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.

i think the trick being played now is to not recognize the current scientific definition is false, to debate what this vague and confusing means just ads still more confusion when the truth is any other time the operational definition that describes "time that flows and can be measured" is quietly accepted.

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.

THE TIME-FLOW FALLACY Time is described in physics as “what clocks read”; if you asked a scientist to describe what water is in physics and the answer was “what boats float in” you would think s/he was joking, asking the reader to distinguish what a clock reads is actually appealing to his/her everyday use of the word and puts it in that context when as a description in physics it should unmistakably be in a physical or mechanical context. It is this play on words that creates the bias that time flows in the mind of the reader but in doing so makes each reader responsible for the assumption instead of the definition which is a pretty good trick; at first you may think this is all just coincidental and if it was an isolated incident then I may be inclined to agree, but if it is not isolated and an intent becomes clear you have to ask what are the motivations here? Time across all definitions has many vague and misleading meanings, like how a purely mathematical meaning of the word is quietly supplemented as a meaning in the real world to exactly how time is supposedly overlaying the other three spatial dimensions if at all. The contradictory nature of the definition of time in the real world always leads to circular arguments which are vaguely acknowledged but then deceptively downplayed and finally ignored; the aim of this post is to expose these shortcomings, examine the motivations and discuss a more suitable definition for time. Time in physics is a mathematical construct, it is a certain amount of agreed upon movement of some man-made devise described by a made up term called time, the idea that time flows was invented along with the clock that reads it. Time in physics is nothing more than movement, but instead of making this point absolutely clear this definition disingenuously states that it leaves aside the question of whether there is something called time altogether. It shamelessly ignores its responsibility to close the question of whether it describes a mathematically constructed thing or a real thing intentionally blurring the line between what’s real and imaginary. Just by stating this is a physics description instead of a mathematical description it deviously implies “what a clock reads” is a real world physical description. Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads". What a clock reads is totally ambiguous; it can mean time itself is flowing or the movements of the parts of the clock are flowing or even the mathematically constructed activity of counting these movements is flowing. The fact is a description in physics is purely a physical one, in physics clocks read the mechanical movement of springs and cogs; the physical movement of the sun across a sundial or the swinging movement of a pendulum (which was disingenuously used in the definition); this definition is just a clever play on words trying to disguise time-flow as an actual physical occurrence. Time in physics has an intended role; this role is to break movement up into known segments so they can be counted for mathematical purposes, it was never intended to be superimposed over the definition for time in the real world but this appears to be the prime motivation behind this definition. Calling this an operational definition means it will define the nature of how time actually works but first the definition wrongly refers to the counting activity of a free swinging pendulum as time when counting movement is obviously only ever a mathematically constructed thing, this added statement is not only incorrect it is completely redundant serving only to confuse and break up the sentence which would reads like this without it. This doesn’t leave the question of time-flow being real or constructed aside at all; first it unambiguously defines a debatable question about what a clock reads which is completely ambiguous and then it describes, “time that flows and that can be measured” while claiming to leave the operational question of time-flow aside, what a completely delusional set of statements this is to make and shockingly it passes for the current scientific view of time in physics. Take away the nonsense and redundant statements and what you have left is a definition in physics advertising time-flow which is its only intent. I devoted some time to sorting out the deceptions being used to describe time in physics to show just how fraudulently the time-flow opinion is being incorporated here and just how little substance there is to it. I would like you to compare this to the definition for time in the real world. . This is the current scientific view for time in the real world now; the definition clearly describes time-flow with statements like progress of existence and succession from the past through the present to the future but it gives no indication of where this idea came from nor does it explain the mechanics for how this would work in the real world; this is why a mathematical description disguised as a physics definition is put there to guide us. The everyday idea of time in the physics definition is now being superimposed over the idea of time in reality, there is no evidence anywhere in science that can show time flowing because the whole idea comes from an opinion installed in a physics definition; it is completely made up and this fact is not only ignored there is a substantial effort being made to cover it up! The extraordinary thing here is that at one point the circularity of the time-flow argument is openly acknowledged albeit in the vaguest way possible. What other quantities is this vague and confusing statement referring to and why would it not explain the show stopping circularity it just pointed out? The original quantity it talks about is “what clocks read” which must mean linear motion because the other quantity –velocity- is a rate of change of its position which is non-linear motion. 