Time Does Not Exist

[medicrene]

Hello all,

I am new to this forum and excited about sharing ideas. I am not in the science community (I work in the medical field). However, I enjoy studying concepts related to time. After some thinking, I have decided that time does not exist. It is my belief that our clocks measure distance, not time (they measure the distance of shaking atoms). This is not a new idea and I have seen some threads on this concept here on this website. However, I would like to open the discussion about how this affects other aspects of science.

For example, if time does not exist, and the equasion for velocity is: V= time x Distance, then we do not have a way of actually knowing velocity. If this is true, then we do not actually know the speed of light. If this is true, is the speed of light really constant?

But what I am really looking for here is some new concepts. I would like to play a scenario game with you all to see what kind of creative ideas we can acheive. Instead of just trashing my concept, consider this:

If time does not exist, what is velocity and how can we measure it?

I am looking for your ideas? Who can reinvent this information without measureing time? I look forward to some creative ideas.

Sincerely,

Rene Steinhauer

[SteveA]

Welcome to the site, and you happened to pick what appears to be one of my favorite subjects too!

There's a recurring theme present in most anything we learn. There's a change and those components of it that we see as persistent. Change itself, at a fundamental level, appears as not something definable in any precise sense. Change and logic are basically incompatible in that we can't derive change from a precise form, which logic describes - it's the "How do you get something from nothing?" question.

Something that has figuratively caught my attention though is that it's possible that from change, we could derive something changeless. For example, if all that existed was change and we had to change to change to something else, we could then change to the changeless and derive something complimentary, whereas we could not begin with something static and derive anything dynamic from a static situation.

When you look at time, the knowledge regarding how things change in time is not, in itself, something that changes.

For example, we could derive various equations of motion that state the relationships between the various positions that planets are observed in and for example, within some limited frame of time (we have to limit the frame for various reasons), if we observe a couple planets in specific positions we could then derive what the positions of the other planets would be relative to these.

Notice that a planet itself does not exist as an elliptical orbit. A planet is observed at a specific location. The equations of motions describe a timeless (and observationally non-specific) relationship between them.

For example, a family tree might grow, but the relationships between people don't. The time we experience is that of the growth (only the most recent generations are currently alive), but the constants that can be known are the continual network of relationships between these and an individual is a product of both change/unknowns in the present as well as constant properties inherited from the past.

The actual change, at a very fundamental level, is something that appears to defy any precise definition - for example, observing the motion of a ball is done via. seeing light or "energy" interacting with the ball as it rolls. The observation, or energy, interacting with this ball alters it (on a small scale of influence) from its straight line path. What you're actually seeing, in a sense, is not the ball rolling but instead a deviation from its inertial pathway. Time is both a violation of everything in the past as well as a construct of something different. In this case we could see the persistent features as arising from past influences of this change and setting a trend, but also time is continually redirecting and altering these.

I believe it's not that time doesn't exist, but instead that time operates in a manner that can't be defined by simply looking at the changes it results in.

(In the case of velocity, I have my own personal ideas - these are not "industry standard", but I believe space has an equivalent of an invisible spectrum that determines, similar to colors of a rainbow, where an objects position is in space, in this case, velocity would then be similar to changing note sweeping through a range of frequencies, though these frequencies could actually be specific properties of rather chaotic functions ... no, I don't have it nailed down yet ... and I might never, but hopefully you can find a few interesting ideas in this)

Again, welcome to the site. I hope you have fun, and yes, time is a great subject - though possibly one of the most complex and ellusive ones as well. It's the most common noun in the English language.

Something I've posted before as well is that time appears to be required to be synchronized throughout the known universe because we can make comparisons between the durations of events and this means they must share the same fundamental unit and not be disconnected, otherwise there would be nothing holding the stars and planets etc. into a continual relationship with everything else, including our own day to day lives.

[SteveA]

As another quick comment - back at the rolling ball example, the component of the motion that appears constant is also something that can't necessarily be physically proven to exist. In order to see a motion, a memory of past states must exist (the ball has rolled from A to B), hence the coherent component of time is actually an internal construction (in that case we could then understand why it does not appear as a directionless change - it's attached to a property we already possess an ability to recognize and hence it appears as something coherent and persistent - the actually photons by which this motion was observed all possess unpredictable/unknown components that constantly alter this preexisting state and it doesn't appear that the past exists more than a context in which change is observed, but change itself has no inertia - the future is not determined by the past except as a reference of where things came from, not where they're going).

[austintorn@aol.com]

The speed of light (c)
Is not just some mere universal constant
But is the precise ratio of space to energy,
That is, (distance^3 / time-distance^2),
Which results in
distance/time,
or
d/t = c.

(‘c’ can be no other value)

Motion is the one-dimensional
Relationship between energy and space.

[medicrene]

The speed of light (c)
Is not just some mere universal constant
But is the precise ratio of space to energy,
That is, (distance^3 / time-distance^2),
Which results in
distance/time,
or
d/t = c.

