Strange Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 So "time" is just our crude human attempt to model or describe the fact that things happen in order, or at a certain rate; a process we could call ... uhhm ... gosh, what should we call it? I know! How about "time"? (I think you might have hit on what the OP is struggling to communicate. But as all he can say is "time doesn't exist" we may never know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) So "time" is just our crude human attempt to model or describe the fact that things happen in order, or at a certain rate; a process we could call ... uhhm ... gosh, what should we call it? I know! How about "time"? (I think you might have hit on what the OP is struggling to communicate. But as all he can say is "time doesn't exist" we may never know.) Which at the same time is completely irrelevant as the rate etc exists in order for us to be able to measure it. chicken and egg argument. How could we measure something that doesn't exist for us to assign a unit to that measurement. Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum321 Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 Well guys I have laid out my opinion. You can buy into it or not. I am not here to change anyone point of view only to offer my own. I am going to open another thread on Dark matter. I hope in that thread there will be some meaningful discussion. I will answer any question as soon as anyone can prove time started at the BB and flows without man. For the doubters look up time and discover it is an abstract notion conceived by man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Well guys I have laid out my opinion. You can buy into it or not. I am not here to change anyone point of view only to offer my own. I am going to open another thread on Dark matter. I hope in that thread there will be some meaningful discussion. I will answer any question as soon as anyone can prove time started at the BB and flows without man. For the doubters look up time and discover it is an abstract notion conceived by man. As do we all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 I will answer any question as soon as anyone can prove time started at the BB and flows without man. So, you'll follow the rules as soon as someone can make science do something it's not designed for, to support a point nobody is making, so you can be right about why dimensions are measurable by humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Why would we 'invent' time if it wasn't already there? Are we that clever and to 'invent' time dilation when things don't quite fit in with our temporal picture? Do animals know the time and thus know when to mate, which is often just a very specific window in the calender, or are they induced by the cyclic behaviour of their environment? Edited November 16, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Why would we 'invent' time if it wasn't already there? Are we that clever and to 'invent' time dilation when things don't quite fit in with our temporal picture? Do animals know the time and thus know when to mate, which is often just a very specific window in the calender, or are they induced by the cyclic behaviour of their environment? For primitive animals is it not the latter? Whether or not higher animals have a mentation that we would recognize as similar to our own notion of time is moot. For most humans,can it not be said that they have an erroneous understanding of time since they probably consider it to have an absolute status ? For myself I find myself in no man's land because I think my understanding is incomplete but I feel that I have left behind that particular misconception. Something (we call time) is there , but it may not be what we think it is. Edited November 16, 2016 by geordief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) Something (we call time) is there , but it may not be what we think it is. Time can only be what we think it is. You might as well argue we don't don't know the true nature of all things; which is always true and will likely always be true. Edited November 17, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Time can only be what we think it is. You might as well argue we don't don't know the true nature of all things; which is always true and will likely always be true. Well I know it can't be what I think it is because I don't have a consistent set of opinions about it. Perhaps ( in all likelihood) I never will and so I have to withhold judgement and simply hold to the observations relating to it that seem uncontroversial Special Relativity seems to provide a lesson that cannot be ignored and the fact that Trump cannot be "unelected" now seems to be another but how all that "hangs together" and defines "time" I don't know.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Well guys I have laid out my opinion. This is a science site. We are not, generally, interested in opinions. Especially ones that are contradicted by evidence. I will answer any question as soon as anyone can prove time started at the BB and flows without man. There is no evidence that time started with the big bang, so no one is going to prove that. And, as the universe quite happily "flowed" into its current state without man, I think that it is pretty clear that man was not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Fossils are the remains of life. Its and ordered event. Tissue decays based on the laws of physics, nothing more. Man comes along and want to order those events. The universe doesn't need to order anything. Everything unfolds based on the laws of physics nothing more. These laws of physics include time. Thank you for agreeing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum321 Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 These laws of physics include time. Thank you for agreeing. Yes I agree because man expressed the laws of physics in mathematics. The universe knows nothing about mathematics. The car on the table travels from point A to B. Man requires his creation of time to explain it in all possible circumstances. The universe unfolds based on the laws of physics and does not need time. The definition of time is an abstract concept. Do you honest believe that the car could not move without time? Do you honestly believe that the abstract concept of time is a integral part of the universe? If so prove it. How do you prove an abstract concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Yes I agree because man expressed the laws of physics in mathematics. The universe knows nothing about mathematics. The car on the table travels from point A to B. Man requires his creation of time to explain it in all possible circumstances. The universe unfolds based on the laws of physics and does not need time. The definition of time is an abstract concept. Do you honest believe that the car could not move without time? Do you honestly believe that the abstract concept of time is a integral part of the universe? If so prove it. How do you prove an abstract concept? Repetition does not increase the authority of your argument; you need evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum321 Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 No more evidence than science proving time even exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 No more evidence than science proving time even existsApart from all those experiments that match predictions? This is just lunacy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) No more evidence than science proving time even exists Scientists don't do proof; they do evidence. Certainty is not a word used in the scientific lexicon; proofs only exist in maths. Edited December 2, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Quantum 321 post#87 Man requires his creation of time to explain it in all possible circumstances. If this sentence has meaning I cannot determine it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim88 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Why would we 'invent' time if it wasn't already there? Are we that clever and to 'invent' time dilation when things don't quite fit in with our temporal picture? Do animals know the time and thus know when to mate, which is often just a very specific window in the calender, or are they induced by the cyclic behaviour of their environment? In a way "time" is already there, as what we call "time" is based on the cyclic behaviour of the environment. However it's still our choice to call a certain aspect of what we see in nature "time". Time can only be what we think it is. [..] Taken without my elaboration here above, your two statements here are self contradictory - except if you think that nature doesn't exist outside of our fantasy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 All of these arguments about time apply equally to distance, mass, charge, and more. The OP is merely putting forth the solipsistic to an absurd degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 The universe unfolds based on the laws of physics and does not need time. ! Moderator Note You haven't supported your speculative concept well. You keep repeating things like the above without explanation. Since this discussion is circling, I give you the chance to explain why you accept the "laws of physics" but not the dimensional parameters of those laws. Please support the above statement with evidence, or at least an explanation that's more than waving your hands a little harder. Otherwise we're going to have to lock this thread per Speculation rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Yes I agree because man expressed the laws of physics in mathematics. The universe knows nothing about mathematics. The car on the table travels from point A to B. Man requires his creation of time to explain it in all possible circumstances. The universe unfolds based on the laws of physics and does not need time. The definition of time is an abstract concept. Do you honest believe that the car could not move without time? Do you honestly believe that the abstract concept of time is a integral part of the universe? If so prove it. How do you prove an abstract concept? Again, the laws of physics include time. It's not some extra, optional ingredient. Time is an abstract concept. So are mass, and acceleration, and force, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum321 Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 ! Moderator Note You haven't supported your speculative concept well. You keep repeating things like the above without explanation. Since this discussion is circling, I give you the chance to explain why you accept the "laws of physics" but not the dimensional parameters of those laws. Please support the above statement with evidence, or at least an explanation that's more than waving your hands a little harder. Otherwise we're going to have to lock this thread per Speculation rules. Because the the dimensional parameters of the laws of physics are man made. There is no consensus among physicists or anyone else that time exists. This topic remains unresolved. Search the internet. With regard to time there isn't anything physical that can be touched, tasted, viewed, etc. So "time" exists in that we have defined it to exist. I have read this argument "Since 1905 we describe any event as a spacetime point and label it with four co-ordinates (t, x, y, z). Saying that time doesn't exist means we can ignore the time co-ordinate and label everything by just it's spatial co-ordinates (x, y, z), which is contradiction with observations. The time co-ordinate obviously exists and be used to distinguish events that happen at the same place but at different times." YES In order for MAN to comprehend any event. The universe has no need for time only man. Man defines the physical parameters of science. That's what you are talking about here. Mans definition. "I give you the chance to explain why you accept the "laws of physics" but not the dimensional parameters of those laws" Because those dimensional parameters are defined by man. Time is only an abstract concept conceived by man to order events. I implore you to prove an abstract concept can be proven. I contend it only exists in the consciousness of man and not in the physical universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Because the the dimensional parameters of the laws of physics are man made. There is no consensus among physicists or anyone else that time exists. This topic remains unresolved. Search the internet. With regard to time there isn't anything physical that can be touched, tasted, viewed, etc. So "time" exists in that we have defined it to exist. I have read this argument "Since 1905 we describe any event as a spacetime point and label it with four co-ordinates (t, x, y, z). Saying that time doesn't exist means we can ignore the time co-ordinate and label everything by just it's spatial co-ordinates (x, y, z), which is contradiction with observations. The time co-ordinate obviously exists and be used to distinguish events that happen at the same place but at different times." YES In order for MAN to comprehend any event. The universe has no need for time only man. Man defines the physical parameters of science. That's what you are talking about here. Mans definition. "I give you the chance to explain why you accept the "laws of physics" but not the dimensional parameters of those laws" Because those dimensional parameters are defined by man. Time is only an abstract concept conceived by man to order events. I implore you to prove an abstract concept can be proven. I contend it only exists in the consciousness of man and not in the physical universe. Fail. You've just repeated everything you asserted before. If time wasn't there nothing can move because speed is d/t. If nothing can move no things can interact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum321 Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 Fail. You've just repeated everything you asserted before. If time wasn't there nothing can move because speed is d/t. If nothing can move no things can interact. Yes my friend You need to open your mind to the realization that time is an abstract concept, by definition, conceived my man, . -5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 This topic remains unresolved. Search the internet. ! Moderator Note You remain ignorant of the topic. Search a good physics course locally. Or look for reputable, mainstream course sites. The people you've been listening to haven't studied physics either. All of physics uses measuring processes we've devised. Just because they're made up by humans and don't matter to the universe doesn't mean they aren't EXTREMELY USEFUL to humans. You're stuck on this meaningless distinction about one dimension and are letting it keep you from moving forward with your education. Everyone hopes to help you see this. You make it very hard. You aren't the first person to make a mistake in science. But you can't just keep claiming time isn't real. We understand why you're saying it, and we're trying to tell you you're being blinded by your perspective. Trying to talk it out this way isn't working. Sorry, but we need some cooperation in a discussion. Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts