Daniel Foreman

To be honest I don't even think time exists after the big bang, let alone before. And one benefit of not having to confine yourself to time, is that you don't necessarily need a cause to have an effect. This conveniently does away with the "what came first?" question. But I think, to look at the universe before the big bang you first have to look at the word nothing. What exactly is nothing? Many people might point at a table top and say "there is nothing there" and of course this is absolutely wrong. There is air above the table a mixture of all sorts of gasses, you might also get particles of dust, and other bits of matter. Now, if I place that table into a perfect vacuum, then point above that table, and say "there is nothing there." then is that statement true? Again I say no it is not. For above that table, you have space to point to. While space isn't matter, it is a framework so it is "something" not only that, the space is still influenced by gravity (if for no other reason than the table would be a source of gravity) I would also assume that there is some kind of electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces present. I don't assume that forces disappear simply because matter isn't there to be affected by them. I tend to think of them as persist elements though I have absolutely no evidence for this. So if there is still something there even in a perfect vacuum, then what is nothing? This is the question we need look at before we travel outside our own universes spatial framework. Now, I have absolutely no idea at all what might have spawned the universe, But I do think, that something did. So the idea of the universe exploding from nothing doesn't even come into consideration for me at least. I think that a zero state, a state of true nothing, is absolutely impossible. For the sake of my own fiction writing, I've created an idea called "Singular potentiality". Singular potentiality has no space to operate in, it has no forces and no matter. Words such a size, mass, hold no meaning to it. Having said that, it has it's own framework, and is in fact it's own framework. Inside this framework is some kind of continual ongoing motion (if in fact that is the right word). Because this framework doesn't have size, it can not increase or decrease it remains fixed in balance. Every so often the internal workings of this framework exceed it's own boundaries. This causes small pieces of itself to break off. As these pieces break off, they destabilise, and corrupt. This causes random mutations of itself based on the amount that has broken off, it no longer has the ability to hold itself together and simply goes "pop". That is, it very quickly forms a corrupted perhaps more basic form of it's own prior framework, in our case it was space. In the case of other universes it's something we've never seen before. The framework is the most critical stage, if it is not stable, then it collapses in on itself or spreads itself very thinly before eventually either joining other corrupted frameworks around it, or simply falling back into the original "Singular potentiality". For some universes their life spans are short, in other universes the life span will be far longer than our own universe, but perhaps the conditions are not perfect enough for life to form, and they remain sterile places with very little going on. I also think the one of the key features of life is motion, and a compatible framework to allow motion as we know it to form. Our universe is thus a random mutation, with just enough of the original Singular Potentiality to corrupt. In fact there were multiple corruptions, some of it took on space, some of it took on matter, some of it formed the forces we know. But because they all come from the same source, and are related to each other, each of these mutations interact with each other in compatible ways. But our universe isn't stable, as we know it's flying apart at a fantastic rate, and as has been demonstrated in random number theory, within our own framework matter likes to clump together producing galaxies and solar systems etc etc. Eventually our universe will become so thinly spread out, that the spatial framework will probably simply break at some point, once it does it will fall back into the original source. It is of course also possible that the Singular Potentiality isn't random at all and in fact follows an every cycling loop. There might be 100, 1000,10000, 1000000 identical universes like ours out there, with exactly the same amount of material breaking apart in exactly the same way, and in each of them some idiot is sitting in front of his computer writing this exact same paragraph out rather than getting a good nights sleep. Which is, in a way a kind of immortality Having said that a pink pixie named Harry might have had gas one day, and we're the result of a burp. In terms of pure factual evidence, the pixie might be more convincing to some

