• [deleted]

More proof that time is an effect of activity, like temperature . It is simply that we experience it as a sequence from past to future, but the underlying dynamic is potential condensing into actual events and being replaced; Future becoming past. Each action is then its own clock. When it is only treated as a measure of interval, this only. emphasizesthe past to future effect, rather than the physical dynamic.

    14 days later
    • [deleted]

    I told all that already few years ago

    but nobody was ready to listen......

    because I'm an independent researcher ?!

    In the universe time exists,

    time is what we measure with clocks.........

    They are two attached files

    in one is a review article on time published in FOOP

    in other are my commentsAttachment #1: 10.1007_s107010119591y_TIME.pdfAttachment #2: Comments_on_the_article_What_We_Dont_Know_About_Time.pdf

      • [deleted]

      This article has nothing to do with time other than that time passes while all events occur. Time and space are the companions to all changes of velocity. No revelation there. The subject of the article is duration and perceptions of duration, both sometimes misrepresented as if they were the property of time, simalarly to what has ocurred in theoretical physics.

      James Putnam

        • [deleted]

        In theoretical physics it appears to me to be preferred to represent clocks and the variations that clocks undergo as if clocks controlled the evolution of the universe. Of course they don't. They are a part of the evolution of the universe. Clocks, in whatever form they appear including individual atomic interactions, are just the process of changes of velocity occuring. For velocity to actually include time in its mathematical representation of (dx)/(dt), it would require something that has not yet occurred in empirical discovery. That something, at a minimum, is a universally constant measure of the passage of time. Even that will not be the property of time. It will instead be evidence that there is a clock of the universe.

        James putnam

        • [deleted]

        Neither Einstein nor anyone else, expert or amatuer, told us or tells us about time except in their internal perceptions. I think that it was unfortunate that Einstein should have allowed, or worse proselytized that the 't' in his equations should be understood as representing the actual property of time. I find that this occurrence and its continuence, specifically its involvement as physics knowledge and physics' lesser part 'physics theory', to be scientifically unjustifiable.

        James Putnam

        • [deleted]

        Physical existence alters. We know this because when we compare physical input received, that reveals difference. The rate at which any given physically existent state alters to the next in the sequence can be timed, the unit of this measuring system (timing) being known as time, a duration. Either that can be effected directly, ie by comparing one change sequence with another. Or it can be effected by comparing to a conceptual constant rate of change. This is achieved with timing devices which 'tell' the time (ie the constant). In order for the measuring system to function, all devices are, within the realms of practicality and sufficiency of purpose, set at the same point and maintain the same rate. The mechanisms used in these devices vary, for example, in a quartz device the time is being 'told' by crystal oscillation. But the output is converted into a common language (eg days, hours) in an easily readable form (eg hands on a clock). The language is fossilised, reflecting that the first timing device was earth movement.

        Timing is a measuring system which enables the calibration any given rate of change in physical existence, against a conceptual constant rate of change (ie a common reference). It concerns a feature of the difference between any given physical realities, not any feature of any given physical reality. Since it is measuring the rate at which change occurs, it is not reversible, because change is not reversible.

        In the first section in 1905 Einstein (following Poincaré) explains how timing works. This is incorrect. He and Poincaré failed to understand that the system is really referencing to a common denominator. That is, the timing devices must already be synchronised to a 'common' time, otherwise the system is functionally useless (variations due to the aequacy of construction of any given device are irrelvant to this point). This reflects a fundamental flaw in Einstein's thinking, ie the failure to differentiate what occurred, from the light based representation of that occurrence, which is what we receive. Which means there is always a time delay between physical existence and receipt of a physical representation of it, the timings of the two events are different, that being mostly a function of distance.

        By presuming, incorrectly, observation (ie receipt of light) as being equal to occurrence, observational light, and the consequent time delay, is eliminated. So the light which Eintein refers to is being used as a timing mechanism, t becomes c, which is why it must be constant. Whereas observational light approximates a constant. The duration differential, which reflects physical existence, is then reintroduced with the mis-use of x=vt. Distance has no duration, because it is a difference between entities as they physically exist at the same time, there is no distance between something which exists and something which does not.

        But distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way, which it cannot. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time.

