Edtharan

The fact that you compared these situations to time means that you were using them as an analogy. This line in particular: This says that you were using the colour, temperature, etc as analogies. But as only this line is the only support for the analogy, it is a weak analogy. You offer no other evidence to support the analogies except your opinion. I will admit that if your proposition is true, then they would be good analogies. But this is never established in your entire essay. You only present it as an opinion, never as fact, but then in later posts argue that it is indeed a fact. Yes, by working out what would occur if they were correct, and doing the exact same thing with you Axioms in the essay. But is this not what your essay claimed? But you also said: In a science debate forum at that. It is just speculation, but because this is a science forum, expect science to be applied to your claims and because it is a debate forum, expect people to disagree with you. So far, to any counter claim, you have just stated that it disagrees with your claims. This is not debate. If you make a claim, then you need to back it up with evidence, not analogies and opinion. As I have attempted to do, work out what the conclusions to your propositions would be. This is not guessing, but you have to apply rigorous thinking and logic to it. You keep saying you essay means that certain conclusions would come form it, but then contradict your self and say the opposite would be the result. When you make a claim as to what the results would be if your essay is correct, please show the steps that you took as to why that would be the case. You don't need mathematics, just show the working out.

but you did see the quote below: That is an "absolute now". Your words. but here: you said differently. You are contradicting your self. I have use the "What if" argument to attempt to determine what the results would be if your proposition was correct, I than (in a different post) used the "What if" argument to see what the results would be if you were wrong (and how we think of time now was correct). Now the two "What if" thought experiments produced different results, which you confirmed in your posts. But then when I took those conclusions and compared them to what has been observed, the results that were concluded form your proposition did not match what has been observed. The final conclusion to all this was that if the results of what we should observe if your proposition was correct does not match the observed results is that you proposition is incorrect. I treated both sides equally, I did the "What if"/"let us assume" thought experiment with both propositions and determined what would be the effects if one or the other was correct. By saying that I was only doing the "What if" to prove one of the proposition is wrong and means that you are not paying attention to the fact that I did the same thing to your proposition.

I was doing that as a thought experiment. It is always a good idea to ask "What if?" questions as they can sometimes give understanding to a question. Thought experiments are easily identified as they usually start with either "What if" or "Let us assume". Before any scientist performs and experiment they essentially go through a though experiment to determine what the expected results of the experiment that they are doing will be. This is good science as one rarely performs experiments to see what might happen, they are usually done to either confirm or disprove a theory. This is what I have been attempting to do with you theory. What if it was correct? What would be the expected results? From the information you have given the results disagree with past observations. This is where I got the "Universal Time" from. In your posts, you have maintained that there is a single "Now" that your theory requires. As in your post that said: However take this situation: You are sitting on the surface of the Sun. You use a radio to tell me that "it is a little warm where you are at the moment". Now I am here on Earth and I receive your radio transmission and send back a message saying that it is "not too bad here on Earth". This all up has taken around 16 minutes by your watch. However, according to the photons that were used, it has all occurred instantaneously. So who's time is the "absolute now, the only now, and it has total significance"? Your clock says that it took 16 minutes where as the clocks that would have been on the photon say that it has not taken any time at all? Which one of those "clocks" represents the "absolute now" that has total significance? In fact, according to the photons My transmission of my message occured at the same time as your transmission of your message, but according to our clocks I transmitted my message 8 minutes after you sent yours. If I had also sent a message after you sent your message to me, but before it reached me, then according to the photons, I sent that message before they were sent. All this completely throws out any possibility of there being an absolute time, as you have stated you theory predicts/requires. If we assume an absolute "Now" then what has been observed would make no sense (and your theory says that it couldn't occur). The fact that this has been seen to occur contradicts your theory, so what is wrong, observation or your theory?

