Time

[David Maes]

(Consider my reactions as a question not as truth)

You know, every 'vessel' in my body believes time does not move.

In relativity Einstein called 'time' the fourth dimension; of course I don't really believe in 'spoky' higher dimensions. I think higher dimensions are just a mathematical mechanism nature uses.

So scientifically, I think your theory is completely right!

Of course, I still believe science to be just a subjective significance between all others.

I really like Descartes to! Because his system of axis gave us a 'device' for measuring motions in a 3D reality. This has the consequence we can use maths and mathematics had the consequence of theory of relativity. Starting using mathemathematical equations of general relativity, we even predicted expansion (or shrinking) of the total spatial universe.

But actually I think using 3D axis system of Descartes is allready a discription of what we perceive. (and a very good one to.). Einstein only used mathematics and predicted the expansion of the total spatial universe. Later we perceived this to be true.

But the fact is we allready started from a system which discribed our perceptions and then we predicted another perception (expanding).
So I think the only thing we proved here is the perception of expansion.

Consider this as a question (curiousity), not as truth... Because personally, I don't believe anymore expansion is just a perception, I more believe you.

Another thing... about my considering science to be just a subjective significance between all others...

If you would consider this to be true... Then which is the most objective significance: science, or for example freedom, or love, or ...
Or do they finally all have the same 'degree' of subjectivity? Could the degree of 'objectivity' be in relation to the person who perceives the significance? Could everything be a significance?

I think mathematics and science being a very objective way of discribing nature. But is it a very objective way of discribing the truth?

Of course mathematics can predict lots of things about nature...
But I'm sure it's not the only thing... I think ideas are important to.

[quanta07]

In relativity Einstein called 'time' the fourth dimension; of course I don't really believe in 'spooky' higher dimensions. I think higher dimensions are just a mathematical mechanism nature uses.

Well, one must consider the difference between a flat surface and a volume. This difference we find is a whole other dimension to consider. Nature speaks to us, everywhere. It is our choice to observe and listen, or to ignore as subjective insignificance.

But the fact is we already started from a system which described our perceptions and then we predicted another perception (expanding). So I think the only thing we proved here is the perception of expansion. Consider this as a question (curiosity), not as truth... Because personally, I don't believe anymore expansion is just a perception, I more believe you.

Recently, the expansion has been measured. I do not recall the rate that was measured, however. It showed that the rate of expansion to be INCREASING.

Another thing... about my considering science to be just a subjective significance between all others...If you would consider this to be true... Then which is the most objective significance: science, or for example freedom, or love, or ..Or do they finally all have the same 'degree' of subjectivity?

It is my understanding that to be ‘subjective’ implies a bias or skews in viewpoint. Therefore I consider mathematics to be objective. Science as a skill/knowledge of study of both objectivity and subjective significance. Freedom and love, I consider to be personally subjective, therefore I sense the degree of subjective varies widely among these subjects.

Could the degree of 'objectivity' be in relation to the person who perceives the significance?

I suspect it varies, based on knowledge of subject and personality.

Could everything be a significance?

Maybe all things have meaning, yet their personal significance to us may be prioritized.

I think mathematics and science being a very objective way of describing nature. But is it a very objective way of describing the truth?

I consider truth to be a product of ones personal belief system, and therefore quite subjective.

Of course mathematics can predict lots of things about nature...But I'm sure it's not the only thing... I think ideas are important to.

I hardily agree, ideas, an initial thought, Observation;

Mankind evolved within expansion. Within ourselves, we all contain, and use, the coefficients of expansion.
Flux, an initial thought that prompts Impulse, neurons fire, muscles contract, Acceleration occurs,
We move with Velocity, and as the wind strikes the Surface Area of our skin, we are aware of our Volume in motion. Are we just a product of our environment OR are could we each be a self-contained universe?



Firp, splitter bleeb, wait a minute. Is philosophy spreading throughout science? Have I become infected? Is there any antidote?



Happy Thoughts...Q7

[David Maes]

I believe (forgive me; I'm only human) in one fundamental truth (scientifical and objective): time does not move.

[quanta07]

I believe (forgive me; I'm only human) in one fundamental truth (scientifical and objective): time does not move.

