Greg A.

I can see your point. And as I don't know all that much about physics I'd say that as there is no movement involved then there can be no accurate prediction and therefor what leads up to its decay is part of the quantum realm? These questions are difficult for someone who knows little about physics but I'd say the only way you can be at rest in relation to a black hole would be if you were in one. I mean if you knew where one was you'd need to be in an orbit with it (as we all are).

Denying it does not make it false. You would need to argue why it is not true otherwise it stands. Same goes for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Newton wasn't to know that gravity is not a force. Sure and it was a mistake on my part but it still does not change anything. Arrogance won't win you the argument. You argue the one thing Newton got wrong. My prediction relates to time so I do need to know a little bit about it. Hours, minutes & seconds are units of the earth's rotation that has not changed. If it were different then the hours in the day would get out of sync. Yesterday, like tomorrow, is a concept. The earth rotates continuously, there are no breaks signifying days. There is nothing arbitrary about the length of a meter, because as I'd pointed out the kilo, the Joule, and the amp are linked to it. Sure, but these still relate to the rotation of the earth and are not units of time as we perceive of it. It is interesting true, and I'd figured maybe we have a two part day as the only way for the ancients to start the cycles is at midday when the sun is at its highest point. A place it is regardless of the seasons?

The reference point would need to be the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. As our motion relates to that primarily. No absolute frame is needed.

If all trolls hid under bridges and I have hidden under a bridge would that make me a troll?

It's not. But it is a reliable event set to occur in the future. In that sense it relates to a prediction I make. Which too is also something pretty much unstoppable, but for less physical reasons. I'd chosen the Transit of Venus only because it is also set to happen within 100 years. Sure but these in effect would be generalizations. For example we can't predict who will win an election with anywhere near accuracy. Time is the fourth dimension and as such is what keeps us stuck to the ground (in a comfortable way). It exists because we are traveling (motion) at the same rate as earth through space. I didn't. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding. I don't believe so either. But accept I may be wrong. Only flat earthers (need to) argue that gravity is a force. I'd thought your question "who is we" was in response to me at one point saying, "So, if 'we' were to start pedaling our bikes". No reversals ever. You've got that right You've got a little bit of this right. The earth is forever falling while at the same time never falling. That is there is no 'down' factor. The moon orbits the sun along with the earth, but because it also has its own orbit it velocity is greater than that of the earth. And it's this velocity that keeps it on a non-convergent parallel we call an orbit. Timekeeping is fine as long as we see 'Time' for what it is and that's everyday motion when compared to degrees of rotation of the earth and not some big clock in the sky ticking over. That is the time our clocks measure has no direction. The point was that if you'd chosen 'Celsius' as the measure instead of Kelvin, then you had the near complete metric system covered. The meter and the amp where poor choices as part of an argument from your position. Hours (minutes and seconds) represent fractions of the earth's rotation. Weeks phases of the moon. Months orbits of the moon. Years orbits of the earth. Centuries, years x 100 etc. All are measures that do not relate to each other in any way what so ever. Got it! One second is 1/60th of a minute. Units on a scale of motion as the earth turns. Not any duration of anything else directly. The earth occupies a position in time due to its (our) velocity. The earth is in motion through space. That makes two rights in a row. Well done.

It took me years to figure out what a troll is so for that reason it's unlikely I am one. And we develop our wordskills from a young age. That said it didn't happen for me. What we conceive of as time is something I don't believe exists. But there are theorists who say that it is real and we are living in a 'block universe' where past, present and future do exist. And it had occurred to me that this might be the reason why all attempts (would need to) fail if trying to change an accurate prediction of an event occurring in the future. So in that sense I at least alluded to there possibly being a time factor involved. It's because gravity is actually easy to visualize as an effect it can be understood by someone like me who does not know much about physics .

Exactly! And how big our ass is too.

There is science used in understanding society but to make predictions about it as would be done with physics or chemistry is not possible. Time is a measure of motion through space. It is not a thing and so does not need a medium. If anything it is a medium as far as making measurements. We is us, people, humans. You don't know how to ride a bicycle? Gravity is not an illusion but it is also not a force. The moon is weightless because it has a velocity greater than earth and consequently is in a non-convergent parallel orbit. If it were slowed down it would eventually converge with earth, but that's as the two coming together rather than either falling or rising toward each other. Hours (minutes and seconds), weeks, months & years all have one thing in common. And that is they don't really have anything in common. Whereas, (with the exception of Kelvin), one amp applied at one volt for one second (1 watt) liberates one Joule of energy, enough to raise one cubic centimeter of water weighing one gram one degree Celsius, a thousand cubic centimeters, a volume of one liter, when consisting of water weighs one kilo, one cubic meter of water weighing one metric ton, factors having everything in common with each other.

The difficulty I'm having explaining my simple understandings is due to the strength of a prediction, the inevitability of it happening that is. The orbit of Venus is a very physical thing and is why it would be very difficult to change. And philosophically there would be no logical reason to change it anyhow. So physics and philosophy won't do anything there. But suppose some other course of events these leading to one significant outcome was also set to eventuate, then likewise barriers must appear (less physical but more philosophical in this instance). And so it's these that explain why I'm unable to clarify what it is I'm saying above. And even if I'd tried harder yet another barrier would pop up. For example it's only while I appear to make no (not alot) of sense that I will continue to get responses. So, that said these will drop off exponentially if I do appear to make sense. And if as this is what I'm managing to do now, then you will see less replies from yourselves, (something I'd like to avoid, but what the hell). There is a pattern to these things that's consistent with determinism I'm afraid. But I will give it another go as I'd rather lose the interactions than be dishonest. So starting from the top: You'd asked me to provide evidence of time such that it shows difference from the day to day meaning of the word. Then it's gravity as a force that is as much of an illusion as is time is in the course of out lives is what I'd given as an example. So, if we were to start pedaling our bikes, ignoring wind resistance etc., eventually we would reach a velocity where we would lose traction due to the fact that the parallel straight line we were travelling would, because of our increasing speed, no longer converge with that of the earth's. That is our velocity would be sufficient (in bursts) to put us into a very low orbit, a state of weightlessness. We conclude gravity(a product of time) as a force is an illusion, and time as we know it is also an illusion. In orbit our velocity breaks the convergence factor we feel as gravity and gives us a different position is space time (we age slightly slower). Convergence/gravity is evidence of time, but time is not evident in the years. Years are human concepts, numbers we apply to each rotation of the earth. That's right. And that is because time is real in the sense we are in motion through space. And we all need to agree that the Eiffel tower not only exists but that it was built in the year 1887.

Sure, and that past is dependent on the speed of sound, or of light if something is visual. But these things still are really present events. Whereas yesterday's f*rts for example have long dispersed physically and audibly. That is a good analogy if it is that 'your' (philosophies) Block Time' thing is real. But that said I don't believe I've made any mistakes really. Important detail may have been lost to my poor word skills though. It was necessary that there was a debate on the meaning of time I accept that. But if what is alluded to in the opening post is for whatever reason 'already' a future event its occurrence will resist any attempts to change it, and this the better explanation as to why we have not been able to precede. That is for example my inability with words is going to be one of the barriers that protect the event I'm predicting. 'We' all share a common genetic thread and can't really see things all too different. We can have different opinions as individuals but mostly only one of us is going to be right in the end.

Sure, that looks right. But its not what we mean when we talk about time dilation. We are not in an inertial frame ourselves as the observers. Can we be getting that wrong?

The thread has got off-track with the discussion of the meaning of time. But, regardless feel free to leave if that's what you think. The medium for time is velocity, but there is no medium for Time as it is an illusion generated by motion (that's other than our 'shared' velocity). The only way that I can think of is the parallel convergence we register as gravity which is due to of our shared velocity in space and time. We need to be traveling at the same velocity of earth to have 'weight'. If we travel faster than earth we appear to weigh less. If we travel fast enough we remain parallel (non-converging) but end up weightless in our orbit. Time is velocity dependent, but this has nothing to do with what were perceive of as is going on around us. That is our 'time' does not relate to our velocity through space, but does relate to change brought about by motion around us. For example the rotation of the earth does not involve actual time (to any real degree), but does involve our perception of time. Time dilation increases with velocity of an object relative to ourselves. Its motion, other than it's velocity, slows. Or from its perspective we speed up.