But that is what real money is. All trade is based on the barter system. This means that if I want a good or service, then I have to barter for it. In stead of having to carry around a whole heap of various goods with which you can barter with, we use a common standard with which to barter with. When you get your pay form your employer, you are getting an amount of money that you have bartered your service for. We use a common exchange medium (money) so that these exchanges are easier to perform. The reason that shops and such charge different prices is that we are bartering with them for that particular good or service. Now, originally money was objects that were considered by that society to have an intrinsic value (rocks, metal, seashells, pigs, etc), however it is not always easy to cart around these objects (rocks and metal can be heavy and pigs tend to want to run away). So someone had the bright idea to stick all these objects in a secure location and to hand out pieces of paper that allowed the bearer of them to claim them. This practice didn't start out with banks, but were first members of the nobility and the merchant elite. These eventually started charging for this service (taking a bit of the goods for themselves). Slowly they managed to begin dealing in enough goods that they were able to use that as their sole income. They were then banks. Now banks didn't just hold onto the money, they used the money that they invested it into other industry (like digging out more precious metals and rocks for money). So what is money? Money is a common exchange medium that allows us to barter for a wide variety of goods and services with the goods and services that we own or can give. What is the notes and coins that we use? Money is a common exchange medium that allows us to barter for a wide variety of goods and services with the goods and services that we own or can give. Ok how about irrelevant content? If it is not supposed to be an analogy, and it has nothing to do with the subject matter, then why include it? How does an analogy, that you have admitted is not applicable to the subject matter, aid in our understanding of the subject?

How? If we take the assumption that space and time are fundamental and that velocity is the displacement in the 3 spatial dimensions divided by the displacement in time, then there is no recursion. Einstein showed that the faster you travel the more that space and time are rotated into one another. Therefore velocity is not determine Time, but changing the curvature of space-time. Velocity only determines the rotation of space time, not what space or time is. What you are saying equates to placing a bowling ball on a trampoline and saying that the bowling ball determines what the trampoline is made of. Where as what I am saying is that the bowling ball only determines the curvature of the trampoline surface. As I have said, this is a weak analogy because some of the words used have similar meaning (a logical fallacy in it own right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation ). Talking about "experiencing" time and then talking about "experiencing" heat is just due to the limitations of language, not to any fundamental similarity between them. That is an assumption you have made and not provided any evidence for it. When I have presented evidence against it, you accuse me of strawmanning you or not reading you post.

According to relativity and experimental evidence, motion does not define time, but it changes the observers relationship between time and space.

I have said it in the past. These analogies do not prove anything. We can trace a direct neural line into the brain that relates these sensations. We have identified the nerve endings that govern our perception of them. We have an adequate (ie not perfect, but a good working model) model of how these effect our brains. We do not have any of these for our perception of Time. How then can you equate our perception of Time to these other perceptions? These other perceptions have a physical and physiological effect that we can measure in the nervous systems. We haven't been able to do that for Time. If you can give us the region of the brain that allows us to sense Time as we do these other sensations, then you would also be able to give us major advances in neurophysiology.

in science Axioms aren't proven. In mathematics they can be. That is why science relies on maths. Go talk to a maths lecturer at you local university and ask them if axioms in mathematics can be proven or not. I used to work with the head (retired at the time I knew him) of the physics department from Sydney university. The reason I don't use this fact to add weight to my arguments as it would be the "Argument from Authority" logical fallacy. but while we worked together we did discuss a lot about maths, dimensions, physics, and a lot of other related stuff. Mathematical Axioms can be proven or disproven, Scientific theories can only be disproven. Yes the value for C is a constant, but this in no way proves that velocity is more fundamental than time. Velocity, even the speed of light, is still measured in distance per time (kilometres per second). Actually, it is not just my velocity that determines my time experience. Gravity also determines my time experience. If I am near a large gravitating object, and also in the same frame of reference (ie: not moving), then I will experience slower time than an observer at a distance (and also not moving). Space is also warped by the gravitational mass, and Einstein showed that this spatial warping is matched exactly by the temporal warping. In this there is no velocity, no motion and yet time still gets a look in. Time seems to be unrelated to velocity, but velocity is completely dependant on time. The whole this is very simple: What is velocity? Velocity is the measured displacement in space over a period of time. This is the scientific definition of velocity. If you are going to use the term Velocity in a scientific context then you need to use the scientific context. Think about "Set Theory". If there is a Set C and the components of that Set are Set A and Set B, then C can not be a component of Set A or Set B. It is logically impossible (unless you are talking about recursion, and that would produce infinities which do not allow you to use a theory to produce the predictions required for it to be a scientific theory). If Velocity (Set C) has the components Distance (Set A) and Time (Set B) then Time can not have Velocity (Set C) as one of its components. So either redefine "Velocity" in terms where it does not use Time, or accept that Time is more fundamental than Velocity and therefore Velocity does not determine Time.

:embarass: oops, The only excuse was that it was around 3am here (I couldn't sleep so I was browsing the forums at the time) :embarass: You are right, I meant billion, not million. I was too tired to remember the age properly and now that I am more awake, I do remember it being 13.7 billion (but the estimates do change occasionally). And yes a trillion is a 1000 billion not 1000 million. Again I was too tired to notice when I psted. Thanks for the corrections.