I agree, however our reference coordinate system does move.
If one accepts the concept of multidimensional time, what will we gain?
What may be possible soon?
For the moment, just suppose/imagine, a large vertical ring on a corner in New York, another large vertical ring in your home town, stepping on the platform in front of your home town ring, sliding your credit card, receiving authorization, entering in coordinates of New York. A blue haze fills the ring in your home town and the ring in New York.
From your home town, you place one leg through the ring, your foot lands firmly in New York, while the other foot is still in your home town. You step through, emerging in New York, no time has passed in your journey, only distance.....
Sci-Fi? For now, Maybe... but with the understanding of the role of time in our environment, this hypothetical event may not be as far away as you may think.
Time travel, has already occurred, with disastrous results, 'The Philadelphia Experiment'. With alterations in device design, distance travel with minimal time may be possible, using only monochromatic light.
Supposition only, for the Time being.....

Happy Thougths...Q7

[mkirkpatrick]

When I have watched a film on the t.v which shows time lapse photography
I am amazed at how when speeded up things like plants seem so frantic in there
movments,strange thing though I noticed in particular with vines and creepers
that they seemed to rotate or spin in the motions to find something to cling to
just like a vortex,our lives in that sort of frame would be here and gone in no time at all!Thank goodness we are outside the camera,we are are we not!!

kind regards michael.

[David Maes]

I believe (forgive me; I'm only human) in one fundamental truth (scientifical and objective): time does not move.

I believe it's a scientifical truth; I BELIEVE it's a fundamental truth. Of course believing it's a fundamental truth can be completely wrong also.

I agree, however our reference coordinate system does move.
If one accepts the concept of multidimensional time, what will we gain?
What may be possible soon?
For the moment, just suppose/imagine, a large vertical ring on a corner in New York, another large vertical ring in your home town, stepping on the platform in front of your home town ring, sliding your credit card, receiving authorization, entering in coordinates of New York. A blue haze fills the ring in your home town and the ring in New York.
From your home town, you place one leg through the ring, your foot lands firmly in New York, while the other foot is still in your home town. You step through, emerging in New York, no time has passed in your journey, only distance.....
Sci-Fi? For now, Maybe... but with the understanding of the role of time in our environment, this hypothetical event may not be as far away as you may think.
Time travel, has already occurred, with disastrous results, 'The Philadelphia Experiment'. With alterations in device design, distance travel with minimal time may be possible, using only monochromatic light.
Supposition only, for the Time being.....

Happy Thougths...Q7

This looks a bit like a book I read from a certain Dr. Rucker, who's book I admire and respect enormously.

I cannot resist my curiousity. Do you believe in subjective time perception?...


When we consider the idea of 'time', we also have to distinguish subjective and objective time.

What's objective time?

The objective time is the time like it presents itself to us. This time presents itself to the senses of living creatures as stimuli. It has not been processed yet by the brain! This time moves with the same speed for every observer, in spite of the observer is an animal or a man. So it is the real 'streaming' time (if time actually streams of course...)

What is subjective time?

Subjective time is the time like it's perceived by us and by our brain, or by an animal brain; with other words, this is our time perception or our perception of time. I believe time perception to be subjective! This time can be different from one observer to another one. I believe between the several species of animals there also can appear different perceptions of time.

When we compare the time perception between several humans, then there seem to be differences between the several individuals.

So I think objective time for everybody has the same speed (if it has one); but the way this time is perceived by the brain is another case.
Every man can perceive time in a different way; what's fast for one can be slow for another one.

'Time flies when you're having pleasure,' the saying says. I think this to be correct.

I've once read about some experiment which goes as follows...:

Some doctors gave to subjects tests in which they had to find specific items in several images. Before they began, they were told that when the test was done, they would be asked to estimate how long the test had lasted.

In the most simple of the seven several test levels, the items which had to be searched, had a different color than all the rest, or the items were hardly hidden. In the levels which were more difficult, the items were positioned between many items which looked similar, or the items were just not present.

The result: how more difficult the searching, how shorter the duration of the test was estimated. With other words, how more the mind is involved in a task, how faster time seems to go. So the test is estimated for 3 minutes for example, while in reality it's duration is 6 minutes. For example, a subject thinks it's only 9 o'clock, while in reality it's allready 3 past 9.

Before the experiment began, the subjects were told that they would be asked to estimate the duration of the test, because humans are usually better in predicting how long the duration of a task will be, than in estimating how long it took.