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. According to the idea of time-flow, time must facilitate all movement, what a clock reads is only linear motion, it does not read velocity or non-linear motion, this is a contradiction and leads to circular arguments. This is still a little vague even when clarified and doesn’t quite explain just how imaginary time-flow actually is so let me explain it a little further. According to the idea of time-flow, time must facilitate all movement, because all things in the real world can move at different rates then so must time facilitate movement at these different rates - but time must move at one rate in the real world if everything is to continue to exist at the same time. Time-flow is not a real world definition; it must imagine everything moves at one rate of time which contradicts the real world evidence that everything can move at different rates. This dubious definition uses confusion and vagueness to cover up the contradiction that makes time-flow a completely useless idea in the real world and without a single word to clarify the circularity it just pointed out it tries to shift the blame in yet another attempt at misdirection, why else include: Since time-flows circularity must be very loosely acknowledged to give this fake news definition of time any credibility at all, the contradiction is quickly diluted by lumping it together with philosophy and religion; this is a veiled attempt to repackage it while blaming the circularity no less on it not being applicable across these other fields. What has religion and philosophy got to do with the contradiction between linear and non-linear motion, which seems to have been easily forgotten seeing how it was never clarified anyway. To some this will all just be a series of misunderstandings and happy coincidences while the complete lack of evidence for time-flow is casually overlooked, but to others I can only imagine it has exposed these definitions as the carefully contrived attempts to mislead us all that they are. * THOUGHT EXPERIMENT The photo in the frame is a thought experiment that’s goes some way to proving time-flow is impossible by showing the mechanics involved. Assuming the whole universe was a photograph and time is an overlaying frame then there are only two options for making the pixels in the photo move. The first option is the contemporary view that time is a fourth dimension overlaying the three spatial dimensions all at once, if the original photo was to move to the next frame all the pixels would still be in the same place i.e. there would be no movement at all so this is not an option at all. A completely new photo must therefore be taken with the pixels in their new positions each and every time, this all apparently happens as time flows from frame to frame in some inexplicable way. This is the current scientific view of how time works as described by the progress of existence, all individual parts/pixels throughout the universe/photo exist at one time and are moving to the next time together. Both linear and non-linear motions are accounted for only because there is a completely new and different universe being created to accommodate this movement. Perhaps this works just fine for some of you but in reality the mechanics would involve the entire past universe being discarded and an entirely new future universe being created every moment which cannot be a real world option. The second option is that time is a fourth dimension that overlays the three spatial dimensions but does so individually with a different frame for every part, every part/pixel in the universe/photo now has its own unique tiny time frame around it and is free to move independently meaning both linear and non-linear motions are accounted for. The mechanics involved are each new time surrounds a quantity of space, making particles of space and time, movement is just movement of these particles nothing more and time is defined as the when and where something exists nothing more, especially not the facilitator of movement in the universe. * The second option is an uncomplicated idea with an explicit description that does not contradict itself and resembles the free-moving individuality of the reality we live in; it is also prudent to realize that if the idea of time-flow is not an option then this is the only other option available. Why? It is a simple choice of one frame around everything or individual frames around everything, these are the only alternatives here which should be the focal point of any genuine argument because this explains the operational nature of time being a particle. Still something didn’t look right but this was because in the beginning I had been following the tradition of time overlaying space which is the current scientific view, but this contemporary view is the wrong way around, the universe does not have timeframes overlaying space; it has spaceframes overlaying time. In retrospect I reasoned that time is the one thing that always exists and is the only thing with an ability to recreate itself again and again with each new moment, the enduring moment time leaves behind is a time particle, space is just the emptiness around each time point separating what are effectively individual things. Time is not the fourth dimension it is the first and only real dimension, without time space is nothing, but with time nothing becomes a measurable quantity of space. A very easy guide to gauge the probability of both these ideas is to consider the resource and energy requirements of an ever expanding universe where space must be created piece by piece over and over again as it is in the real world. Either an enduring point in time is being recreated and moves to the next time accounting for expansion OR the whole universe is being recreated and moves to the next time without accounting for expansion. 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. I don’t really see how the tricksters profit from deceiving us into believing time flows but I would like to make it perfectly clear my prime motivation here is to not end up being forced into an evolutionary dead end along with everyone else. Just for my own piece of mind I would like to say time is not god; it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it is an answer that puts an end to the religious question, “what created the universe in the first place”, the natural or the supernatural? I did wonder, with religions greatest magic trick at risk of being exposed is it behind the motivation for time-flow but I doubt the business that is religion ever thinks very deeply about anything but itself. Strong scientific opinions are usually driven by men of science who need this or that fact to be true to support their own ego driven ideas elsewhere, often as evidenced by any fraudulent means necessary but that’s just my opinion. I may be wrong and it is quite easy to prove, just provide any hard evidence you have for time-flow, even a believable story or some other alternative would be preferable to the same old lies and deceptions being restated, redesigned and rehashed. To evolve or not to evolve, that is the question. ARGO R.A. Russell