Well naturally, since dictionary definitions are supposed to be what defines what a word means. Ok so you are proposing a different usage of the word. Well, what is you definition of both time and velocity that is unambiguous and can be used to make logical predictions and that those prediction can then be tested against observed phenomena. Rewriting the scientific and mathematical definitions of both velocity and dimension is a big undertaking and must present us with a logically consistent, mathematical and scientific concept based on established and proven mathematical axioms. What you seem to be proposing is just a semantic redefinition of these concepts. You argue that we can measure temperature and that we can also measure time, so time and temperature must have the same reality, and since we don't refer to temperature as a dimension then we can remove time as a dimension. However we also measure distance, so does this eliminate what we call the 3 spatial dimensions as dimension too? But what is C. It is distance (~300,000) divided by Time (1 second). Time is a fundamental property of C. Therefore Time is more fundamental than C. C its self is just a velocity. The core of relativity was that time is a dimension. In fact it is so central to relativity, that without it, relativity does not work. The major breakthrough the Einstein had was when he realised that Time was a dimension perpendicular to all the dimensions of space. If you are free falling into a black hole, can you freely moving in the vertical spatial dimension? No. Does this mean that that dimension does not exist? Again: No. Take a photon. It is moving at the speed of light. That means that the spatial dimension in the direction of motion is reduced to 0. Therefore that photon can not move freely in that dimension. Does that mean that there is not 3 dimensions? Yet again: No. Not being able to freely move in a dimension does not mean that it does not exit. If you are going to prove that Time is not a dimension, then you will need some other reason as that one can not be used to prove that some thing does not exist as a dimension. I am not straw manning you arguments. I am attempting to show that the initial claims you have made (ie that time is not a dimension and that velocity is more fundamental than time) are false. The logic is simple: If a product is the result of components, then that produce must be less fundamental than its components. Velocity is the result of the components of time and space (distance), then the components (time and space) must therefore be more fundamental than the resultant: Velocity. There is no straw man there. You made the claim that time is less fundamental than velocity. And the logic above disproves it. Can you find fault with my logic? Here is another incorrect claim in your initial post (and again it is in line with the other mistakes). A "change of place" is not motion, it is displacement. Motion is displacement that occurs over a period of time. So if you are using a definition of Motion that is different from the accepted definition of motion but is exactly the same as another definition called displacement, then what you are doing is arguing semantics, not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29 Velocity is a vector (but speed is the scalar for velocity). Mass is a scalar. Scalars are not a dimension. Temperature is a scalar. Scalars, when multiplied or divided with a vector only change the magnitude of the vector. If you multiply or divide a distance by Time, you change the vector, not just increase its magnitude. Therefore Time is not a scalar. You measure a displacement along a dimension. A vector is the resultant of displacement in one or more dimensions. Distance is the vector/displacement in space. Velocity is a vector with the components of displacement in space over (that is divided) by a displacement in time. Therefore Velocity is a Vector in Space-Time. You can arrange the formulas to derive a period of time (the displacement in time) from velocity, but this does not mean that velocity is more fundamental than time. You can arrange those same equations to derive space from velocity, but you are not arguing that space is a result of motion (which you would have to do to maintain any consistency in your theory). You can't, with a theory, just arbitrarily limit the mathematical effects of it because it does not sit with your aesthetic expectations. The maths for the calculations of space have been mathematically proven to be the same as time. So if you propose a theory that changes the maths of time, then either you have to show mathematically that the maths that govern Time are different to the Maths that govern Space, or accept that the theory that you propose applies equally well to all result of the effects mathematics (in this case it applies to space as well as time). As we can plainly see that space exits, you must therefore, to avoid this inconsistency in your theory, mathematically prove that time either does not exist, or is not governed by the same mathematics as space. You have made the claim that time does not exist, but have not provided the mathematical proof of this. I just noticed the big error in this example. In this example the two frames of reference are not equal. In the example, the nail undergoes acceleration where as the cylinder does not. The conclusions, therefore can not be the same for both the cylinder and the nail. The nail, because it has undergone acceleration, experiences the contraction of length in the direction of travel, so not only will the cylinder appear shortened, but so will it. It will collide with both the bottom of the cylinder and the top at the same time (as both it and the can will have undergone the same length contraction). The cylinder on the other hand has not undergone acceleration and so will see a different frame of reference. That is it will have see the "clock" on the nail slowed down, but not length contraction. Therefore it will detect the collision with the point and the head of the nail at the same time. There is no contradiction it is just that the fact that the nail has undergone acceleration and the cylinder hasn't (putting them in different frames of reference) was not taken into account.