So I think the speed of time we perceive can be different for every man. I believe the experimental results of the speed of time we perceive would be more like statistical averages.

When we download something from the internet, this can take a while. I read about some tests which showed that the color of the screen you see during downloads, determines wether you'll perceive the download like something which takes a longer or a shorter duration.

I've noticed also that the years seem to pass faster than in former days. I believe older people also have the feeling that time passes faster.

I've read also the following...

During moments of high stress, for example during a car accident, our 'internal clock' rather seems to accelerate. The result is time seems to stand still or move incredibly slowly. Is this true?

I think also drugs influences our time perception. When you take drugs that makes the amount of dopamine in your brain increase, like cocaine and methamphetamine, than time seems to stand still also or to move incredibly slowly.

Marihuana and some other chemicals, on the contrary, decrease the levels of dopamine, and make time seeming to past faster. Are these things true??

Tiens, wasn't it just yesterday I was typing last weeks text?


How do we measure the time perception of a man or an animal?

For an animal, for example a fly, we present it a stimulus. We can see how fast or how slow the fly percieves the speed of time, by simply watching how fast the fly reacts.

I think with these kind of experiments, the fly will react much faster than a man. I believe this means that a fly sees time running slower than we see it.

What's the cause of this?

I think there can be three possible causes. First of all we know that a fly has a much smaller brain than we do. We also know that the complexity of the information that has to be processed by its brain, and that comes in via the senses, is a lot more complex with human than with fly. When for example we look to a chair, then our brain will perceive a chair immediately. Immediately we give a significance to the object we perceive.

I think a fly of course will also give a significance to this object, but this significance will be a lot less complex than the significance we perceive.

Now, imagen that the real 'flux' of time would be like 30 images a second. Suppose this 'flux' presents itself to our senses and to the senses of the fly.
Suppose our brain can really perceive 10 images a second, and that the brain of a fly can really perceive 20 images. I believe the fly will perceive time running slower and thus will be able to react faster.

This could be caused by the fact that the perceptions of the fly are less complex. From the 30 images that the senses of the fly receive, it will have to process a lot less information (or better data) than our brain does. This could result to the fact that a fly really also receives more images in her brain. We receive a less amount of images, because the images which our senses receive process a lot more information.

This is one hypothesis I have. Of course it could also be that the brain of the fly recieves more images than we do anyhow, in spite of the complexity. This is my secund hypothesis. I don't know which one is right. In each case, I believe the fly will see time running slower.

Flies are hard "to capture". They are so fast. Some people believe this is caused by the fact that flies can perceive some kind of differences in moving air and that this way they allready see your beating hand coming when it's still on a reasonable distance from the fly itself. This is also true. (Does this 'smell' a bit like relativity?) This is because of the very keen construction of its feelers.
But I believe that when we would present stimuli to the fly without using these differences in moving air, it would still react faster than we do; so I think it will percieve time running slower.

I think there are also animals for whom time will run faster than for human. Think for example of a seestar. When we look at a seestar, then it seems not to move. Suppose we put two seestars next to eachother, and every five minutes we take a picture of the two seestars together. When we let continue the pictures fast behind eachother, what would we see?
Would they be 'marking out' there territory?? I think with our perception of time we don't see this. If this would be true, then a seestar would only have a short perception like every five minutes or so. Then it would see time running faster...

For example, look at the birds, they seem to move faster than we do; Do they also have another time perception than we do?

I also heard something about certain animals which stay on tree trunks, and which stay there in the very hot sunlight. Do they use some mechanism to 'switch off' there time perception during a certain time?
Then their 'consciousness' would actually 'jump' to a futur period. I think they use this mechanism to survive.
What happens when they anaesthetize you before an operation? Does your consciousness 'jump' to a futur period?
And think of frogs almost frozen during winter. It seems they 'jump' to...
This might have something to do with the fact animals like frogs, flies, spiders, ... are coldblooded animals. They use some mechanism to drop their body temperature to make a 'jump' forward in time.
Humans don't have this mechanism (their body temperature is always 37 degrees).
I think even bears (which are hotblooded) can make a sudden change in temperature, to change their time perception.

Very striking I believe to be bacteria. Of course bacteria won't have a perception like we do. I think their perception happens by exchanging chemicals (a bit like we do but on a lower level). Bacteria can sometimes be in almost 'impossible' environnements, with extreme hot and extreme cold temperatures. I've heard something of bacteria being frozen in for a million of years; and when they tawned them, they came back to life, they started moving again... Is this true?? If it is, well then this is one hell of a jump!

