Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Defining Time

  1. #1 Defining Time 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Defining Time

    Materialism holds that the only things that exist are matter and energy, that all things are composed of material, that all actions require energy, and that all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Time is described by Wikipedia as what clocks read and time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality.

    The sciences all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems but defining it without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. Saying, time is only a measurement or the moments that make up time actually exist, both assume a prior understanding and it would be wrong to dismiss either one without supporting evidence.

    In 1807, Thomas Young was possibly the first to use the term "energy" instead of vis viva, in its modern sense. It was argued for some years whether heat was a physical substance, dubbed the caloric, or merely a physical quantity, such as momentum. In my opinion the argument whether time is a physical substance or physical quantity should therefore be just as valid a question and not just assumed.

    It is also my opinion, because of supporting evidence, that the moment now is an actual thing and that exactly like energy it is a dimensionless physical substance that exists, all my supporting evidence is well-known within the science community and repeatedly tested in accordance with the scientific method. The strength of this definition is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. Should i go on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Now is described as a physical quantity like momentum or temperature not a physical substance like matter or energy, but Now is a testable experience that is constantly observed and I believe can be successfully hypothesized as a physical substance.

    The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." I am not disputing the facts I am only explaining them a different way.

    Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

    A defining feature of special relativity is time and space cannot be defined separately from each other, that space and time are interwoven into a single continuum known as spacetime. Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different times for another.

    Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the physical universe. However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Do times other than the present moment exist? The answer is a duality that for time and the moment now can only be handled in the following relativistic way: Only now exists but it exists at different times.

    There is no future or past now, it is always just now, so if there is only one time that the moment now exists in there would be no possibility of another now and no possibility of any movement, everything would be frozen now without time. But if now really existed and materialism holds that the only things that exist are matter and energy then now is an energy that exists at different times. The universe is where all things that exist are, regardless of when something exists.

    Only now exists but it exists at different times and in different places, the hypothesis is that now is an energy and different times form the container for different places in space, but just as the moment is always now, the place is always here.

    A defining feature of special relativity is time and space cannot be defined separately from each other. The universe I hypothesize is one here and now that exists at different times. Now |, empty space 0, different times >.

    Space is considered to be a quantitative nothingness, a non-existence between actual things and I agree with this because the container is what actually exists, not the emptiness within. The moment is always now and the place is always here, different points of space made by different points in time which create the medium I call Timespace |0>.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Speed of light

    Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames.

    I agree with the contemporary view that physics should be based on Einstein’s relativity, but what is being relative is the moment now, saying the principle of relativity must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used is the same as saying whichever time is used. The hypothesis says to be in a different place is to be in a different time, so light would always propagate/start in a new place at a new time.

    The speed of light is the speed of time in this hypothesis and all the consequences of relativity apply equally if not more to the frame of reference being whichever moment in time is referenced. A reference to now is a reason for an otherwise unexplained frame of reference, remembering if now is regarded as a blanket overlaying all of space where each instance of universal existence is somehow separate from previous and future instances it cannot also be an individual point’s reference frame now can it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Electromagnetism

    Electromagnetism is a wave, it is not disputed that it is a wave because it has all the attributes of a wave but unlike all other waves it is said to not require a medium to travel in, not because it doesn’t need a medium but solely because some foreign invoked medium was not detected. Is water not its own medium?


    Endurantism and perdurantism

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its "temporal parts" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view.
    End

    The Endurantism view is the “blanket now” view that all contemporary physics is based on where the entire universe exists completely at different times as opposed to the Perdurantism view or “point now” view where every point exists at a completely different time.


    Photoelectric effect

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In 1887, Heinrich Hertz[2][3] discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily. In 1900, while studying black-body radiation, the German physicist Max Planck suggested that the energy carried by electromagnetic waves could only be released in "packets" of energy. In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper advancing the hypothesis that light energy is carried in discrete quantized packets to explain experimental data from the photoelectric effect. This model contributed to the development of quantum mechanics.
    End


    If everything else in the universe is point like, is time, like in the Perurandist view, carried in discrete quantized packets as well?