Galaxies exist inside the universe, so they couldn't collide and create the universe as then they would have had to have existed outside/before the universe. Also there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe and, as far as we know, there is just 1 universe. There is evidence within out own galaxy that it has had both collisions and several near misses. The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are actually 2 small galaxies that have had a near miss with out own. This miss was so close that stars and gas from both have been drawn out in a line between them (so in effect they clipped us). Some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Stream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Bridge \If that is from the books you are reading, then yes you are reading the wrong books. Also I think the word you are looking for is Primordial (at http://www.Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primordial ). Also scientist place the age of the universe to between 15 to 20 million years old (it also could be a little more or a little less). A trillion is a thousand million, far in excess of the estimated age. So if that number came form the book, then they are out by a factor of 10^3 (1000). Technically, Universe is singular, so that can be only 1 universe by definition. If there were past "universes", then they would have just been different phases of our own universe. So, yes, some theories predict that there were previous phases of our universe where matter might have been in different configurations or even that the laws of physics were different from what they are in our phase. However these theories are virtually untestable, as to avoid the results of thermodynamics and entropy, all information from 1 phase must be destroyed before entering the next phase and so no evidence of these past phases can ever be detected. But the understanding we have about the law of physics do not seem to allow for this (but as all science, it is open for evidence that disproves it).

All land that is used by humans for commercial reasons is modified/disturbed in some fassion. So a swamp that is left alone does not produce crops (just as even normal farmland, if left alone, does not produce crops). The commercial value of an undisturbed wetland/swamp is that it acts as a filter. This means that various pollutants and organic wastes are absorbed by the swamp and thus reduce their passage further along the water ways. This means that an industry (even a farm) that produces pollutants (in the case of a farm: pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc) will be absorbed by the wetlands/swamps and then reduce the amount of pollution that enters the river system that feeds a nearby town. If the swamp was not there then these pollutants would find their way into the water source and have to be dealt with in some fashion (filtration and other water processing) which is usually very expensive.

Ok I'll keep this short. And *Note: emphasis (bold) is mine. So, by your own admittance, motion is velocity and velocity is distance divided by time. This goes from less fundamental to more fundamental. So in this if we eliminate time as being a fundamental property, we have: Motion is velocity and velocity is distance. This does not make sense. If velocity is just distance, then why do we use velocity at all? You can not have the current definition of velocity without the property of time. Time is therefore more fundamental than velocity (motion) as time can exist without the need for motion (there is no description of time that requires motion), but there is no description of motion that can not be made without using time. As motion can not exist without time and time can exist without motion, then time must be more fundamental than motion. It is a fundamental property of what we call a dimension. Try it. Create a dimension that is not at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to all others (say a 3rd dimension that is at 45 degrees from both the X and Y planes). You will find it is a redundant measurement as any point along it can be defined by the properties of the original 2 planes (X and Y). The 3rd dimension, so as not be able to be describes as a set of coordinates along both the X and Y planes, must be perpendicular to all other planes. It is from this geometrical necessity that I make the claim that a dimension must be perpendicular to all other planes. I am not a mathematician, so I can not give you the mathematical "proof" that explains this, but you should have learnt such basic geometrical principles in Primary/Grade school.

The other problem with this approach is that an object only interacts with waves (electromagnetic waves = light) of a similar size or smaller. So to look at a small particle (or at least fix its position to a certain point) would need a very high energy (and thus small wavelength) light to detect it.

Draining swamps has produced some very fertile faring lands. So the commercial value of these areas is quite good. However, these swamps play a very important part in filtering pollutants and organic wastes (the reason they are so good as farm lands) from rivers. It is because of the degradation of the rivers and water ways that draining swamps (or a another term is wetlands) has caused, this practice is rapidly falling into disuse (but some people still do it). Draining a swamp does not just effect the individual swamp, but can disrupt ecosystems all along the river (including water supplies for towns and cities).