        Einstein failed to understand this, and furthermore, by calibrating distance in terms of consecutive timings (ie the differential in travelling the distance either way) he reintroduced, approximately, the duration which he had incorrectly eliminated. It is approximate because the real duration is dependent on observational light in any given real circumstance, whereas the difference he derived was the function of a constant. And in order to measure distance in terms of duration, Einstein used light, which in the context of the circumstance as he presumed meant that it was effecting the role of the time constant, not the physical entity which involves the capture and transmission of a representation of what occurred, ie what is normally referred to as light.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Hi Amrit,

        I must respectfully disagree. In our Universe neither time, the future, or the past, exist as real things. As I said in the thread of your essay in the second essay contest, entry dated May 10th, 2,010, "We are permanently in the present. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the present. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the present."

        Our Universe endures. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience. We only assume that time is somehow real, and passing.

        As I explain in my essay in the first essay contest, the Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.

        • [deleted]

        Jim

        Correct. Although you do not say it explicitly, what is being measured is rate of change. And one of the sources of confusion is the fossilised language used to describe units of timing. But then it would be even more confusing if someone said 'well that took 9,567 crystal oscillations' to which someone else responded 'no, the flywell rotated 54 times'. Remnants is an important word, because we see with the receipt of a photon based representation of what occurred, which takes time to travel.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        The brain is not thought. The visual experience of the brain is not thought. Thought is integrated and interactive with bodily experience and feeling.

        5 days later
        • [deleted]

        In defense of time:

        All physics knowledge consists of changes of velocity of objects. The standards of length and duration that are used to approach common references by which to compare rates of changes of velocity are themselves only chosen changes of velocity of objects. The point being that: Changes of velocity of objects is measured in all cases with respect to changes of velocity of objects. We establish nothing physical nor empirical about the nature of time nor space. We can know that time exists because changes of velocity require time. We can know that space exists because changes of velocity require space. However, there are no known changes of velocity that give us access to data of either time or space.

        James Putnam

        • [deleted]

        For the reason that all information is delivered as bits of changes of velocity, neither time nor space are subjects for empirical evidences since neither undergo changes of velocity. Empirical evidence involves only changes of velocity of objects. Everything else added-on to the equations of physics is theory.

        Theory consists of guesses about the nature of cause. No one knows what cause is. However, theorists take stabs at proposing what cause may be. This practice is ok so long as the theorist does not invent indefinable units for the purpose of concretely representing their 'stabs-about-what-is-cause' into the equations of physics.

        The equations will still work within the grouping of patterns of changes of velocity that are compatible with the theorist's proposal. However, so far as I can see to this point, all stabs-at-introducing-the-nature-of-any-cause introduces foundational disunity into the equations of physics. The disunity results from the forced, empirically unjustified, inclusion of artificially declared indefinable units.

        The letter 't' inexpicably is allowed to give the impression that 'time' is included in physics equations as a fundamental property. The practice of assigning the name 'seconds' to ratios of cycles divided by cycles gives the impression that the property of time has been introduced into the equations. Actually, the introduction of cycles per cycle, regardless of the name given to its assigned units, introduces just cycles per cycle.

        Time is not cycles per cycle. Cycles per cycle represents patterns in changes of velocity of objects per pattern of changes of velocity of objects. Time is an indefinable property that passes while all cycles per any cycle continue their cycling.

        James Putnam

        • [deleted]

        James

        Neither time nor space are physically existent. They are, as you say, aspects of the difference revealed by comparison between entities which do exist. Change, irrespective of what it concerns, has a rate. Timing is the measuring system which calibrates that rate, time/duration being the unit. And it does so against a conceptual constant rate. That is, within the realms of practicality, all timing devices are a physical manifestation of this rate. The same applies to spatial measuring systems, the reference again being a conceptual constant (ie a spatial grid). The concept of space reflects the notion of not-something, either in the sense of the relative spatial position of existent entities, or as in not comprised of the 'usual' something.

        Surely there is more than just "change of velocity", indeed, that is derivative knowledge anyway, ie it depends on the existence, and experience, of different entities. And these have more attributes than just relative spatial position.