You are a strange character who says one thing and then denies saying it, relativity is being based on the assumption that everything exists at the same time but i think there is a good case for basing it on everything existing at a different time, there is no issue with the evidence for relativity except movement is just movement which has nothing to do with time in this case. Correct Of course it can describe movement. It wouldn't be a useful model of the real world otherwise, would it. Of course it describes time facilitating movement, but i will happily agree time doesn't facilitate movement if this is what you're saying. and around and around.....

You say every particle in your body exists at the same time AND time facilitates movement in spacetime. This is two totally different and opposite meanings for the one term, if everything exists at a common time and continues to exist at that same time, moment after moment as if time were flowing, then there are no individual times facilitating independent movement. You introduce timeflow into spacetime as if time facilitates a different independent movement for every particle but insist every particle exists at the same time, it is two opposite meanings and the only alternative is everything exists at a different time. I call this “investor blindness”, you are too invested in one idea of something to listen to any other, so of course at least one meaning must be meaningless and not mentioned. around and around and around.....

No, you form an idea before you form a mathematical model of that idea otherwise its effect before cause. You say every particle exists at the same time but then you say these particles don’t flow through time together, if they don’t flow through time together at the next time then they must flow through time at different times. it is only the end because of compartmentalized thinking saying opposite things, it's like arguing against religion.

Spacetime is a description of the empty space that matter exists in, it was once just a vague half-formed idea itself but bit by bit a mathematical model was formed. Timespace may not have or even be able to be modeled if only one elementary particle exists, you could model the particles as they exist at different times but only if you idealize a mechanism to measure and compare such as a clock but you would have to be aware this is just the movement between particles, not time flowing that is being measured as it would be for particles in spacetime. The problem with spacetime is the multiple things time is supposed to be doing, fused with space it creates the empty volume of space. Matter is said to exist now which is a moment in time which is another use and matter which is granular can move at different rates or velocities which is said to be facilitated by time. I have a simple alternative that is a compatible reason for relativity, everything exists at a different time. Time creates a three dimensional elementary space to exist in and this particle exists at every individual different time. Time creates the different granulated spaces because time is not nothing therefore time actually exists, but in contrast to the spacetime model it is doing the only thing that time would naturally do, create different times. There is supporting evidence in the fact that this granulated medium would support wave function where empty space would or at least should not. If you care to consider the fact that the only difference between two particles that exist at different times is the different time, then wave-particle duality is only one particle existing at different places in time, both a particle and a wave. I certainly don't have all the answers i just thought it was an interesting idea, nobody here gives me a reason to think it is not possible or even feasible, certainly not by reiterating the spacetime model or ignoring its faults. You may have to think about time differently or perhaps change or invent different terminology to describe timespace but it is fundamentally the same thing as spacetime, i am not a mathematician and as this is a mathematical model best left to others with my humble blessing. I have tried my best now I'm done, thankyou to all and goodnite.

Timespace has no concept of time flowing, the three dimensios of space and the one dimension of time is one time particle in timespace and every particle exists at a different time. Timespace fuses the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a four dimensional elementary particle which make up all the granulated space and matter of the universe. Spacetime fuses the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a four dimensional continuum, which granulated particles of matter exist within. These are two very different ways of descibing the universe and I thought any reference to movement in spacetime must be a function of time. So the spacetime model has no concept of time flowing or movement of any kind but for particles to move time must flow?

I thought the arrow of time was the irreversible movement from past to future, time's direction of flow in spacetime.

time flows according to spactime though