(‘c’ can be no other value)

Motion is the one-dimensional
Relationship between energy and space.

That's great, if time exists. But for this discussion, we assume that time is a concept we have created (such as love), but it does not have a physical property that can be measured (such as distance). The equasion above would look rediculous if we replaced time with love. Why does it work here?

While I most certainly believe there is motion and velocity, I believe we must redefine these terms without the use of time. When we can do that, we will then be able to look at the universe in a different way. However, it is the redefining of these terms that has me at a loss.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Love Equation:

Love = Love / Infinity


In other words, there can be no end to love,
although there may be time constraints to giving it.

It also seems to be a paradox that love,
When divided, is not at all diminished,
But that each individual love
Multiplies to exceed the lot.

One can never run out of love!
It is a miser, indeed,
Who withholds love from
A capacity that is boundless.

Hoard not that which can be given.
Give love, and even more love
Comes back full circle to you.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Another theory is that neither time nor space exist…

Thus everything happened/happens all at once, the finite speed of light dilating the broadcast, seeming to make it appear to play out in time.

Like the light from a star already spent,
Our ‘get up and go’ has long gone and went.

We all birthed, lived, and died right away—
There’s nothing left but the slo-mo replay.

[SteveA]

Let me give a quick example of how I think motion, that we understand, operates though I'll have to use some mathematical analogies - the actual experience of motion is something that I don't think can be logically explained, but simply in terms of the universal mechanics of motions, this is how I believe it works:

We first need a common unit of time and/or space, otherwise things to not inherently stay at any specific position if units could be mixed arbitrarily. So we have what I'll call a fundamental quantity of time and/or space - "quanta of spacetime" that continually accumulates (how this accumulation can be experienced - I don't know. It's tied in with physical perceptions and qualities of experience)

So we can just call it a value of n, but this n is the largest quantity that is required to describe any and all structures perceived in a specific moment (so it's on the very lowest computational scale of the universe, but also exists in the largest quantity)

From there we have different forms in space that are effectively allocated different quantities of this (the specific manner in which this occurs would appear to be perceptually related) and we could, as an example, have two objects each being distributed half of n, in which case they would grow in size together (though with a slight phase shift as units of n would be assigned alternately and one would precede the other, or be a single unit larger than the other half of the time).

In this case of equal distribution - making an observation from one to the other would appear very close to a unity or equality (ignoring the possibility of a single unit difference) and these could appear to be "stationary" relative to each other, even though they could both be dynamic forms - their changes are synchronous and correlated.

On the other hand if we had an unequal distribution of these, one could appear to continually remain larger or smaller than the other. If we assumed no additional reference points were added, well, the smaller one could appear similar to the past of the larger one (for example, assigning one to be 2n/3 and the other to be n/3 creates a 2:1 ratio and the smaller one could appear to possess identical properties as the larger one, though "moving" through time at 1/2 the rate).

If we instead took n and multiplexed these units in many difference ways, using a wide variety of functions, we could find objects accelerating or slowing or moving at various ratios over different "windows of time". This is fundamentally how I believe time in the universe operates. Of course, this does nothing to explain how n can grow nor does it explain the manner in which all these motions exist in terms of various qualities of experience (for example, to have a perception of a 3 dimensional space, there needs to exist at least 3 fundamental discrete properties/qualities that we experience associated with these - my assumption is that these arise from various "forms" of growth (or specific mathematical relationships) and, for example, what we might experience as a specific color or wavelengths could arise from a specific form of computation. We could sort a list of functions, dependent upon n, on a number line into least and greater and create an equivalent spectrum of volumes that could exist at any moment and the operations which these shared in common would then also construct them with an appearance of sharing common properties in a space and be (cor)related).

That's at least my best guess and the direction I've been working on. I believe the physical/shared/common/objective universe works using a specific form of this growth but that the mind can race ahead (intelligent insight into future expectations) or lag behind (memories of past events) and similar to a "Big Bang", but in many dimensional forms and with "shells" of this expansion arising from different forms of (mathematical) growth, these are all interconnected into a single space that contains all of physical, mental, past, present etc. Conscious experiences arise from the qualities experienced by these different forms of growth (for example, a square root operation might be something like a light speed velocity, whereas logarithmic growth is slower and could resemble memory, a rational quantity of n would be a fraction and grow faster than a square root and could resemble ("rational" ) intelligence etc. My guess is that the mind partially leads the way, though we could also see that slow growing "memories" could influence this and then we could have a recursive structure where faster, less dense and more linear growth seeks to emulate something that's slower but contains more complexity and diversity in the forms it constructs ...

All I have are lots of "guesses", but this stuff all seems to fit in and make sense - they're doable (the results though are very "complex" and hard to predict - it appears intuition lies somewhere in that same space as well - likely a bit past coherent comprehension LOL!)

[austintorn@aol.com]

Planck time marches on, those instants seeming to form a continuum?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Time does not exist in Hawaii. This is called "island time", meaning come or go or do anything anytime.