        The problem with t is if it is presumed to be present in any given physically existent state, rather than being associated only with changes between physically existent states. And apart from that being a common human assumption, t is reified through the misuse of x=vt. Distance has no duration, it is the spatial difference between existent states at any given time, ie there is only distance when the existent states involved exist at the same time. Conceptually, distance can be measured in terms of the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Because, existentially, it must be presumed that as at any other given time, some alteration has occurred to the existent states involved what could have affected the distance, ie in physical existence there is no time during which the hypothetical travelling could occur.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Paul,

        Your metaphysical belief system along with your version of historical accounts and your interpretations of quotes are not of use to me. You are certainly welcome to have your own thoughts. There seem to be others who have interest in discussing those with you. I don't. Happy New Year to you and all others.

        James Putnam

          • [deleted]

          James

          What metaphysical belief system? And while what I say may be of no use to you, the real question is whether it is correct or not. If you have any factual comments thereon, I will of course respond to them.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Paul,

          This is metaphysics:

          "The problem with t is if it is presumed to be present in any given physically existent state, rather than being associated only with changes between physically existent states. And apart from that being a common human assumption, t is reified through the misuse of x=vt. Distance has no duration, it is the spatial difference between existent states at any given time, ie there is only distance when the existent states involved exist at the same time. Conceptually, distance can be measured in terms of the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Because, existentially, it must be presumed that as at any other given time, some alteration has occurred to the existent states involved what could have affected the distance, ie in physical existence there is no time during which the hypothetical travelling could occur."

          James putnam

          • [deleted]

          James

          What is metaphysical, and why? All you have done is reproduced a quote.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Paul,

          There will be no detailed debating about your individual points. That would just open a door that you keep trying to push open. It is a door to neverending discussion filled with your enthusiastic teaching of misreported historical accounts. Misrepresentations of the works of past physicists. Misinterpretations of their quotes. I have no interest in your false teachings. No progress can be made that way. You don't understand what you don't understand. You gave the wrong meaning for the word 'normal'. You made no progress there. You 'know' that you're right past the point where corrections are possible. You have a slideshow universe with your full confidence in it and your personally described 'iron clad logic' that led you to it. What is the empirical evidence for it?

          James Putnam

          • [deleted]

          James

          "What is the empirical evidence for it?"

          The physical input which sentient organisms receive (receive being in the line of travel of and thereby interacting with, not the subsequent processing thereof) has two identifiable features:

          -it is independent of the mechanism effecting the receipt (what it 'actually' is can never be known, but there is 'something' and as we (all sentient organisms) are in an existentially closed system, that can be identified, but only from within)

          -it alters (comparison of such inputs reveals difference)

          This means the physical existence we can know of is existential sequence, which has a number of innate features. Remember, we can only ever be 'aware of', we never 'have' it in any sense, because we cannot externalise ourselves from it. So whether this particular form of existence is the only one, or whether there are alternatives, is irrelevant, because we cannot know them.

          We can, as a consequence of that subsequent processing, invoke many beliefs which are not substantiated by experienceability. The latter, which is the basis of proof, includes hypothesis, ie it is not a case of only being reliant on what is actually received. Indeed,one of the reasons which justify hypothesis is that the physical process involved is not physically perfect. The point being that the deployment of hypothesis must be to overcome these physical issues, but not to enable beliefs.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Paul,

          Your opinion consists of your version of metaphysics. I asked for the empirical evidence for your slideshow universe. Your opinion is not empirical evidence. Your opinion is not physics.

          James Putnam

          • [deleted]

          James

          We (and indeed all entities) receive physical input, and when these inputs are compared there are differences, which means there is alteration. How is that not "empirical evidence"? Indeed, it is the only physical evidence of physical existence, and the only basis of knowledge (hypothesis being effected within this context). The problem being extrapolating what was physically received from the individually articulated perception of that (which is not a physical issue), eliminating any physical issues in the processes which caused the physical input received, and then, based on an understanding of the physics invoved, identifying what caused the physical input received.

          You are sitting on something, watching a monitor, touching a keyboard, etc, etc, etc. You are not creating the existence of thee entities (which includes you). If anybody else came into the room you would be able to agree on their existence, without some form of telepathic communication first. Indeed, if a dog came into the room it would sit on the chair, ie demonstrate awareness of its existence. And you (and the dog, etc) are aware of their existence, because you receive physically existent representations of them, known as light, noise, vibration, etc.

          What is the problem?

          Paul