Then another thing about human time perception... imagen that it would be true that we only receive for example 10 of the 30 images which are presented from our senses, in our brain. From example look at the rotating wheel of a car. As long as the wheel does not move to fast, we SEE it running in the right direction. However, from the moment it is moving faster, it seems that the wheel is rotating in the opposite direction. Of course this is not happening. We only see it running that way because the wheel is moving faster, than we can recieve images from it. (looks a bit like relativity again)

Think of the moving screw of a helicopter. We don't see it moving. We only see something like a circle. This is because our brain cannot follow the motion.

I think time perception is arrange by the sorting of atomic particles in the brain.
Now, imagen that the fly would perceive everything moving slower than we do. And imagen the fly could do the Michelson Morley experiment (which is impossible of course). Then I think it would also perceive the constant speed of light like we do. The only difference would be, it would perceive light moving slower than us. But of course, it perceives everything going slower. So it's logical.
The only thing is, if time perception would really be different among several species of animals, it makes you wonder... does time actually move at all??

Another thing... When we humans look at a chair, then we all perceive this chair. But will a fly perceive the chair the same way we do??
I think when a fly wants to land on the inside 'sticks' of a wheel, then it will see them. The only question is, in what way will it perceive them? I find it hard to believe it will perceive it the same way as we do. I think what a species perceives is dependent of what it needs to perceive to make it survive as long as possible which is nothing more then the consequence of evolution.

Then another thing... take a piece of paper and draw a little simple man on it with his arms down. Then take another paper and draw the same man, but this time with his arms up. Now quickly move the two papers (with the image of the little man) successively in turn. Your brain will 'think' the images are moving. So it's making a correlation. Does our brain correlate for survival?
If so, what does it really correlate?

I think the reality is built from atoms and molecules, in a chemical way. We don't see atoms (because we need an electron microscopic to do that). When we are using the electron microscope and we look to the atoms then we see them moving. But are they really?...

And about non-locality, I believe it's more something like a 'buttoned state'.

(sorry about the long text, had to put everything together)

[mkirkpatrick]

I wonder what if any concept that the mayfly would have,living but a day,but what a day it would be!Born and mate and father offspring all in 24 hours.time
is ca realitive thing,it only exists in our phenomenal world where we are surrounded by things!When we step outside of the realitive,we enter the realm
of the eternal now,which is the real,the other is false,or at best temporal-reality
if there is such a thing.If I am watching paint dry,so to speak,time can move very slowly,but if I am very busy posting on toe quest,it runs Very fast!!
kind regards michael.

[quanta07]

David…Outstanding post with great observations..

Yes, I believe in subjective time perception.
From personal experience, I have perceived the slowing of passing time, in an auto accident, and in combat.
During 1968 and 1969, I served with the US Marines, in southeast Asia. While there, I spent some time at an old monastery in the Himalayan mountains, among monks, which had great talents in the martial arts. They had perfected a technique of concentration that let them perceive time passing at a much slower rate. In this concentrative state, their reaction time to events was incredibly fast. As they exhibited their skills, they moved their arms in a blur. In combat, under fire, my time perception changed, one second felt like an eternity, people moved in slow motion.

Later, as years passed quickly, I had the unfortunate opportunity to witness an auto accident. Everything moved in slow motion.

I can perceive, while waiting for my plane, the passing of time, quickly by concentrating on my reading material. Sometimes, the material is somewhat boring, and the wait seems longer.

IMHO, I believe it all depends on where our focus of concentration resides. If we are concerned more with the actual waiting period, time seems to pass slowly. If our concentration is on something/someone else, time seems to pass all too quickly.



Herein is the problem,

Mankind’s view of time and its passing, from within mankind’s environment,(I believe) remains subjective to most. Because we can only 'perceive' time, with motion/events, time seems intangible. As long as we maintain that time is subjective and relative, time itself remains an illusive object of discussion and debate.

The article posted here on toequest,
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-the-pure-mathematics-space-time.html
presents a view from 'the outside’ of an expanding universe.
Within is mankind, and a limited subjective view of time. The presented view of all domains of expansion, requires an objective view of time. The view from the outside with the mathematics of expansion, exposes Time as multidimensional entities.
I understand that this is an objective view, one that may be quite unsettling to the normal subjective view.


