Time

[quanta07]

Why do some say time does not exist? Could it be only an illusion?
Could it be the result of our evolution within our unique environment?
When we really take a look at our evolutionary environment, we may see how this dilemma of confusion may correlate.
We note that distance has been described in three dimensions.
In Euclidean geometry mankind perceives distance along three axis of view, (X,Y,Z).
Position is denoted with distances (x,y,z) from our observation point (0,0,0).
Motion occurs when we move from out position (x,y,z) to position ((x+dx),(y+dy),(z+dz)).
To describe motion, mankind has seen fit to “invent” a term labeled “time”. Comparing a change in position to this
term “time”, mankind conceives “velocity”.

But let’s back up in history, back to an era where mankind’s reasoning began.
Maybe this concept of velocity was first noted when mankind was chased by predators.
Some predators would not catch them, they were too slow. Faster predators meant death.
Soon mankind learned which predators were faster and which predators were slower,
which to avoid and which man could catch for food.
The concept of velocity was born early in mankind’s evolution, as a matter of survival.
Latter in evolution, many cultures became fascinated with the sun and moon,
building structures and watching shadows to observe the motion of celestial objects.
A matter of curiosity in our species, mankind advances in the conception that we had to wait to plant
and wait to harvest, leading to the development of primitive calendars.
Mankind had learned to count, one finger, one sun, one moon.
Somewhere in the passage of history, the waiting period began to be conceptualized as “time”.
At first, a day, a night, then a full moon to full moon, a lunar month.
Thirteen moons from harvest to harvest yielded the concept of a year.
As history passes, the concept of waiting evolved into the passing of time.
Things were needed to predict the passing of time, with more and more precision.
The clock was invented, and soon the mastering of the seas.
More and more precise measurements of time have evolved,
but a true understanding of time is still not fully understood by many.

Oh yes, we wake, go to work, conduct our daily activities, go to sleep, based on the concept of the passage of time.
But as we know, our measurement of time is based almost entirely on motion.
Some have stated that time itself does not exist.
I believe that this conclusion follows based on the egocentricity and lack of acceptance that mankind is not the center of the universe.
To obtain a better understanding of “time”, mankind must accept our insignificance within the cosmos.
We have evolved in a universe of expansion.
To be aware of our real place in the cosmos, we must have a deeper understanding of the behavior and evolution of the cosmos in which we live.
We cannot continue the belief that there is no time unless we measure in terms of waiting periods.
We must consider that our universe is in a constant state of expansion and that mankind
has evolved in a domain of universal expansion.
When we can see the role of time in the expansion of the cosmos,
we then see where the evolution of mankind fits within the universe.

Within the cosmos, our familiar, three-dimensional Euclidean space MUST exist. This fact is a given, we are here.
There is a unique, single function that describes expansion.
To derive this function, we merely integrate the laws of motion.
Expansion and the role of time itself are described in much more detail in an article on Toequest;

http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-the-pure-mathematics-space-time.html

Time is much more complex than the mere measure of motion,
and I highly recommend this read to anyone interested in “TIME” itself.

Happy Thoughts……Q7

[Guille]

David Maes,

I agree with you that a tennisball is actually space in most percentag,e and hardly tennisball. But I explain it in a different manner. I believe that these spaces are connected, and these connections are pure energy. So, I actually mbelieve that matter doesn't have energy, it's space what has energy. And this has a lot of common sense, because then, when the tennisball is moving, it's loosing the old spaces (with the energy that made it move) because these spaces are moving, just like you said they move! I've just found a connection between yours and my theory.

[hiren]

Time is only the weak force which allow energy to converts into matter by giving it time. As energy in our body slowly converts into more matter and we die. again new energy creates and it also slowly converts into matter and again we die. The procedure continues untill the energy it there to perform the task. thus the time taken in conversion from energy to matter is time. If the conversion process speedup then we say time running faster and if it slow down we say time running slow. and if complete process changes that matter starts converting into energy we say time running back. and at speed of light time stops because the process of conversion of energy into time and time into energy stops. thus time is a scale to measure the conversion.