    The timewave hypothesis is that the moment now exists at different times and the universe is where everything exists. The different times have correspondingly different spaces which is the medium for electromagnetism.

    Maxwell's equations show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light, however, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. All attempts to measure any speed relative to this ether failed.


    Luminiferous aether

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The luminiferous aether: it was hypothesised that the Earth moves through a "medium" of aether that carries light
    In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do.
    End

    The timewave hypothesis is not The luminiferous aether, it is a relative medium, only one possible moment exists but it exists relatively in time, the fact is that now is a moment in time. Correspondingly only one possible place exists relatively in space, the medium of space is made from time and therefore must exist in time, it couldn’t be any other way in this scenario. The empty space between two points in time is nothing, it only has meaning and places due to the different times that form the borders, the moment in time is always now and the place in space is always here but no two times that they exist in are ever the same.

    Endurantism is seen as the conventional view and flows out of our pre-philosophical ideas (when I talk to somebody I think I am talking to that person as a complete object, and not just a part of a cross-temporal being) but this blanket view of now is quite absurd, the entire universe must cease to exist moment by moment and must somehow be completely recreated again and again. This view gives time a direction but no continuous reality, the absurdity being one reality is forfeited for the ability to measure time from past to future.

    The Perdurantism view or “point now” view where every point exists at a completely different time has a single point that continually exists now, there is no past or future which means time has no direction, everything exists here and now which is the reality.

    The Endurantism view with its past and future made measuring time basic and easy and a direction for time seemed to fit the reality perfectly but after Einstein’s special relativity and work on the photoelectric effect came to light (no pun intended) I for one would have thought that the relative time and measurement that the Perdurantism view provides would prevail, has anybody ever bothered to check because it seems not?

    A measurement over time in the Endurantism view is simply motion between things that exist now in the Perdurantism view. If something exists if it exists somewhere at sometime then even nothing is something if every point exists at a different time.|0>

    R. Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Different times

    Point view vs blanket view. The blanket view is everything that exists now somehow exists at INDIVIDUAL different times. The point view is discreet points that exist at ALL different times. If Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity I would argue that being relative and referring to reference frames is exactly the same as the point view.

    The point view provides a medium for electromagnetism where the blanket view does not, the photoelectric effect suggests discreet points but the blanket view does not and the point view provides a continuous reality where the blanket view does not, so why are the laws of physics based on the blanket principle?

    I have been told this is a site for hard science, is this what that science is based on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Sorry for being so arrogant, could someone please explain why the point view is such a bad idea.

    yours sincerely
    R.Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    My sincerest apologies, I spammed some of this post in the Quantum Physics section after googling quantum time:

    Quantum Time

    Chronon
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Quantum time)
    A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.

    To explain this conceptually rather than mathematically, what is meant by time is not continuous, would be as follows:


    Endurantism and perdurantism

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its "temporal parts" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view.
    End

    Endurantism is a version of the “blanket moment” view that established physics is based on where the entire universe exists completely at different times as opposed to a Perdurantism version or “point moment” view where every point exists at a completely different time.

    The classical view of time is where time is a fourth dimension that covers the three dimensions of space and can be measured by clocks, where the universe does not continually exist. *adding from this post- but time does.

    The quantum view of time is where each three dimensional point continually exists at different times, clocks measure the movement of individual points but not time itself.

    The word “point” is being used here to describe a 3 dimensional object but just to be clear science describes a point as 0 dimension, a line having 1 dimension and so on. An accurate description of a chronon might be the moment now is a point and the space between points is a line, seen from every angle a chronon is three dimensional. *

    The reason was there is no point hypothesizing if I didn't understand what the laws of physics are being based on, I am not trying to be a nuisance here and will re-frame from commenting elsewhere. I think there is some confusion about what it means for time to be non/continuous, if you can help clean up what is being said I would be very grateful.
    Last edited by firebird; 04-15-2018 at 06:12 AM. Reason: spelling refrain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Are you sure you don’t want a cordial conversation where a person and their ideas aren’t being called crackpots?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    A crackpot is someone who, no matter how hard you try, won’t listen to reason and simply ignores the truth.