I believe mankind’s subjective view of time itself, inhibits progress in the quest for understanding/knowledge. As long as mankind remains anchored in our current subjective view, we will continue our production of conjectures and theories, moving from simplicity to complexity, somewhat futile attempts at understanding.

Your post seems to be a testimonial to the subjectivity of time itself.
I agree with this subjective view, because I’m human, because my normal view of our cosmos is from 'within'.
Expansion mathematics depicts another view, from 'outside', it shows an objective view of time itself, mankind is inconsequential.

Michael's post about the relative lifespan of a mayfly is an interesting view.
I see it as a totally subjective view. To the cosmos, our lifespan is less than a blink of an eye...

Objective time?...Subjective time?..
I believe in them both. I can not speak for the fly.



Happy Thoughts…Q7

[David Maes]

Another thing...

Flies seem to be slower during winter than during summer.
Maybe they see time running faster in winter than in summer...

Does their body temperature decrease in winter?



Another thing...

I really apology even thinking of this...

But maybe we could 'convert' the Michelson Morley experiment into the presentation of a stimulus to the fly, and compare this experimently with human perception (light speed is a constant).

Of course I'm sure light will speed with the same constant as with humans. (You know how I see it) I think the fly will only PERCEIVE light moving slower than we do, but c remains a constant of course.

((Don't get me wrong))

(But maybe we could do this experiment, just to be sure.)

(Maybe we could correlate many experiments this way...)
I'm sorry, I think this idea I'm posting now to be very stupid and ridiculous.

We don't say "space moves" when something is moving in space, do we? So why shall we do so with time? It's a terminological error.

The problem is Einsteins equations of general relativity predicted the total amount of the spatial universe to expand or to shrink.

Einstein didn't believe his own equations and introduced a cosmological constant, which later on turned to be wrong. Scientists saw spatial universe is expanding.

There seems to be a general misconception.

Time itself doesn't move. Or doesn't pass.

That's what we believe, time does not move.

It is the objects in time, which are actually all objects that have motion in a spatial existence, that move in the dimension of time.

According to special relativity, time is the fourth dimension, next to the 3 other spatial dimensions (I believe to be from Descartes).

So objects don't move through a 3 dimensional reality only, they move through a 4-dimensional reality called spacetime or timespace.

You could say all objects move through this 4-dimensional timespace with the speed of light, because light has a universal constant speed (c), and every observer sees the same speed of light (proven by the Michelson Morley experiment). That's because according to special relativity laws of nature don't change when an observer is moving relative to another one (if it's a uniform rectilinear motion; in the other case the laws of general relativity apply).

You could also interpret special relativity like this...
Imagen two observers moving relative to eachother (for example with a high speed). One observer moves with the speed of light through spacetime (so he sees the speed of light with the universal constant speed 'c'. The secund observer also moves with the speed c through spacetime, so he sees also c is constant. But because of the relative motion the secund observer makes in relation to the first one (also because of the relative motion the first observer makes in relation to the secund one), the first observer will see from his timespaceperspective the secund observer travelling more in the three spacedimensions than in the timedimension, making the first observer see the events (on the 'vehicle') of the other observer moving slower.
All the same applies for the other observer, because in special relativity, the laws of nature remain the same.
((whoops, sorry, tapped it in wrong first; was a bit in a hurry))
But let's make it more simple, everything moves with the speed of light, but one observer will see the events of the other observer moving relative to him slower because the light he receives from that other observer gets stretched out by the relative motion itself (this is like a 'doppler'effect).

So objects or observers don't move through the 3-dimensional space only, they also move through the fourth dimension of time (according to relativity)
So, according to special relativity you cannot say you only move through 3 dimensions with a constant stream of time in the background (that was what Newton believed)
I find it more logical to interpret that 'time' is streaming with the speed 'c', which is a constant stream we can observe and which is 'c'. But because the relative motions are a part of this stream (they also move in the 'time'stream) the light which one observer receives still has the same speed but is stretched out by the relative motion itself (dopplereffect) If you interpret everything to move with the constant speed 'c', then you can also say nothing at all moves, it is possible to interpret relativity like that.

It's only in general relativity the laws of nature change. Because when you're accelerating with your a rocket for example, you will be 'pushed' in the direction of the beneath part of the rocket (gravity). If you would measure your weight, you would see it increases. So laws of nature change by gravity or acceleration. This happens in a gravityfield, accelerated motion and also with a not-rectilinear motion.