In another thread (in speculations: http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=23406 ), we were discussing the 0 point energy and tunnelling (well the thread was not specifically about that but it was a point to do with the topic). Now neither of us has the knowledge of Quantum Mechanics to answer this properly (and it is off topic for that particular thread), so I though I'd ask here to get some clarification on it. We were discussing electron tunnelling through a barrier. Essentially a hole in an electrically charged plate with the electrons fired at it with just enough velocity to approach the hole but not go through it so that some might tunnel through the barrier. What we were wondering was if a Casimir resonance cavity was position so that this experiment took place inside the resonance cavity would this have any effect on the chance that an electron could tunnel through the barrier. The reason we think it might (but as we are not sure about it I decided to ask) is that the plates, by excluding the 0 point energy would create a lower region of energy between them and therefore the electrons would not be able to "borrow" the energy from the 0 point field to make it across the barrier (tunnel). Now I probably have the whole thing wrong, so please correct me if I do, but could the Casimir effect have an influence on tunnelling? Thanks.

No, you didn't explicitly state it, but you interpretation does imply it and can not be true without a universal frame of reference. That is unless your argument is about the semantics what "Time Travel" means. Also you use "motion" to support your claim that time does not exist. However Motion requires time to exist. Motion is distance travelled over a period of time. Therefore motion proves time exists and is not in our minds. Distance doesn't require time and one can talk about the distance between two locations without time, but if you were to travel (that is have motion) between them, then time must exist as a fundamental property of the scenario you are discussing (in this case the universe). If you have motion, there is no what that time can not exist, just like you could not discuss it without distance. Time is as fundamental to a universe that has "motion" as is the distance that the objects move. It is not perception, it is not a way of thinking, it is fundamental to the existence of anything called motion. It is not caused by it. Motion is totally dependent on the existence of time, so time is more fundamental than motion and can not be cause by motion. Events, as I stated are coordinates in space-time, a 4 dimensional coordinate. A series of these marks out a line in space time. If we then ignore the 3 spatial dimensions, then we are still left with a dimension unaccounted for. We call this time. Een in normal language it is impossible to refer to an event without the reference of time. It is an essential part of locating it. It is a fundamental property of what we call an event. Dimension literally means "Direction of measurement", if we can make measurement on it and it is perpendicular (that is at 90 degrees to) all other dimensions, then it is a dimension. As Time is a fundamental coordinate (ie measurement) of an event, and it is perpendicular (you can't create that direction through the use of any or all other dimensions - a result of being perpendicular), then it classifies as a dimension in its own right. And as I explained earlier, Time is a fundamental property when discussing motion and can not be created by it. Therefore you theory can not be true (you claim that time is a result of motion and not a dimension at all). There is no way that you can discuss an event without reference to time and no what that you can discuss motion without reference to time. Time is a fundamental property of both of these and therefore can not be created by either of them. Now that is a reference to an absolute frame of reference as your "now" can be different to my "now" (as per relativity). If there is only 1 place in time that can be considered "Now" that is an absolute frame of reference and that is what I am saying is necessary for your theory to be true and you are agreeing with me on it. If this is not what you are implying, then all you are talking about is the semantics of "Time" rather than an actual explanation of time.

