Time at the Event Horizon

Amrit:

Time is not a measuring system in its purest form. Because of language, we use the word "time" to describe the passage of moments of actual time, such as when we ask someone what "time" it is.

Time is a dimension that is attached inextricably to space. Space is where things are. Time is where events are. No time, no events. Period.

I have a fully developed model for time that does not require rewriting the laws of physic or saying Einstein was wrong or anything else. It does however answer all of the major questions about time that make people try to say that it doesn't exist. Time is real and I've yet to see compelling evidence that shows otherwise and that includes anything and everything from Zeno to McTaggart, to Godel to Barbour.

Oh yeah, and that funny character, Peter Lynds.

Barnes,

if time exists as a physical reality in which change run than you have to prove that.

If this is not provable than you have to accept my vision of physical time as a run of clocks in space.

Yours amritAttachment #1: 1_In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf

Amrit:

I can prove it. In fact I will be conducting an experiment that will prove it next month and I will present my findings May 28th at a convention that will be announced.

As far as your vision of physical time is concerned, it's incomplete. Your psychological reference to time I can rule out by merely going back to the universe before there was Man. No brains to perceive time, yet there was still time.

Your idea that events run in space and not time ignores that fact that events happen is an asymmetrical sequence. Sequences are time ordered. As I said, no time no events. As far as EPR signaling goes, those processes happen neither in time or space only the measurement effects. The faster than light signaling is the result of a subspace connection that the two particles maintain despite the fact that they are separated in space and time. Since time and space are inextricably connected and we know that the particle pairs are separated in space, they must also be separated in time, yet FTL signaling still takes place. This is the result then of a connection that exits in some other dimension.

Your experiment with Achilles and the tortoise is incomplete. Both moved through time as well as space. They both moved 10 seconds into the future, they just didn't move the same distance in space. Let's fire a laser pulse from the starting line where Achilles is at the same time the race begins. At 10 seconds that pulse will be over a million miles away, so far and so fast that it won't even be in the same time frame as the tortoise and Achilles. So much for your theory of no movement in time only space.

Time is not a measuring device for motion. It's a dimension where events happen which we measure in seconds, hours, days, etc, just as we measure space in inches, feet, miles, light years. Motion is an event that has a velocity. That is why we can use time to measure it. After all, time still exits if something doesn't move. Motion is not a requirement for time to exist.

Dear Marchal

when you walk you measure velocity with "tick" of clock in space.

Out of that follows: Velocity is derived from the numerical order of events that we measure with a clock.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: From_Spacetime_to_Timeless_Space_..............pdf

Dear Marshall Barnes,

You said to Amrit "Your psychological reference to time I can rule out by merely going back to the universe before there was Man. No brains to perceive time, yet there was still time." With respect Sir, this is not a logical argument. Even if you have a "time machine" and can go back to the time before man to take a look, you can not say no brain and still time exists. Unless you are saying that you conduct this experiment with out a brain. Whether at the observation itself or interpretation of the results of that observation.If you are merely conducting a thought experiment, how are you doing it without a brain ? It is your brain, putting your temporal experience onto objective physical reality without time,imo. (You have given a literally -brainless- argument. That is a pun by the way not a personal insult.)

Time is the sequencing of events carried out by the mind. The change is a spatial change occurring in space. The argument time still passes even if things are stationary does not hold because nothing is stationary. Every sub atomic particle has continuously changing position in space.

It is incorrect that sequences are time ordered. This is shown by Einstein's work on relativity. The order of a sequence of events depends on the spatial position of the observer. The time between lightning and thunder in a thunderstorm illustrates this quite well. The time between flash and bang depending on distance of observer from storm location. Two events occurring simultaneously in an objective space without time may be observed as simultaneous by very close by stander or to have an order of occurrence according to a more distant observer. The precise order depending on which event occurred closer to the observer position. It is how events are experienced not how events -are- in space. That is what space-time is. Time and space are inextricably connected, you are correct on that point . They are connected in the mind and within the space-time model of reality that models the subjective reality produced by and experienced by the human mind. IMHO.

There have been some interesting discussions of this sort of objective modeling of time in the recent blogs. Which may give you another perspective to consider.

Georgina:

You've convinced me now that there really is something pathological about time deniers. The inability to comprehend concepts in writing is literally breath-taking. You're telling me that I'm not being logical about saying that there was time before there were people and you attempt to defend that statement by saying if I went back in time in a time machine there would still be a brain? A time machine? I was merely saying "go back" as a reference as it is used in schools all the time. As in "looking back"... You actually spent time trying to argue this point when I think it's pretty clear what I was talking about. Talk about no brain...

1. But there's more - "Time is the sequencing of events carried out by the mind". More nonsense. I can prove that by presenting the video tape of an event. The tape counter will show exactly how long the event took place and what happened down to a 30th of a second. The mind has nothing to do with it. If it did, then what appears on the video could be ordered differently when someone else looks at it.

2."The argument that time still passes even if things are stationary doesn't hold because nothing is stationary..." Are you on drugs? These are the kinds of pathetic word games that you time deniers are left to play. If nothing is "stationary" then nothing would be where you left it. Is that the kind of chaotic world you live in? Stationary refers to physical location, not vibratory atomic state. Perhaps you should try using a dictionary some time...

3. Sequences are time ordered per the frame of reference in which the sequences are observed. No violation of special relativity involved, just the mental dexterity to resolve it. BTW, viewing of events at the block universe level corrects such things as cause and effect confusion. Knowing how to determine causal or ordered arrangements is possible despite such things as time dilation, etc. Your flash-bang example I've already dealt with in relation to supermassive black holes and how they don't fit into a single reference frame for all observers. It's turned up as a problem with data analysis from the Chandra telescope for NASA. I'm way ahead of you here. I had a high school kid working on the same concept as a school project two months ago.

4. "Two events occurring simultaneously in an objective space without time may be observed as simultaneous by very close by stander or to have an order of occurrence according to a more distant observer. " You can't have an event that takes place without time. You take away time and your events won't happen because there will be no dimension for them to happen in. Space is where things are. Time is the dimension where events are. You'll never prove other wise, no matter how many word games you play. If you could you would have done it by now. Not even Julian Barbour has done it and he's had to concede that he may be wrong.

While you and other time deniers are going on this children's crusade (Barbour refers to his own child-like belief that because he can't see time that it mustn't exist) to rid the world of time, I am researching how it works and how it may be controlled.

I've been busy doing real work and haven't had time to reply to any comments. I will do that and then probably quit using this forum for a while because it looks like a pretty big waste of time if people have to defend their theories with word games.

Amrit:

I'm done talking to you because you ignore everything that doesn't fit into your robotic, mantra-like concept. I've news for you:

1. If you are impressed by Zeno's paradox to the point that you can't see that it was never anything more than a mind game, you're not worth my time anyway.

2. You can use math to prove almost anything - even things that are wrong. Take M.C Escher's drawing Relativity for example. You can program all the proper angles into a computer and a computer will reproduce it in 3 dimensions on a screen but you can't produce it in the real world. It's an impossible drawing to create physically, just like all of your time doesn't exist, statements.

3. My name is Marshall not "Marchal". If you can write in english, you can damn sure spell my name in english.

Gravity without graviton, mass without masson, dar energy without darkonAttachment #1: 10.11648.j.ajmp.20140303.11.pdf