Anyhow, you cannot only move through time, you automaticly move through spacetime. (You can interpret relativity in lots of ways, it's like you want)

I also know how to interpret general relativity and expansion of the universe like this, with the idea that 'time' doesn't move.

Actually what is accelerating away from us are the galaxies. We can see it because the light we receive from those galaxies (which still goes with the speed 'c') is shifting to red (longer wavelenght). Lightwaves are getting stretched out. This is like a dopplereffect.

I think in reality it is only 'the information' or the light we receive from these galaxies which is stretching out, resulting in a longer wavelenght (red).

Actually accepting the basic principle of general relativity (the equivalence between acceleration and gravity), I don't think you have to believe that galaxies are accelerating away from us. I think you can also think of gravity increasing there, which also gives us red light.

So I believe 'time' doesn't move.
I also believe special relativity is more like some kind of a 'doppler effect' of information caused by relative motion.

I think the real cause of the direction of time is relativity of motion, acceleration and gravity. (principally gravity)

I think, finally, when you go to the border of the universe (of course this border is located in a HIGHER dimension), gravity becomes so hugh, time doesn't move anymore and becomes what it actually really is, no time.

The further we look to the galaxies of the universe, the faster they go, and the more catastrophic events happen, complete galaxies are exploding.
I think at the border, in this higher dimension, light is shifting to the infrared!
So the mass becomes energy (which I believe to be the real state of mass), and time is standing still. (I believe every significance gets distroyed, also every mathematics at this border; order becomes chaos).

Also in a philosophical way, I think everything is a polarity (black and white, cold and hot,...)
But looking to the expansion of the universe, and thinking this to be an macroscopic direction of time, we don't have a polarity of time (time and no time).

Q7 interpretet time does not move. Well I believe he just showed us a philosophical polarity in nature, which I think to be logical.

But I think there is also a polarity in the expansion itself.
Because Einsteins equations of general relavity predicted the total amount of the spatial universe to expand OR to shrink. I believe they BOTH are right!
By the red shift we can perceive the expansion, but not the shrinking.
So I believe (of course I can be wrong also) that we perceive expansion but in a higher dimension (which we don't perceive) there is a shrinking of the spatial universe giving us again a logical polarity of time and no time.
About shrinking of spatial universe, I believe Einsteins equations of general relativity predicted the truth of a higher dimension in a mathematical way.

How can I declare this polarity (expanding and shrinking)?

Well, imagen the whole 3D-spatial universe being the surface of a 4-dimensional hypersphere.
Imagen you would find yourself located in this 3D-spatial universe, blowing up a balloon which cannot break.

Imagen you could blow it up so big, untill it finally would become as big as the whole spatial universe... What would you see?

First you would see the balloon becoming bigger, but when it's starting to become as big as the whole spatial universe, I think you would see it shrink from your 3-dimensional perspective. From the 4-dimensional perspective, you would see it expand.

Another question:

Could what happens at the border of the universe (or maybe in a black hole), also be some kind of resonance??

Could it be a resonance of gravitywaves??

Also, in a philosophical way, I believe the border of the universe could be the end of the polarity between micro and macro...
So I believe at this higher dimension, the border of the universe becomes one point (like a ping pong ball), some kind of singularity.

Also, could the 'border' of the universe (in a higher dimension) be holographic??


So I believe time does not move, it's not going slower in the gravityfield. It's light and the information which you receive from the gravityfield which is getting stretched out (and shifting to red) when an observer is outside of it.

I think this to be a real kind of subjectivity.


I agree with you completely Guille, I believe science is not an absolute truth!

(Sorry Guille, tapped in something wrong first, was a bit in a hurry)
You know, I'm a bit of an 'absent-minded' person. The things I think sometimes get 'translated' into wrong words or even wrong actions, certainly when I have to speed up!
(Lucky you didn't quote me, or it would have made me look really ridiculous.) (of course that's not important is it...)

[Guille]

There seems to be a general misconception.

Time itself doesn't move. Or doesn't pass.

It is the objects in time, which are actually all objects that have motion in a spatial existence, that move in the dimension of time.

We don't say "space moves" when something is moving in space, do we? So why shall we do so with time? It's a terminological error.