You cant get energy without matter because when a universal body exploded and form the universe all its planetary bodies that explosion created energy. and slowly that energy started converting into matter and the process is still going on. so we cannot create energy without matter and also cannot create extra energy only we can change energy from one form to another. But yes matter is still increasing and energy is decreasing by process of energy converting in matter by the guideness of nature and slowly all energy will convert into matter with time than again one explosion will take place and all matter will convert into energy. Thus the process will go on. It only stop if motion of energy vanishes but its not possible as energy and motion are two side of same coin as electro magnetism.

[David Maes]

See post #82

I find this really REALISTIC. I also read the article with mathematics you referred to (which I actually didn't understand "bleep" about) But...

I don't know if science already found a solution for this one. (just interested)
(I read this from a book called "the cosmic code: natures language")
STATISTICAL MECHANICS:

"I think the second law of thermodynamics can not get derived from the classical laws of motion alone. In statistical mechanics thermodynamic laws are getting derived from the laws of Newton. It looks like there somehow is a relation between physics and human experience. If we start from the microscopical discription of a physical system of motion of separate particals given by Newtons laws of motion. Using these laws there is no difference between past and futur. In the microscopical 'world' time literally can have each direction. An atom doesn't know anything about getting older; age is only determined by the way atoms and molecules are ordened. Inreversable time, getting older, rotting of fruit, are in a microphysical way, illusions. But the law of increasing of entropy in time gives a direction to time, giving us a difference between past and futur. If rotting fruit would become 'clear' again, it would be like time went back. So MICROSCOPICAL laws are invariant in relation to timereversal; MACROSCOPICAL laws like law of entropy are not. That's why it's impossible to derive the secund law of thermodynamics (a law for the macroscopical variable 'entropy') from the laws of Newtons mechanics alone. How many mathematical artifices you apply, you cannot derive the one set of laws from the other. There seems to be needed an extra assumption to derive the law of entropy from Newtonian laws. This assumption gives us an idea about the relation between the basical laws of the microcosmos and our direct experience.
Imagen you have a very special camera with a zoomlens. You can use it to zoom from microscopical to macroscopical objects. Imagen someone is smoking a pipe, and very slowly I am zoming from micro to macroworld. We can see the film on a screen. First we only see bumping particals obedient to Newtonian laws. When I would turn back, the motions of all particals would go in a reverse direction. Qualitatively, it's the same motion; a chaos of bumping particals. So we cannot see the direction of time, because Newton laws don't make a difference between past and futur. Now, we zoom out, and we have less information. We begin to see a little bit of the twists of smoke, the AVARAGE spreading of the smokeparticals moving in time. If we would turn the film back now, and if we would see that the twists are getting smaller instead of bigger, then this would look not probable, so we would suspect the film to be turned back. By exchanging the microscopical information for the macroscopical (the separate motion of particals for the avarage motion), without even knowing, we have made the extra assumption connecting Newtonian mechanics with thermodynamics. According as the microscopical information gets less detailed, it's inevitable, entropy is increasing. If we take the avarage from the discription of a microworld (details become 'blurred'), it's inevitable, we violate the reversebility of time in that microworld. You could say it's our demand, the demand that there is a microscopical description, that we can take in a significant way the avarage of the information of the microworld, introducing the direction of time.

If we zoom out further, seeing the whole macroworld, we can see smoke going into the pipe and getting 'converted' into tabacco. Now we are sure the film is running back. As soon as we perceive impossible or improbable things in the film, we see timedirection is reversed. It is us who recognize the patron, and who lay the macroscopical discription on the physical reality; a reality which is not applicable to the microworld. Apparently, we can make a difference between the microworld and the macroworld of our human experience, discriptions of reality which are different qualitatively. Our brain and our body reacts to thermodynamical macroscopical variables, the spreading of microscopical motions. I am cold or hot, there is a certain temperature; but I can't feel the bombardment of millards of particals on my skin. I get older, and life is fool of riscs which only have significance because some decisions are irreversable: I cannot go back in time. However, when you look at it in a microscopical way, then this is an illusion.
The philosophy of reductionism says that a table is built from molecules, molecules are built from atoms, ... etc.
(You could say...: 'it's all chemicals').
But from the way the direction of time arises, it seems that this reduction is impossible, not even from the level of macroscopical objects to the level of atoms. If you want to have the discription on a macroscopical level to have significance, then you have to be satisfied with an avarage, making you lose information of the microworld; and we are the ones determining this avarage."

