Bigger Ape

You've said;

Time exists, by virtue of the fact that something changed

the uncertainty principal has nothing to do with it...

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html ...or even better;

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ Heres a quote from Stanford (link above) concerning Heisenberg's thoughts

...As an example, he considered the measurement of the position of an electron by a microscope. The accuracy of such a measurement is limited by the wave length of the light illuminating the electron. Thus, it is possible, in principle, to make such a position measurement as accurate as one wishes, but only by using light of a very short wave length, e.g., γ-rays. But for γ-rays, the Compton effect cannot be ignored: the interaction of the electron and the illuminating light should then be considered as a collision of at least one photon with the electron...

I can see your point, but this is a science forum not a philosophy forum

It is ok to use the concept of time in our everyday world in which it makes sense to have some form of calibrated chronology. When applied to the world of modern physics that concept loses meaning because we are reaching deeper to find the very definitions of the properties of our everyday world. To succeed in this we'll quite clearly have to provide extensions to our every day world set of mathematical tools or use them in such a way that it is plain to all that they are just a set of tools - the same old concepts will not work.

it’s not as if our instruments tell lies to us either

If time is a physical reality as some speculate, then it would be possible to create energy by manipulating time (impossible except we bin conservation of energy). However, we create time each time we measure energy (there is no conservation of time). Energy is the only Universal fundamental.

But time is as real as any other thing that exist within our limited perceptions and I suggest we don't disown it.

We are conditioned by culture and years of schooling, to the Newtonian methods involving absolutes and time dependent vectors as tools of analysis. However, there are other models of mechanics that do not require vectors like force and velocity (eg Hamiltonian mechanics), but are based on energy balances - energy being the only fundamental of nature from which other manmade units are derived. With such models, it is easy to see the artificial nature of time; it's just a mathematical tool like zero, infinity etc.

Time, no matter which way you look at it, is simply a tool to measure the flow of energy through a given point. Time is derived (merely as an abstract) from energy. There is no such physical fabric as time.

Yes, logic must indeed be central. Sorry to dissapoint you on all counts Tycho. You have totally misunderstood my arguments; that is because you've taken a cursory glance and reached a super quick and super wrong conclusion. On time having a zero point? I claim the exact opposite - the whole construct of time is a mathematical convenience to measure the flow of energy. Time, length, speed and direction are derived from energy flows and not vice-versa.

As for the existence of nothingness? It ties up with our concept of zero, to have a starting point, there has to be a zeroth point (a point of total emptiness devoid of energy). In any event, what does zero really mean? If theres no measurable zeroth point ...and there's none; zero goes out the window like the mathematical construct and mental bound that it is. You have to start from an equilibrium.

C is constant for a medium, just as the speed of sound is contant for a medium. I do not argue that does not vary with condition, to the contrary, if you pay close enough attention to the papers logic, you'll find that I don't treat C as a rigid constant.

Yes, logic must indeed be central.

Yep Tycho ...but logic is central here. I didn't spell check and I'm well aware of that, but where's your argument against the meat of the paper? ...and yes it's been written since 97 - perhaps there are reasons why its only published in 04, but these too do not add or detract anything from the logic of the paper and neither will those reasons be given here (or for that matter anywhere else except it is absolutely necessary).

So Tycho, tell me something about the papers logic, then we can start talking, until that time I'll ignore your comments.

The new theory explains difficult concepts with mathematical simplicity - it does not require the reader to stretch or convolute their imagination. It tackles the problem of the gravitational interactions between matter and space giving accurate solutions including a mathematical definition for inertia. It employs common sense potential field laws, Maxwellian electromagnetism and a space similar to (though independent of) that postulated by Dirac in his concept of the particle - antiparticle relationship. The reasons for the seemingly anomalous relations between matter and space are arrived at naturally ...no curved space, no 4th dimension

It's at; http://www.acadjournal.com/Articles.asp?article_id=90

Please head out there and let's discuss.

Obviously our measurements are made up, obviously time is however real. Relative but real. Its so fricken simple, i swear anyone who says time doesn't exist is just saying it to make themselves feel like some kind of radical genius. It takes certain amount of time for something to move from one place to another. If the force acting on the moving object is greater at an instant, it will get to the other place faster. THAT is a matter time. i don't know if to call time a force of a dimension, but its just stupid to say it doesn't exist. why is the speed of one runner greater than the speed of the other runner. Because it takes less TIME for the faster runner to transport from point A to point B. How can you argue with this. Excuse me if no one has actually said such things, but thats what it seems like when when ya deny the existence of time.

This is an interesting conversation ...NavajoEverclear don't be so quick to raise hell. As for the runner and the other examples you've given, more energy was spent by what we might conveniently term the fastest - that is all. Energy is arguably the only fundamental in the Universe - all other measurements are mere mathematical conveniences that fail when applied outside their scope.

There is so much magic and voodoo in modern physics that it takes a lot to see beyond the veil, we are mentally trapped by our conventions and traditions (for instance, what does zero mean? Books can be written on that).

Please take time to view a peer reviewed paper I authored; Matter-Space Potential, published at http://www.acadjournal.com/Articles.asp?article_id=90

The arguments made above are thoroughly dealt with. I have other (yet to be published) papers that deal with gravitation, Nuclear Physics and beyond; they are all built on the same foundation.