Time relates to velocity whereas motion gives us the concept of there being the Time that would involves past, present and future as things chronologically arranged. But these are calculations only when it comes to velocity. Something's prior and future positions, when only its 'now' position is real. The past and future were and will be arrangements brought about by motion overseen by velocity.I can see I'm not doing a good job with this my poor workdskills compounded by a lack of knowledge. I hope you are right for your own sake, as otherwise it does look like the illusion of Time has taken you in. If we were in a stationary orbit in relation to the rising sun, then it would be forever morning. Days in their entirety would cease to exist (which would fail completely in explaining yesterday and tomorrow). That's right but the contentious issue is not time, but is instead Time which it appears does not exist. That is the past, present and future does not exist there is only velocity and motion. What we conceive of as past events were arrangements that have changed over time but involve two different concepts, one being velocity and the other motion, a chronology pertaining to us .

We don't see evidence of time but see instead change which we assign a time factor. Aging is one of the things we see but can be reversed without any of the other signs changing. And I'm just another part of the physical world, as we all are, another 'node' as it were. It's a nursery rhyme we'd all know I was thinking. And I did cover that with the parameters "London Bridge" (which don't include 'rebuilt'). Maybe it's my poor wordskills which are at their limit. Or that I should give anyone one lessons on something (physics) that I don't all that much about myself. We know the past because it was an arrangement of positions that meant something to us. And we can say the the future does exist as far as we are aware because we could calculate much of tomorrow, but further on things are harder to predict especially when quantum fluctuations may also play a part in deciding the future. .

Sure, but the velocity of a boomerang and it's motion (spinning) are different. Velocity is the medium we all travel with in spacetime. Length contraction is relative to the observer as is the slowing of motion that increases with velocity (but there is no actual time travel involved).

In the confines of the two rooms nothing has elapsed, there has only been motion. You are back at your starting point when you return to your seat. That you have moved from A to B and back means nothing. 8 am represents a percentage of the earth's rotation (motion) and is different in the 24 time zones We measure the rate of motion but that has no chronological aspect to it other than that what we perceive of it as being. Yesterday is a perception created by the illusion of a setting sun, tomorrow's the illusion of a rising sun. That's it, there is no evidence for time that I can see. It might be that a future is detectable if real? But then if it is real even our thoughts are predetermined. But still they would need to match with the outcome maybe? That is we would come to the conclusion the future is real if that were so.

That's a good way of looking at it and is how we perceive of events but it's not how it is as you need to bring an unnecessary factor into that which is time, that's when only motion is needed there as an explanation.

Our motion correlates with the movement of the clock's hands but that anything transpires is only due to our senses. If the two rooms were on a spaceship in deep space and we were getting anti-aging treatment (we are on a very long journey) then the clock's time would be meaningless as a reference to earth's rotation. It looks like there is no future, but if there is then it would effect us as we would need to comply with the particular outcomes. But as everything we do would need to be consistent with those outcomes we can maybe only 'detect' the future as a measure of difficulty in changing the probability of something occurring. It would be very difficult to change the orbit of Venus so can we conclude it's transit across the face of the sun in 97 years is true. Another example would be if London Bridge is still standing in 100 years time then it can not fall down tomorrow or for that matter any time in the preceding interval.

Something moving has motion that is separate from its velocity and if moving very fast some of that motion needs to be subtracted if it is not to exceed the speed of light. The medium would be velocity and is that is what dilates time (the apparent rate of motion) in the relative sense. Length is spatial and is unaffected by velocity?

Time would be a medium everything needs to travels through. But if we were in space looking at the earth turning we would realize there is no such thing as time. It's the things we see around us changing that give the illusion of time. If we see a vehicle approaching us from a distance, we see it 'now', that's regardless of how close it comes to us. We can't see it coming out of the factory where it was made because it is in front of us now. But as we could see the factory and the vehicle, the time aspect is a one of many changed positions. Light gets by without an ether because it is self sustaining. Spacetime still deals with things now but calculating their motion through space. But I dont' know all that much about this stuff. I think time is not real because we don't see any evidence of it. Youtube.txt

It's strange to me too. There is theory however that allows for a past, present and future to exist and if it is so we are in the past relative to a future, with what happens in that future needing to influence what can be done now. My inability to make any headway in presenting my prediction could be evidence of it already having happened. I've started off at this forum by not revealing what the prediction is as a way of prolonging what must be just an indulgence on my part it appears. If we go from one room to another we have gone forward in time, but if we return we are at our starting point and have gone back in time is the easiest way of understanding that 'Time' does not exist. Things can't all happen at once because 'once' would be evoking the concept of time. There is only motion it appears. We could live forever because one day as a rotation of the earth is much the same as any other and because 'forever' relates to time and therefore is an obstacle that does not exist. I'm not here to compete logically with anyone as I know I will loose. But when it comes to knowledge of a particular topic I'm still in there with a chance. As a pseudo time traveler I'm being frustrated by my inability to prevent an outcome that has already come about? Presenting anything wont change that then (no more than the warning of global warming changed anything). The Swiss Cheese Model is where a series of holes in the layers of safety in place align leading to a disaster, not an accurate analogy but in some ways similar to this situation. As a strategy I can say that the prediction, an event set to take place in 100 years time, is the result of a process, one that is specific in this instance (otherwise a sub process), that started several decades back and is now approaching a critical point expected within 8 months from which recovery will be impossible. A successful time experiment will be if all crucial arguments put forward as part of the prediction remain unrefuted?

Neither are possible if Time does not exist. Both may be possible if it does exist. Traveling forward in time requires a chronology that we have been a part of ourselves. How would the time traveler be aware that he has traveled into the future if he hadn't lived though that same or similar sequence of events. Suppose the brother returned from his journey at relativistic speeds to find that his identical twin was now actually younger than he was. He would need to believe he had traveled back in time. But that's when his brother had simply undergone de-aging therapy.

Sorry. I hope I've got it right this time. I consider time travel impossible because for one thing there would be no medium to travel through. That is Time does not exist. The bound book and ring binder are good analogies of what would be the conventional view of time and time travel. But as there appears to be no actual evidence supporting this convention, we need to think again. Time is really motion, our day of birth is a position on a 2 dimensional plane. We can go 'back' to that point for example and because of change we see only what is left of that event. There is no time aspect involved however. If there were it would violate the laws of physics as some of the molecules and atoms that were are a part of us as babies are still with us now, which would require them to be in two places at once that's if we were to see ourselves being born. Instead we have grown up and moved on going around to what now are the remnants of our birth. Time is an illusion, one thing does not occur before or after anything else, as these are concepts, along with the present, that relate to Time. An example: You are in a room, there is a clock upon the wall. You walk from that room into another and notice that the time piece in the second room is showing 10 seconds faster. You walk back and the first clock is now showing 20 seconds has elapsed. But the reality is that by returning to the first room you have in effect returned in time. That's simply because you are back from where you left. The clocks measure nothing when the parameters are the confines of the two rooms. But you might argue that you have aged 20 seconds and your body is part of the rooms and consequently you have gone forward in time. But then what would happen if you were to take a de-aging capsule first? You would then need to argue you've traveled back in time, that's when neither directions are possible. You are better educated than me and no doubt have a higher IQ. But then knowledge is not either of these things. I've been thinking about this issue for (dare I say it) a long time. And this experiment is itself at odds with what I believe to be the facts. But, it's being carried out because I'm being thwarted it appears by what are chronological protection factors (which should not exist) that's in my attempts to prevent a catastrophe that I predict (the probabilities are high) will happen.

"Is it then already part of the future based on the near impossibility of any other incident preventing it happening." No, it is a projection based on calculations of what is known. There may be unknown factors already at work, and unknown factors yet to take effect that will change the event and invalidate the prediction. Venus could be knocked out of its orbit by a meteor collision, or explode from within, or be stolen by Davros. The key word there is highlighted. No. It can be considered highly probable. All of our decisions in life are based on degree of probability of the outcome of the confluence of current events and our own actions. Sometimes we're underinformed, sometimes misinformed; sometimes we miscalculate, sometimes we misunderunderestimate the unknown unknowns, sometimes we just close our eyes and jump, trusting to luck or a deity to make it all right in the end. The reason you can't kill your grandfather before your father was born is that your father was born. The good news is, he can't recsind your own or your the father's birth, either.