(Now I go further...)
Assume we are perceiving something. Light is reflecting on reality. Then we don't see all photons. We just see an avarage spreading of the light.

Maybe we are just looking to another 'world', another 'reality' and we see 'a photon' ourselves (which is also consistent with the complementarity principle).

I also started reading another book on quantummechanics interpreting qm a little differently...
They said time and space are not real, but when we perceive something, the significance of it starts to exist in our 'world' of time and space. They meant that in somekind of dimension (which we cannot perceive) significances are existing. So if we do quantumexperiments somehow these significances appear in our time and space 'world' from this dimension...
They said time and space are not real.


Now, these interpretations are really interesting to read.
But somehow I do believe you, and lose my faith in qm interpretations. Because they sound a bit strange. They are so different then the reality we experience.

However, I think the problem is qm is a discription of the microworld. And other theories describe the macroworld.

But... we think we are the standard size. The microworld is very small, and the macroworld is very very big. But is this right???

Maybe an atom is a whole universe... maybe one universe is like a partical...

I mean, before the big bang the universe only had the size of a ping pong ball...

So, what's big and what's small???

I rather think to time and space are a property of the universe.

But what I also believe is there is more than one universe.
And when there are more universes in one multiverse; would then this multiverse have time and space???

I think time and space or limited to ONE universe.

But I cannot believe there is only one universe!

In the past humans that earth was the only place. Why would there only be one universe???

Imagen there is a multiverse, containing lots of universes... imagen our universe has time and space... then time and space would be real in our 'world' but not in the 'real' multiverse...

Maybe there is also a multimultiverse containing lots of multiverses...

Maybe one universe has a border... but why would be believe in only one???

((I'll send further things later...))

David Maes,

I agree with you that a tennisball is actually space in most percentag,e and hardly tennisball. But I explain it in a different manner. I believe that these spaces are connected, and these connections are pure energy. So, I actually mbelieve that matter doesn't have energy, it's space what has energy. And this has a lot of common sense, because then, when the tennisball is moving, it's loosing the old spaces (with the energy that made it move) because these spaces are moving, just like you said they move! I've just found a connection between yours and my theory.

Ye, thought this to, spaces have energy!!
But...
Einstein said: "mass is energy and energy is mass"

Energy is relative.
When matter is moving faster and gets more energy, then it's also getting more mass. (For example; when you throw a stone in water, then you have a little splash; when you throw the same stone in the water again, but this time 'harder', so the stone is moving faster; then it has more energy and when it falls into the water, the water splashes more!)

But something like a stone contains much much energy. If you would 'free' all energy which is inside the stone, you could blow up a whole country with it!

(I might have an idea and still use 'spaces' instead of matter, but I'll send it later...)

Also important for 'spaces'... Why do spaces bump against eachother in our macroscopic world?? For example, you walk against a door...

Because the electrons of the outside atoms of you are 'rejecting' the electrons of the outside atoms of the door. Similar charges 'reject' eachother!! Else the spaces would move through eachother. That's the reason why you can transfer your energy to an object (=space)in our world.
So when something is getting faster, instead of saying the mass is getting bigger, you could also say 'the moving space' has more energy; resulting in a higher 'mass' measurement.

Instead of saying matter transforms timespace, you also say it is the energy inside the 'matter'space which is transforming timespace!!

Remark... you can escape the coincidence of Darwin by saying this coincidence is a reality in our universe. So we well always find it in our universe.

