to read a book and in order to acquire any of these concepts at all, they either had to preexist as something already a part of you (which I believe is partly true as a potential) or you have to acquire them in an uncontrolled and unselective manner (you couldn't pick to learn about books if no such concept of a book was available).


Anyway, I'm just trying to point out some things to consider.

[dipayankar]

I just needed one confirmation, with time flowing negatively, would the present laws of physics as we know them also hold ground or would they change as well... Like entropy for instance.

A dimension is a perception of the universe, to say the universe doesn't interact with its self?! I really think you need to think about that for awhile before defending that statement.

But for the sake of argument.. The dimensions, if just a display of the universe, have bounds. Those bounds describe the limitations of our perception. We observe three or four dimensions at the same time. We know that length is separate from width, we define the difference vaguely, but they do interact with each other. We know that at extremes what we call the temporal dimension bends or changes the space dimension. But just how far do we define that interaction? When time becomes so slow, or space becomes so bent that objects don't appear to exit them. I think one might describe that situation as "gobbling" up.

In perception time flows, negatively or positively to our perception, the same. Space whether introverted or extroverted you might think that either we would perceive the same. I could agree with that. However how the different instances react to each other would differ. A point of space whose time is flowing negatively, by perception, would seem to be flowing outwardly for objects moving between the two. Given the right amount of time it is permeable but for an instant we perceive it to be a Solid, mass or matter.

That we have the perception of time as space or in some cases space as time, describes a limited focus. We say the earth is around 93 million miles from the sun describes. We are use to the arbitrary context, as we would never say that we are 8 mins away from the sun. If one did some one would convert the difference by means of the speed of light.

This particular forum is entitled time dose not exist. As any perception is arbitrary, defined by any logic we think we might have, the context for such differences is limited. We think we know how to properly describe our universe and we make statements like "I dont think black holes can gobble up 'dimensions'", but all we really know are the limitations that we set for our selves. The statement above could be rephrased to say 'I don't want to think of black holes gobbling up dimensions'. Why would such a statement be useful to me? It isn't, its an instigation for me to change your mind or at least futility try.

I don't know how to describe it in some one else's terms, sometimes I try. But its nothing that I can say that will change a persons perspective, they have to be willing and statements such as, I don't want to, underline no such desire.