But it is not at the same time. On one clock they crash at (for example) 5 hours after one of them left, and the other at 4 house and 59 minutes after they left. This is not the same time according to the two clocks. Are you saying that the clock that was moving just has its mechanics slowed down? If it has "experienced" a different amount of time than the clock at rest, then it must have travelled through time faster than the clock that remained at rest or they would show the exact same time. See you are seeing an absolute frame of reference for time (ie: that the clock at rest show the absolute frame of reference), and that the clock that was moving just experienced "less" time. But I ask you, why did the moving clock experience less time if there is an absolute frame of reference? With an absolute time you can't experience "less time" as that would violate the ":absolute Time" hypothesis. Thus you argument is self contradictory. The only other possibility is that there is no "Absolute" reference for time and each object experiences its own time and there fore the clocks collide with each other at their own respective "Now"s. One of which was 5 hours after the left, the other was at 4h 59m after they left. The term "Now" does not have any meaning unless you refer to it in an Space-Time metric (which takes into account your frame of reference - that is moving or stationary). This is backed up by observation. Certain particles have very short lifetimes. This means that they only can exist for a short period of time before decaying into other particles. Some of these are only fractions of a second. Now when these are accelerated to near the speed of light, they remain for much longer before decaying. This indicated that from our farm of reference their time is stretched out. But from their frame of reference our time is speeded up and they experience normal time. From their frame of reference they do not have an extended life time, they last the same as they would if they were not moving. But from a stationary frame of reference they do have an extended life time. Here is a trick question: Which of these frames of reference represents your absolute frame of reference? Or another way of putting it: Which one is the correct frame of reference? The answer is that neither is, because what was observed can not possibly be reconciled with an absolute frame of reference. Now can only exist as an absolute frame of reference or it only applies to the individual objects and that "Now" for one object does not have to match the "Now" of any other object. Time travel is not the "Pop-in Pop-out" as portrayed in Science fiction movies like "Back TO The Future". While time travelling you would not disappere from the universe. You would remain in it and be seen by others in the universe. If you were travelling forwards in time (by accelerating), then you would appear (from a stationary observer) to have slowed down. From your perspective, you would see the rest of the universe speed up. You would still be influenced by object in the universe (so if someone threw a ball at you you would still be hit by it) and you can still effect things in the universe (you can throw the ball back). The "pop-in Pop-out" would only apply to a universe with an absolute from of time, a universe (like ours) this would not be what occurs (and matches with observation). Neraly all analogies are true (for a given value of true). Take for example this one: A Desk is like a Raven. This might not seem true, but it is. A desk is like a raven because Edgar Allen Poe both Wrote on them (that is a crow is a subject that Poe wrote about and a desk is something he would have written on). So no analogy is wrong. But the above analogy is weak because it is not a close correlation. In the same line, no analogy it true either because if it was 100% true, then it would not be an analogy. The reason that you have been using weak analogies is that you equate colour as a perception and our experience of time as perception. However Time, in the scientific sense, is not based on our perception of it and scientists have gone out of their way to eliminate human perception form the measurement of time. Thus the analogy of perception make it a very weak analogy. Then why use colour perception as an analogy? Take this extrcat from your initial post: You call event Motions. In thie example you posted, you conceed that we are measureing events (ther detection of a particle of radiation. I see no motion in that event. The event is an instantaneous occurrence. We didn't detect a particle, then we did. There was no mention of movement there. Sure the particle can be described by its motion, but the detection of the particle did not involve any movement (or measurement of movement), it did not even involve time. Before the detection t was not detected and after the detection it was. The detection took no time (what occurs before and after the detection is something else). So we are measuring a series of events (detections of photons). An event in relativity has a very specific meaning too: It means a point in a 4 dimensional space-time. That is a 4 dimensional coordinate like X: 10m, Y 20m, Z 2m, T:15seconds past 10:00 on Thursday morning 16th November 2006AD. now what the experiment that detected the photons to determine time did, was to call the count of 9,192,631,770 of these events 1 second. So if a machine is set up, every time 9,192,631,770 of these events are detected, it move the second hand of a clock 1 step. So we know (from experiment and theory) that these events occur regularly and predictable, so we use them to mark the passage of time. There is no movement, as events are very specifically a point (movement would at least in dome direction be a line). We can then plot a line between these points and compare an other series of events against them (say the oscillations of an electro/magnetic field: aka a photon) and use the number of events that occurred and how far it has travelled to calculate the what we call the wavelength. The reason we think of time in terms of length is because that is exactly what it is. It is not length as in a spatial dimension, but as in a 4th dimension. A dimension is a direction of measurement that is perpendicular to all other directions of measurement. For instance: If we start out at a point (which is 0 dimensional but can exist within a N-Dimensional space and described as a single coordinate), then we can use the distance in front of us as the First Dimension (X). Next we take the distances to the left and right of us as the Second Dimension (Y). Now we take the space above (and below) us as the Third Dimension (Z). From what else here can we plot a series of points along to call a dimension that is not a combination of 2 or more of these spatial dimensions. Well we could plot the points of a series of detections of photons in an atomic clock. This gives us a measurement that is not a combination of the previous 3 and is in a straight line (ie you can't have 5 seconds and 2 seconds to the left). So what we have here , according to the mathematical requirements, is a dimension. As we were measuring Time, we will use time as a label. So the Fourth Dimension is Time (T). And as a line between any two points is called a distance, we use distance when referring to a line drawn between any two points along the 4th dimension. So there is no error here at all. Now you might be taking the numbering of the dimensions all wrong. Time might actually be the first dimension, but it doesn't matter as all dimensions are independent of the others, so the labels we give them are purely a human label and express nothing about the fundamental nature of them. This explanation of time has nothing to do with human perception. It uses established mathematical definitions and does not contradict any previous observations. I am willing to "unconvinced" my self, but you have not provided sufficient evidence that what you present actually fits with observation that have been made (ie time dilation/travel). So although i am willing to be unconvinced, you explanation is far less convincing than current theory. An Einstein's whole theory was to prove that there was no absolute frame of reference, where as your theory requires it. Therefore I do not think that Einstein, as you claim, actually think that. Time is real (we can measure it). It is as real as the direction "Forward" it is as real as the direction "Sidewards" and as real as the direction "Upwards". It is a direction of measurement that is perpendicular to all other directions of measurement and we can plot straight lines along it and it can be used to specify a point at which an event occurs (time and place).