But... if the absolute objective is infinite...

then one universe is nothing in relation to that absolute objective.

Because one universe = 1 ;and 1 devided by infinity is zero!!!
Subjectivity might not be a property of one universe...
It might be a property of all universes... that's why we will never be able to prove it in our universe!

There could be an infinite chaos of significances.... leading to several universes... (Maybe for every slightly different significance of you life now, there could be another universe...) ((but I don't believe in a spirit travelling from one to another parallell universe; of course... even this could still be right...))

Instead of saying Darwin is not right believing human spieces is a coincidence...
we could also say....

Darwin is right... but the absolute objective had to make a chaos of significances to create us... because 'if everything is green then nothing is green...' that's why in our universe we will only discover humans as being a coincidental part of evolution. (For the absolute objective coincidence does not exist)

(just like we create significances out of the little unconscious fragments )

[mkirkpatrick]

Time can belooked at like thisT Through
I Insight
M Mind
E Enabled

Time is an illusion,albeit a very real looking one,but nevertheless false.
when the mind and consciousness are fully enabled this illusion will vanish,like
a lake in the desert,just a mirage!


kind regards michael.

[David Maes]

Some have stated that time itself does not exist.
I believe that this conclusion follows based on the egocentricity and lack of acceptance that mankind is not the center of the universe.
To obtain a better understanding of “time”, mankind must accept our insignificance within the cosmos.

I know if you implicate Einsteins equations of theory of general relativity to the whole universe, then this shows the expanding of the universe. Einstein used his 'timespace' and this showed the expanding. So there is no absolute time running in the background of the events. And there is no absolute space where motions occur. So this vue is wrong! It is merely a subjective view. A MORE objective view is timespace!

However I believe timespace is also a subjective view. So we have to exchange it again for something MORE objective, which will undoubtedly bring us again closer to reality.
So this means that the meaning of 'the expansion of the universe' is also still not an absolute objective meaning, because it is not a theory of everything. It is only a part of the truth, which we know now, but which can still change in something MORE realistic. (You know in the past people believed the earth was flat...)
So I find it not right to still believe in time and space, because those ideas or just consistent with our human experience; but they are not real. Time and space is not real. Right now only timespace is real! And I think even this concept of 'timespace' will be replaced by a better and more objective concept; which will bring us again closer to reality.

I believe to that human existence is insignificant in the cosmos and that we are not the center of the universe. Because it is those believes that we are important for the cosmos, that blinds us for the truth.

I think it's just believing that time DOES exist, that is egocentric and that leads to the idea that we are the center of the universe.

We must consider that our universe is in a constant state of expansion and that mankind
has evolved in a domain of universal expansion.
When we can see the role of time in the expansion of the cosmos,
we then see where the evolution of mankind fits within the universe.

Within the cosmos, our familiar, three-dimensional Euclidean space MUST exist. This fact is a given, we are here.
There is a unique, single function that describes expansion.
To derive this function, we merely integrate the laws of motion.
Expansion and the role of time itself are described in much more detail in an article on Toequest;

http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427

Time is much more complex than the mere measure of motion,
and I highly recommend this read to anyone interested in “TIME” itself.

Happy Thoughts……Q7

Just a question...

Time in contrast with all dualities is the only thing which has no opposite; (+ and -, good and bad, man and woman, hot and cold, .....) that's why I don't trust it... I believe if there exists a time, there also would have to exist no time.


The fact that our universe is expanding gives us again an arrow in time; but this arrow is again macroscopic.
We don't have this arrow in the microscopic world, which is striking. Because we are searching for a theory which combines both 'worlds'.

I've stated already that it might be better not to believe in concepts as 'space' and 'time', but it might be better to believe in 'spacetime'. I also said we had to think more as reality, being a reality of 'motionsystems'. I also said that every motionsystem can be a part of an other larger motionsystem.

The equations of general relativity only showed us that the total size of the SPATIAL universe in time had to expand. So this is giving us again a macroscopic direction of time. But it doesn't tell us anything about the total spacetime of the universe; so it doesn't say anything about time itself.
It only tells us what happens with the space of the whole universe, assuming there is again an absolute Newtonian time in the background.
So it doesn't tell us anything about the relation between time and space.
What do the equations of general relativity tell us about the total timecomponent of the whole universe?

Didn't relativity just learned us the relativity of time and space?
Didn't it show us, that we cannot accept an absolute time or spacereference?
That all these references are in a way subjective?

Maybe it's just because our timespacereference (which gives us the perception of space and time!, (like every timespacereference)) is just a part of the spacetimereference of the universe, so that we see the 'absolute' space (which expands) and time.

Because when an observer is a part of a motionsystem he will always observe the physical phenomeno in an absolute time- and spacereference!
So if his motionsystem is also a part of the motionsystem of the universe, then he will also observe the whole universe in an absolute space- and timereference!

But... why shoudn't we think of the whole universe as a motionsystem itself?

I mean, even if the whole universe would be a spacetime itself, even then we would experience space and time, because it is the property of any spacetime. Even then we would perceive the expanding of the universe and the red shift.

If you would think of the expanding of the universe being a direction of time, then you have to accept again an absolute timereference. First, by special relativity, we discover that Newton is wrong and time and space are not absolute; then suddenly we discover the expansion of the galaxies; but ONLY THE SPACE OF the galaxies (containing OTHER SYSTEMS (like sunsystems for example) NOT MOTION SYSTEMS), are fleeing away from eachother, giving us again an absolute time in the background. But inside every galaxy, we have to accept everything as being motionsystems following the laws of relativity.
Those things contradict a bit, don't you think?
I think you can accept one concept or the other concept, but not both of them. Also it only tells us something about the spatial component, not about both of them (time and space).


Also; if we think of the spatial universe expanding, then why wouldn't we think of it not expanding and time speading down instead?
We should get the red shift of the special relativistic dopplereffect also.
Or maybe the spatial universe is expanding and time is speading down.
Maybe there is a relation between both of them.

Also there is an equivalence between acceleration and gravity (which gave us the result of general relativity and so also of the expansion of the spatial universe). Now, we can see that galactic spaces are fleeing away from eachother. But they also accelerate in relation to eachother. The galaxies which are the farrest away from us, are almost speeding away from us, with the speed of light (giving us the redshift, because red is the longest wave).
Also we see that how farther away from us (and also how faster they're speeding away from us), how more galactical catastrophes are happening (complete galaxies are exploding and being converted into energy and radiation.)

By the effect of general relativity, when galaxies are accelerating while speeding away from eachother, they also got to become 'heavier'. This means, how faster they accelerate while speeding away from eachother, how 'heavier' they become. So when a galaxy is speeding away from another one, accelerating faster, Newtons apple has to fall down quicker there; because it has more gravity.
At the 'border' of our universe, the galaxies have to get really extremely 'heavy' (because they almost have the speed of light); this would have to result in the galaxies crashing into eachother, which results in the effect that all mass is being converted into energy.
Because the galaxies which are at 'the border' of the universe are extremely 'heavy', there is also an extremely high amount of gravity.

So... how further away you go in the universe, how more gravity there is. So the galaxies are fleeing away faster and faster in relation to eachother, because the gravity at the border of the universe is attracting them more and more.
Because gravity is getting higher and higher, time is also getting slower and slower.
Eventually, at the border of our universe, at the border of our spacetime itself, (the border of space and time) the galaxies are getting the speed of light; this means time is standing still there; time does not exist there; mass gets completely converted into energy and space is an illusion there. Lots of energy cannot escape over there, because it would have to go faster than light. So eventually it's not only space which is expanding, it's also time which is getting slower.

So what else would the border of spacetime of our universe (the border of space and time) be, then a transition to other universes, other possibilities, other probabilities, other spaces, other times... Micro and macro are falling together at this border, because space has no significance there...
All dualities are being thrown together there... so there are no more significances, every significance is subjective...
At this border of spacetime all mathematics stop...
Everything happens at the same moment...
Maybe this border of spacetime could be holographic..., containing all information of universal timespace...

If space itself is expanding, then time is slowing down (because light needs more time to get from one point to another); so eventually there is no time.
This is the duality.


Also the expansion of space does not happen in the innerparts of one galaxy! And in our galaxy we also experience time! The expansion of spatial universe results in the fact that galaxies are fleeing away from eachother.


I also don't really believe in matter. Like Guille I think matter is a SPACE of sorted energy. This vue solves a lot of problems.
For example in our macroscopical world, two objects bump against eachother. But in the quantumworld there is an effect called the quantummechanical tunneleffect. These effect means some quanta can be at places where they normally can't be... they kind of breach a wall... for example the effect of protons escaping from the core of an atom... Normally they can't do that, but they do it anyway... If we would consider an atom and a proton being a space, then we can think those spaces just moving through eachother. Also with photons... when you cross two laserbeams, then they don't change direction (even when assume they are a rain of bullets)... If a photon is a space, then they can move through eachother!

Now, why doesn't this happen in our macroscopic world? Because atoms have electrons on the outside. And similar charges reject eachother!!
This causes atom to be able to bump against eachother, and I believe this to be the real cause of time!!!!! (It also explanes the direction of time we experience.) Bumping causes causality!
So I believe the world inside the atom is timeless.
Also the similar charges of the electrons are responsable for the energy transfer and relative energy. When you throw a stone harder in the water, then it has more energy; so the water splashes more. This effect has only and only be caused by the fact that electrons have similar charges which reject eachother. This rejection causes the transfer of energy (cause energy cannot be distroyed by 'the law of maintenance of energy').


Now, if we think of the photons which can move through eachother...
How would the world look like if everything would move through eachother?
It would be a timeless world, wouldn't it? That's why photons (with their speed) are timeless!

Now, why is the macroscopic universe so different in comparison with the microworld?

Well, it isn't different at all. The only reason why it looks different to us is because if we look to our macroscopic universe, then we see the inside of one universe; and if we look to the microscopic world, then we see lots of universes, that's the only difference.

In the microscopic world we influence this world, because we influence those universes. But we don't really influence the macroscopic universe.
That's why we get non-locality in the microworld (we influence microscopic universes); but not in the macroworld or the macroscopic universe!

Also, we don't have to worry about time inside the atom for the transfer of information between protons and electrons. Because inside the atom, time does not exist.

We also experience subjectivity when we interact with the microworld. That's logical; because the microworld contains more universes; and then subjectivity occurs.
There is no subjectivity in our macroscopic universe, because we cannot influence something bigger than us.

There might be uncertainty in the world of electrons. But hell, the motion of electrons doesn't have to be certain. If statistical the motions are right, and they lead to atoms and their chemical connections, that's all we need to explain our macroscopic world being just built from chemical reactions.
If we cannot predict the futur, or we experience chaos, then it's only because of our macroscopic world being to incredibly complex to explain.
Causality is a reality in the world we experience, only in the microworld we interfere and we get subjectivity; because over there, there is more than one universe! So mathematics might be good for our macroscopic world and our macroscopic universe, but less for the microscopic universes, because then, if things are starting to move through eachother maths is difficult to use.

If the microscopical quantumworld is without time, then it's also without mathematics! Because mathematics IS time!!!!!


We cannot predict what someone will think or feel, because of the enorm complexity of our brain. A brain has about milliards of connections.
Maybe our brain is a universe itself...........................




I think this to be realistic...

[quanta07]

I know if you implicate Einsteins equations of theory of general relativity to the whole universe,then this shows the expanding of the universe. Einstein used his 'timespace' and this showed the expanding. So there is no absolute time running in the background of the events. And there is no absolute space where motions occur. So this vue is wrong! It is merely a subjective view.

Einstein dealt with the concept of linear time..in this respect he may be wrong.

He also believed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light..in this respect he may be wrong.

The Lorentz transformation is based upon both of these concepts...linear time and the upper bound of velocity 'C'.

It produces a view as the observer may see things ONLY. Others have taken further steps in this conception

and declared that 'mass increases'..that 'linear time slows'..that 'length decreases'...

yet they have forgotten that this is how things APPEAR to an observer..they overstate that and say 'this is how things are'.

A MORE objective view is timespace! However I believe timespace is also a subjective view. So we have to exchange it again for something MORE objective, which will undoubtedly bring us again closer to reality.

I don't understand, is it objective or subjective? What do you constitute as 'real'?

So this means that the meaning of 'the expansion of the universe' is also still not an absolute objective meaning, because it is not a theory of everything. It is only a part of the truth, which we know now, but which can still change in something MORE realistic. (You know in the past people believed the earth was flat...) So I find it not right to still believe in time and space, because those ideas or just consistent with our human experience; but they are not real.

The article presents a single equation for expansion, it is NOT theory. The physics of our cosmos obeys this function AND its derivatives.

Time and space is not real. Right now only timespace is real! And I think even this concept of 'timespace' will be replaced by a better and more objective concept; which will bring us again closer to reality.

Time is quite real, not just linear, but multidimensional. I am sorry if this upsets your concept of reality..it sure upset mine as well.

I now see mankind as three dimensional Time beings, only aware of linear time by observing motion,

evolving within a domain of expansion described mathematically as D(t^3)/6....(which IS Euclidean)

I believe to that human existence is insignificant in the cosmos and that we are not the center of the universe. Because it is those believes that we are important for the cosmos, that blinds us for the truth.

Here we are in agreement.....

I think it's just believing that time DOES exist, that is egocentric and that leads to the idea that we are the center of the universe.

If you are stating that time does not exist, then I have some questions for you....

What time is it?

How do you manage to show up for work on time?

How can motion occur along any of our 3 accepted Euclidean axis(X,Y,Z), without time?

What do the terms 'hours,minutes,seconds,months,years,light years' measure?

Acknowledging the existance of linear time is not egocentric, it just helps you get through the day.

Becoming aware of the role of multidimensional time in the evolution and expansion of the cosmos may upset your day..

but only for a short amount of LINEAR TIME.

Happy Thoughts........Q7

[mkirkpatrick]

T Theory
I in
M main
E explained=time.In relation to every day living,in the realitive sense,of course
there is time,I or anybody else would be foolish to deny this ,but that is only
part of the story,not the whole story,in the absolute sense there is no such thing as time,there is only the eternal now,whether you call it sidereal time
linear time or overtime,these are just names to bring out finer shadings of the
outworkings of evolution,and that awesome Ideation that resulted in our universe coming into being.Time and space are only partially real,not absolutely
real.We can sometimes step outof this realitive time,when we become engrossed
in some wonderful persuit hours can fly by like minutes,we are caught up in the eternal now!

kind regards michael.

[David Maes]

You know, quanta07, I'm not an engineer.
I just have interest in science (which I just read some books about, qm and relativity; these books didn't have much of mathematics in it)

So as I see your answers in relation to mine, then you must be a lot more analytical and smarter in these things than I am. So, I would really like to, but I cannot judge them, because they look a bit like 'Chinese' to me!
I think Dleviwing might better understand your questions...

(I find it strange you only have orange belt now; of course I might have been longer 'time' here than you...)

However... I still try to give you some of my questions which are more philosophical than scientifical or mathematical...

Einstein dealt with the concept of linear time..in this respect he may be wrong.
He also believed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light..in this respect he may be wrong.
The Lorentz transformation is based upon both of these concepts...linear time and the upper bound of velocity 'C'.
It produces a view as the observer may see things ONLY. Others have taken further steps in this conception
and declared that 'mass increases'..that 'linear time slows'..that 'length decreases'...
yet they have forgotten that this is how things APPEAR to an observer..they overstate that and say 'this is how things are'.

I'm no scientist; so I cannot jugde what you say is wrong are right.

But I find your last sentence interesting... I think it was Einstein who said (in special relativity), it's the mass which increases, the time dilatation and length contraction. But you're right, it looks for us being this way if we do measurements. But is it really?

You also seem to believe or even to be sure that the expansion of the universe is the absolute objective truth .
But I'm questioning something (philosophical)... If we look to the Carthesian axis system, it looks like Descartes used what he saw (this is space, motion) and created a mathematical system (with the ability to make calculations) to describe what he saw...
this mathematical system helped people to do a lot with it in practise...

It looks like mathematics started with lots of propositions which were assumed to be true... then if we implicate these propositions and make mathematical calculations on them, we get some answers which we can use to do science... to make scientifical predictions...
But we do not only use mathematics, we also use what we see... This is what we call 'positivism'... It means: 'I only believe what I see'.

Now, as I see, it is our only possible way to know more... we use mathematics and we test everything by experiments...

But, eventually, we do not know the absolute truth, we just describe what we see. Because for example using Descartes' system of axis, is already starting to implicate a mathematical system on what we see.
Even mathematics... when you say 2 + 3 is 5, then immediately we have to imagen two things in space, then three things in space; so you have five things. I don't know, but I think that mathematics is already a description of what we see. For example if you think of a triangle, then you can make calculations and formulas on it, which are always true.
So if you would make a wooden triangle and you would measure, then your calculations would be correct.
The only thing is, by doing these things, we allready accept the assumption that what we see is a complete objective reality... But does this prove it is??

Is it really true, that if we see something, then this is the real absolute truth??

I think mathematics and science is more a discription of what we see, then of what is real.
Because science always uses one thing to get on, and that's what we see.
But we are creatures and we interpret the truth with our senses, with our brain, ... but do our senses perceive everything?? Can we know the absolute truth??
All theories we make start from hearing, smelling, feeling, seeing,...
Is this the absolute and complete truth?? Couldn't this truth be subjective??
Can you actually prove something to be real without influencing it yourself??
For example, a psychologist wants to do an experiment on a group of natives in Africa. But only his presence influences his results...

Also starting from propositions in mathematics and mixture this with other significances as calculations has to give you a truth. But is this an absolute truth? Or is it just a correlation??
Is what we perceive the absolute truth?? Or is it a truth created by the mixture of reality and the significance our senses or brain give to it??

How far does our brain go to interpret the incoming data??
If you see and touch a stone, maybe it's just because your brain gives this significance to it, you touch it because the neurons in your fingers give the signal to your brain... can this signal be the absolute truth?

Have you ever touched time? Can you touch a galaxy or the universe?

OK, Einstein predicted the expansion of the universe. He even didn't see it, before somebody used the red shift to show it.
But it's logical if you start a logical system to help you to describe what you see, that if you keep on using logics on it, then you have a chance you can predict something what you see. (Also other calculationsystems like matrixmechanics...)

But even the significances we give now, the significance of expansion, or red shift,... suddenly there can start to exist a new theory which can change our whole point of vue... (of course I won't be the one who makes it anyway, I leave that one up to you people...)

I don't understand, is it objective or subjective? What do you constitute as 'real'?

I don't know, what do you constitute as 'real'?

I think you have to see a theory as what we know NOW, with the present means or devices. I don't really believe a theory can ever be the absolute truth. (That's why I still find it subjective; of course it may have more objectivity then before)

So, what I mean is... a theory can never be ABSOLUTE objective.
(But I hope you keep on doing the good work, to make it more objective!)

[David Maes]

Time is a significance. (I leave it up to you to prove it's the absolute truth)
I use the significance, to get on time. Because if I wouldn't, I would be confronted with significances which would not be so nice for me!
I don't know what time is... is it objective? is it subjective?
The terms 'hour', 'minute', are terms which are references we all use to measure the 'motion' significance.
The existence of linear time can also help you to know when you can do a crime.