    It would be a rare thing for any part of established physics to be wrong, any alternative would have to repeat all the results of the past and go beyond, it would be extraordinary after all the repeated checking that the highly educated and intelligent people out there, by some quirk of tradition, supported a notion that was completely and utterly wrong.

    Classic time is what the laws of physics are based on; therefore it is a part of established physics but because it is a philosophy about how time exists it does not get the attention of actual physics with measurable results, so it is basically ignored. The highly educated and intelligent people out there have much more important work to do and have always got by with classic time to base their laws on so they just don’t see a problem.

    The extraordinary thing is they seem to have become so sure of themselves that they just assume everything has already been properly checked, which when it comes to measurement in actual physics I am 100% sure it is, but no matter how hard I try I can’t get them to check time.

    Classic time fails every test, the universe moving through time with a non-continuous existence is an extraordinary claim that requires a divine like energy to obliterate and create, from nothing, the entire universe over and over at the speed of light. Wow.

    Classic time is a single reference frame that moves through time, it is not compatible with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Can you see any reason why we should check these things yet? Are you just ignoring this untruth because no one is challenging it?

    Classic time is incompatible with quantum phenomenon and I think I can show exactly how it is the source of all the confusion, it is completely and utterly the wrong philosophy to base the laws of physics on and it is my humble opinion that if the highly educated and intelligent people actually discussed it this would become clear, not seeing a problem and not being able to work one out are two very different things.

    And if I am wrong it would be a relief to know why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Spacetime, reference frames and relatively

    In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

    Either everything exists at one time as in classic time or one thing exists at every time as in quantum time. These are exactly opposite views and if one is right the other must be wrong, spacetime wants it to be both ways which is impossible. (Everything is opposite to one thing), (every time is opposite to one time). There is a clear choice between a coordinate system and a time system; there was never an option for spacetime to be both.

    From wiki, “in physics a reference frame consists of an abstract coordinate system”, here the time system is ignored but relativity says, from wiki, “special relatively has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position”, here the coordinate system is effectively ignored. Only a pure time system like quantum time has the ability to be an explanation without using both systems together.

    Saying the mathematical model fuses the two systems is the same as saying the mathematical model magically makes the coordinate system and the time system compatible without any regard for them being exactly opposite views, classic time is a coordinate system, (one time but different coordinates) where quantum time is a time system, (one coordinate but different times), spacetime is the impossible dual system, (different coordinates at different times).

    Relativity’s reference frames are quantum time frames:

    The following have all been experimentally verified.

    length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

    In quantum time the moment now is a point and the space between points is a line, as an accelerated point speeds up toward itself at the next time it would get closer reducing the length of the line therefore accounting for length contraction, time dilation and an eventual speed limit. The relative space between points is actually smaller not just shorter so all values of that space such as mass and energy must also be actually smaller accounting for mass-energy equivalence. The relativistic mass is observed/measured from the accelerated point’s perspective where it is the stationary object and everything else is accelerating hence the universe gets smaller or vice-versa the relativistic mass of the point increases and finally as there is only one point that exists at a time there can be no such thing as simultaneity with regards to quantum time. A coordinate system cannot explain these results and a dual system is impossible, only a time system can explain the wide range of consequences that are implied in special relativity.

    Not only does quantum time repeat all the results of the past it goes well beyond for its definition alone without any further explanation is a definition for wave-particle duality, the key to understanding all quantum phenomenon. Quantum time is superior in every respect to the established views of spacetime, reference frames and relatively itself because it does not mix incompatible systems together; this is only the tip of the iceberg of what quantum time can explain, just as simply and without variation, it looks like the truth to me, ignore it if you will.
    Last edited by firebird; 05-02-2018 at 07:37 AM. Reason: opps spelt the first relativity wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by firebird View Post
    A crackpot is someone who ...
    ... writes in bizarre font sizes and/or colours

    ... throws around a lot of sciencey words in rather incoherent ways

    ... makes all sorts of assertions but presents no evidence

    ... [your turn]
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •