argo

Measurements measure movement of things in the real world, this is their only purpose. Rate of change refers exclusively to the rate of movement in a real thing, if you can measure it, it’s real, period. Change requires movement; there are no real world changes without it. If there was no movement there would be no change. Real things exist somewhere, illusionary things don’t, where does a relative thing like now exist?

I am fixed in (a) moment now, not (the) moment now, there is no universal now, everyone’s “Now” moves in their own frame independently, so how are you combining the of movement of a single independent frame with the non-independence of having every frame having to move at the same rate?

Real things exist somewhere, illusionary things don’t, where does a relative thing like now exist? Nobody is saying measurements are real.

Is time real? Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension along with the three spatial dimensions, the dimensions this refers to are obviously just measurable quantities of independent variables but I assume you would say the space they measure and the space you experience does actually exist, so what about the time dimension, are the moments it measures and the moment you experience just as real as the space? Length, temperature and weight are all examples of measurements but we don’t experience these quantities either; we experience space, heat and force just like we experience the moment now; or at least I think we do. Is time the measurable quantity and now the reality we experience, because now is just an illusion argued any other way.

beecee Primate Senior Members 405 2687 posts Location: Maroubra Sydney Report post Posted January 31 Time exists, It is the fourth dimension along with space and its three dimensions. You're so confused its scary. Goodbye and good luck.

I had some rare days off and got about a dozen responses done, anyone who is interested can PM me away from the thought police if they want, again i am so sorry to all who actually wanted a considered reply this is the best I can do.

Goodbye everyone, Science forum has closed my topic and sighted soap-boxing as the reason, honestly i never read ahead of the post I was replying to. What I was doing was giving a full and considered answer to every question in the order they were asked and this takes time, obviously taking the time to answer properly is the problem here. I would like to continue answering every single question that was asked but I am at a loss how this could be done with this group, I am so sorry but it is out of my hands. If you believe time is only a construct then the moment now, that you experience, is an illusion. You can't compare things that are only measurements like length with things you actually experience in the real world If time is not time-flow and you are not experiencing an illusion then there is only one possible thing left that time can be. How is it possible to give a considered answer to anything here? ARGOFY SCIENCE FORUM

Mordred · Resident Expert · · Resident Experts · · 1102 · 6325 posts · Posted Thursday at 09:18 AM On 1/31/2019 at 9:14 AM, studiot said: Then surely time fits the description a dimension, since it then a label for a coordinate axis. * correct an under mathematics a dimension is any independent variable. All coordinate axis are independent in that you can change any coordinate value without affecting other coordinate values. Sure time as a mathematical construct ,TC, can be an imaginary temporal dimension that is independent of the three REAL spatial dimensions. (I assume you philosophize the spatial dimensions actually exist) You say (under mathematics) supporting your philosophy that time as a dimension in reality, TR, does not actually exist; just look how confusing it is when we fail to make this distinction? Wiki: Time Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Anyone reading this will not make the distinctions between TR and TC, and will most likely assume time actually flows in reality which is the one of the main issues I have. It is of little consequence if you make the distinction or not if this published description is out there failing to.

Mordred · Resident Expert · · Resident Experts · · 1102 · 6325 posts · Posted Thursday at 09:12 AM (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 9:03 AM, studiot said: Similarly with time you can measure time difference or elapsed time or lifetime in seconds, but never time itself. * That's really the kicker we can only measure the rate of change and compare different rates of change. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process. Another common misconception is thinking time controls rate of change. Time isn't a force or substance that can directly influence anything. Clocks run at one rate, we measure movement against the clocks rate. A rock falls at 10 m/s, a feather falls at 1 m/s; we compare the rate of change in position which is simply movement, we are not comparing the rate of time here. You could throw away the suggestion that TC measures a rate of change by any other name except movement and I would agree. The SI Unit of a second is an exact amount of movement that takes place and is arbitrarily labeled as time but we are simply comparing movement against movement nothing more. The mathematical construct we label as time, TC, compares different rates of MOVEMENT in the real world, but Mordred you never even mention the word movement once, that’s the kicker. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process as movement. This qualifier makes it totally correct. Another common misconception you imagine others have is time controls movement, I think TR is when something exists nothing more, it has nothing to do with movement so if you meant me you can imagine what you like, please don’t make stuff up. I have given a full and explicit description of a time particle for you to criticize but you completely ignore this, instead you philosophize that time in the real world, TR, doesn’t actually exist but all you have ever talked about here is TC, the mathematical construct called time. If TR doesn’t exist then now doesn’t exist and the present time is an illusion, the good news is that if you are not arguing for TR you are also not arguing for the time-flow that facilitates all movement nonsense. I think I may have misinterpreted what Studiot meant before, I’m still not 100% sure. Edited Thursday at 09:14 AM by Mordred one post at a time studiot · SuperNerd · · Senior Members · 1570 · 10117 posts · Location: Somerset, England · Posted Thursday at 09:14 AM (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 9:12 AM, Mordred said: That's really the kicker we can only measure the rate of change. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process. * Then surely time fits the description of a dimension, since it then a label for a coordinate axis. I am just not sure if you are arguing for or against TR, this seems to be saying time is an actual dimension but just a label for coordinates. From your last post: Similarly with time you can measure time difference or elapsed time or lifetime in seconds, but never time itself. For some reason we (well some of us) bother to make the distinction, but not for time. I think, in retrospect, you were arguing TR does not exist and time itself is an illusion. Time is a confusing subject, like Mordred you can argue time does not exist at all in reality or you can argue a time dimension does actually exists in reality but there are two choices here. Either: The dimension covers the whole universe at one time. Or The dimension covers a single point at different times. There are no other choices so in TR you must decide based on the evidence, the first choice is that time facilitates all movement which is the contradictory time-flow idea being superimposed from a mathematical construct. The second choice is a time particle idea that as far as I can see fits the evidence without any contradictions at all. Edited Thursday at 09:16 AM by studiot one post at a time

studiot · SuperNerd · · Senior Members · 1570 · 10117 posts · Location: Somerset, England · Posted Thursday at 09:03 AM (edited) On 1/31/2019 at 8:33 AM, argo said: THE TIME-FLOW FALLACY Time is described in physics as “what clocks read”; Could you please give a two line summary of what we are supposed to be discussing? The issues of fake definitions, the circular nature of the time-flow argument, the focus of the thought experiment or the expansion and energy requirements of the universe. I would agree that clocks do not measure time (directly). Time Real and Time Constructed are two very different things, TC (directly) measures whatever you want it to because you constructed it, TR is not a measurement at all because it is defined as when something exists. Perhaps everybody needs to ask themselves if the present time is real or an illusion and focus on this issue. TC or TR please specify people. They measure seconds (or whatever) and seconds are a unit of several different quantities, just as other quantities such as inches or volts are units of more than one quantity. You can for instance measure height or height difference or total length or extension in inches. Or you can measure voltage drop in an electric circuit or electromotive force in volts. I can measure and label any mathematical construct I want but this is strictly TC, my philosophy however is that time is a real thing, now exists and the present is not an illusion at all. Similarly with time you can measure time difference or elapsed time or lifetime in seconds, but never time itself. For some reason we (well some of us) bother to make the distinction, but not for time. It would seem you are pointing out how some of us are conflating TC & TR, and you describe time itself as though it was real. Thank you for addressing one of the issues Studiot. Perhaps this is a source of much confusion. If not all. I would have thought that at least some Physicists would define time as the reciprocal of frequency, as this is connected to the use in clocks. Frequency is a rate, so you’re saying TC and rate are common, but clocks measure change at only one rate not at different rates or frequencies; it wouldn’t be a clock if it ran at different rates. These are all comparisons in TC anyway. What happened to making a distinction between TC and TR? Edited Thursday at 09:12 AM by studiot One post at a time, i hope you all appreciate the considered answers.

swansont · Evil Liar (or so I'm told) · · Moderators · · 6709 · 41232 posts · Location: Washington DC region · Posted Thursday at 09:01 AM If you really think this is unique to time, how about defining length, without any circular references. Perhaps it’s what a ruler measures? Length is a measurement, it is only ever a mathematical construct, the definition and description of time I posted say there is circular references in the mathematical construct but you miss the point entirely that this just proves that the constructed definition of time that flows and can be measured cannot be superimposed over a description for time in the real world like it is. There is a published description that describes time as existing and flowing here in the real world, it states time is the indefinite progress of existence from the past, through the present to the future. This philosophy that time exists as a fourth dimension and flows are proven false if the circular reference is acknowledged. You’re a sniper Swansont, you don’t give away any of your positions but you do add to the confusion. And if your concern is about physics having a mathematical construct that doesn’t physically exist, I fear you haven’t been exposed to much physics. You are imagining me having this concern, quote me instead of just making stuff up. Mathematical constructs don’t exist in the real world which was the whole complaint I made about time in physics being used to describe time in the real world, this is a designed trick. Exhausting, complicated and difficult, playing tricks and avoiding the issues. one post at a time 1

· Resident Expert · · Resident Experts · · 1102 · 6323 posts · Posted Thursday at 08:48 AM (edited) Time is simply a measure of rate of change of events or duration it isn't a substance or material that flows. Quick simple and easy... Under relativity how one measures the rate of change will depend on the observer measuring the event. All too often people like to think of time as more than a property of a system or state. It is simply a measure of rate or duration. The Universe itself doesn't care how we measure or describe it. Time will continue without our measurements, as change will always occur. How we describe rate of change is irrelevant to the process undergoing change. Edited Thursday at 08:59 AM by Mordred I would point out that a scientific publication speculating time actually flows in the real world is a publication that exists and one I have presented; pretending this description doesn’t refer to time in the real world is just another transparent trick. Time in physics is a mathematical construct Mordred, it is simply a measure of linear motion as described by “what clocks read”, a clock reads only linear motion not velocity or non-linear motion so your statement that time measures rate of change is not even as right as a broken clock which gets it right twice a day. In linear motion, the directions of all the vectors describing the system are equal and constant which means the objects move along the same axis at a constant rate and do not change direction just like the imaginary motion of time in a clock. You do get it right once though Mordred, when all the vectors are equal and constant it is a measure of that one rate of change “that clocks read”. You are an expert at ignoring the issues and getting it almost completely wrong but I am yet to see how you profit by restating the very confusion that I went to such great lengths to sort out. Your trick is to ignore the published scientific view that implies time in the real world flows from the past, through the present to the future and only acknowledge what you refer to as time in a strictly mathematical sense. I was asked for a two line summary but perhaps what is needed is a response to just one philosophical question, does now (in the real world) exist? Mordred’s own philosophy is now doesn’t exist in the real world at all, isn’t it a bit one-eyed and arbitrary to then deny me a reply as though I chose to philosophize? I don’t know why I was trashed, perhaps because I challenged this scared philosophy but I will answer my critics one by one in my own time, it won’t be quick, simple and easy, it will be exhausting, complicated and difficult because these are the issues and these are your tricks. POSTED TRASH STYLE

If the issues of fake definitions, the circular nature of the time-flow argument, the focus of the thought experiment or the expansion and energy requirements of the universe are not going to be observed, then nothing else I say is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Still nothing to do with the issues at hand, bored now.

Trick, imply pop media has something to do with this published scientific definition. Misdirection, you are not responding to the issues. This is exhausting.