As I also said. No, no more so than QM. Yes, I withdraw my claim. However, in his original post Choix did not establish proof of his claims. One was that Something can't come form Nothing (which we have explored and I have now conceded), but Choix also makes the claim that Time is an illusion, and has not established that either (there are others, but these are the two main premises that Choix is using). On an aside Note: So if my experiment was performed between the plates of a Casimir resonance cavity, we should see less tunnelling? This would be an interesting experiment to try.

From what I understand, it was Qm that created the Big Bang. The uncertainty principle states that if you are certain about the time then you are uncertain about the energy. So for a short enough period of time (The Planck Time), massive amounts of energy (enough to kick start the universe) can occur. QM also states that past and future at the Planck Time can not be resolved and that an effect can occur before the cause. Put together at the Big Bang, this means that the effect (The Big Bang) could occur before the cause (a massive amount of energy due to the uncertainty principle).

In the Big Bang the energy density would have prevented any matter from existing, let a lone an atom. When you break time down to around the Planck Time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units ), past and future have less meaning and reality than they do in macro scale event. What this means is that effect can come before the cause. If applied to the beginning of the universe, this means the physics of this universe could have caused it's self to come into existence. QM does allow for this. If you also apply the Uncertainty principle to this period, then it means that we are so accurate about the time (a single Planck Time) that we are uncertain about the energy. There would have been enough energy in a single spot to therefore create our universe. It didn't come from an Atom, because an atom, in comparison to size, would have been absolutely huge. The universe did not so much as explode, as expand. From what we know of QM, this amount of energy in 1 place would have created an enormous amount of pressure. This pressure is not like the air pressure in a balloon, but instead would go into making space and time (creating them if you will). This creation of space causes larger distances and the universe expands and time starts to occur. As there is more space for this energy to exist in, it becomes more and more dispersed and the universe cools. Today it would have cooled to 3 degrees above absolute 0 (0 Kelvin) and this is backed up by measurements (the Microwave Background Radiation).

What I meant was not for each place in Australia, but all over Australia. That give you the average temperature of Australia at a certain time. So you are looking at the average temperature of Australia at specific times for every recording station at once. But what determines the "Norm"? I am sorry, I am not a statistician and I am just trying to understand your graphs. The other reason is that you have said that you used the same data and the ABM and the same analysis, but ended up with different results. I am trying to find out why this occurred, weather it is to do with the methods you or they used, or was a deliberate act. From what I understand of GW, it is occurring, it is only a question as to how much influence that Humans are having on it. The ocean temperature has risen, there are climactic disturbances, changes in weather patterns, glacial melting, etc. This kind of thing has occurred in the past, but the question is: Is this climate change (GW) driven by Human activity (and the answer so far seem to be: Yes). The main problem I am having with the graphs is that you are showing the deviations from some value and I don't understand what that value is representing or how you arrived at it.

I noticed that you have a lot of analogies in the initial post. However, none of the analogies are proven to be strong (thus they form a weak analogy and enter into the False Analogy logical fallacy). The whole argument rests on the analogy that time is a perception like colour. But this is never really demonstrated, it is just claimed. This claim must be supported by evidence (not further analogies).

I will concede this, but but only to this: From our current understanding and observations, it appears as if the energy comes from nothing and returns to nothing. All attempts to determine a non local source for this energy can not fully account for it. The only way to do this is to prove that no other source could be giving energy to the system. This would mean performing the experiment under as many different conditions as possible and not just limiting the experiment to electrons. Again, this would not prove the proposition (it just makes it very likely). Actually we don't even have any observations of "energy". We have observations of it's influence on other objects, but nothing that actually show the existence of energy. In fact, without those objects that energy acts on, energy it's self does not exist. There is no such thing as "Pure Energy". Well observations that have been made do agree with QM, even where it seems to violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time. The conservation of Energy Law, surprisingly enough, has never actually been proved either. It has never been seen to be grossly violated (though subtitle violations the are demonstrated by QM seem to get through). Under QM, the conservation law can be violated, but the greater the energy, the shorter the time that it can be violated (and there is a strict mathematical relationship between them - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ). Although I am not a scientist, I do have an interest in it and find QM very intriguing. Bell's theorem, although it allows for action at a distance, also places distinct limits on how and what can be acted on at a distance. Breaking the "no information" limitation in Bell's theorem allows the possibility to send information backwards in time. If this were possible (not only would we see its effects), it opens up the possibility of Infinite Computing Power (by sending the results of a clock cycle backwards in time to before the CPU processed it and then having the CPU do the next clock cycle, then send that back, and so on). Because this doesn't occur, it allows us to set limits on the volume that a source could be effecting the outcome of the experiment in an unknown way. Because of the limited volume that can effect the experiment, this means that any source that causes the observed results must lie within that radius. By strictly controlling that environment (vacuum, etc) we can eliminate any source that would cause the effect at the observed rate. As the rate of this effect can be recorded, all we need to do is find some phenomena that lies within the limited volume that can produce the same effect (borrowed energy for a short period of time that coincides with the prediction that the uncertainty principle makes for this experiment). As this would be a regular source and would nullify a lot of the current understanding and observations made about QM, this would be an important find. Such a source (or even proof that such a source exists) would radically change our understanding of the universe (it would be "something" that to all test appears as nothing, but can only be inferred). The fact is, that even if there was some stray particles that were interfering with the experiment (say through entanglement), this influence would not be a regular thing and only show up in the results as "Noise". The source would have to be regular and this regularity would allow us to detect it in other ways. These tests have been done, but no source has yet been found, nor has any evidence been found that indicates a non (directly) detectable, but regular source for this extra energy. And remember, this source has to also account for the predictions of the same phenomena that occur with many other types of particle and situations. So it has to be something that effects all particles in exactly the same way (this experiment has been done with photons, electron, protons, even whole atoms). The fact is, that this experiment has been done with so many different particle types, in so many different set-ups and in so many different situations, and has the same regularity to the results (as according to the Uncertainty Principle), that no specific source could be causing these effects and the likelihood of many different sources causing the exact same effects is so remote that it is not really feasible, and would require so much more in the way of explanation as to why all the different systems produce the same result in a way we can't detect (so according to Occam's razor) that an external source can be eliminated, leaving only an Internal Source or Nothing (and an internal source would need to get it's energy from somewhere, so where could that be if external sources are eliminated? - ie: from nothing). Any alternative explanation has a lot to answer. And, although I don't believe that the current explanation is 100% correct, it is the best we have and it does account for the observations (and is this respect with no real loose ends - except that it temporarily violates the conservation of energy, which has never been proven, only not seen to be violated on the large scale).

Entanglement does seem to violate the light speed limit, but it, its self has limits. One of which is that no information can be transmitted via it. If the extra energy of the electron cam from an entangled electron some light years away, then this could be used to transmit information. Here is how: Do the experiment I described above, but use only electron (Electrons A)that are entangled with other electrons (Electrons B). Now if you made sure that the energy that Electrons B had would not be enough to get Electrons A passed the gap, then if the energy from Electrons B were to be given to A through the entanglement, then they still would not be able to make it through. This could be called a "0". Now you then feed enough energy to Electrons B so that Electrons A would be able to easily make it though the barrier if the entanglement would allow this energy to be passed on. This would allow the electrons to pass through the gap and be detected. We would call this 1. Now as the people several light years away can control the energy levels of the B electrons they can modulate the energy to send a signal to the people at Electrons A. This violates the principles of entanglement so can not be possible (or we would see FTL signalling in the universe). This means you can exclude all sources that fall within a certain distance from the device. This would in fact be the distance that light would travel in the time it takes the electron to be emitted and then later received at the detector. Because of this it is possible to eliminate all potential sources, simply by having the experiment occur in a small enough area that you can account for all objects within the set distance, and also by accelerating the electrons to high velocities, this region can be very small. So yes, it would be possible to eliminate all outside energy sources because no information or energy can travel faster than the speed of light. No I do not think that QM is the "Final Theory", just that any future theory must account for all currently observed phenomena and be consistent with what we observe. Even if I did, this line of argument is a Logical Fallacy (Ad Hominim - Argument against the person not the argument). Regardless of my beliefs in the matter, this is the observations that have been made and any future theory must account for them.