There you go. P.S. I'm assuming you meant to say prove not proves. And that would be belittlement. Telling someone what their statements are, such as straw man, and defining incredulity an emotional state will annoy the hell out of people. Stop it, if you don't agree just say so. Throwing the Oxford dictionary at someone is more about your ego then the topic at hand. It is unnecessary belittling behaviour, please stop it. Your argument is that two or more objects can occupy the same space providing they arrive at different times is irrelevant. This absolutely doesn't demonstrate time, what it demonstrates is the fact that you're too hung up on the past, and not what's occurring at the moment. The fact that 1 bus has driven away, and another bus then takes it's position in space afterwards is a bi-product of analysis. Now turn that analysis off, and look at what's in front of you. A bus, nothing else. Just a bus, it doesn't matter what happened before that bus arrived or what happens after that bus arrives, those are past and future events. In the moment there is just a bus. Time only comes into play when you want to look at the past, and then compare that past the future. So you are absolutely 100% correct in the context of analysing past events. But you are applying this as if it was a part of the universe at this moment. Whatever happened before is no longer happening now you are working with old data this doesn't prove that time exists as a physical element of the universe. It just proves that you've got a useful tool to play with. I really can't make myself any clearer at this point. Only in mathematics, which is the point you are so hung up on. The actual object just gets on with it, it doesn't care what you calculate afterwards. I have consistently, and repeatedly stated that time is a tool and just because it's a tool, that doesn't mean time is a real physical part of the universes make-up. Lets forget it for now, we've clearly been misunderstanding each other.

I've never said time doesn't exist as a measuring tool. I'm refuting that time exists as a physical function of the universe. Velocity is how we measure relative motion in comparison to a timeline. When you actually fall, there's no comparison, and comparison isn't required by the process. This is something you do. Not something the universe does. What does the universe do? Well it just falls. Well not the whole universe lol, just the bit of it that is falling. It falls, then it impacts and it's over. This is the most "in motion" event you could probably come up with. The object is in free space with very little resistance, gravity give it the energy to fall downwards, and is stopped when enough matter gets in it's way. Now you can later describe the motion using vectors, distances, time-scales. But at that point, well. It's over, it's not happening any more. This particular action in the universe is done with.

He'll have some respect when he doesn't selectively misquote a question as a statement.

Yep the difference is, that X Y and X are an index of something I can easily demonstrate. All you can do is say "well stuff moves in space therefore there must be time as well." which is a statement that makes absolutely no sense to me. You claim I'm making a logical fallaciously (straw man argument) , but when I pick your statements apart aka "stuff moves, therefore there is time for it to move in" it makes no sense, it's not moving in time, it's moving in space. And until you can demonstrate otherwise you're just repeating it in the hopes that repetition will do the same as experimentation. Basically you've already made your mind up so I'm not sure why you keep coming back. Existing in a total deaf blind blackness with no tactile senses at all, you could be state that all that passes is time. I would counter this on two points. 1) The brain would perceive blackness and silence. Which means the brain is still processing the data. 2) In order for you to be aware of anything at all, even if it was very little the brain would still need to be healthy and active. Now, if we both accept that the brain is basically a chemical factory firing neurons then there is still a process going on. So it's not time we're aware of, but the fact that we are still an active process. So it is the motion of ourselves, of our mechanism that we are aware of. You could further this thought experiment by asking. "What happens if you slow down, and speed up neurological activity?". I presume, though I have no way of testing this, that the slower the brain operates the faster things will appear to go. I base this on my experience with transcendental meditation. The key purpose of this form of meditation is to sit quietly, slow down your mind and sink into your own consciousness. As you become better at it, time seems to go by faster and faster. Now, to go in the other direction, I'm sure you've had moments when a shock has occurred and the world seems to slow down around you. Having suffered anxiety attacks many times in my life, and given that the body and mind are accelerated due to the addition of adrenalin in the system I can tell you that a minute, an hour, and a day feel like eternal torture. Time not only moves very slowly but the world is so painfully sharp in your senses that even your own heartbeat is painful. So I can argue that I've gone in both directions, I've achieved meditative states where time appears to go very quickly, and in fact when you go to sleep and dream a dreamless sleep then no time seems to pass at all. At the same time anxiety has driven me to points where it's very nearly unbearable to live and it seems to go on for a very long time. So again, I suggest that what you're really aware of is your own processing cycle, this isn't evidence of time, it's just that this is how we've come to understand that process.

Please clarify this statement Are you saying that time duplicates what space does exactly? Or are you saying there is no such thing as time, there is only space? Or are you saying something else entirely such as Time has the same dimensional properties as 1 dimension of space in that you can travel up and down it like for example the X axis?

There is no concept of time in the moment unless you introduce it. An object doesn't care where it was in history, and doesn't care where it will be in the future. These are human constructs, constructs you mix with reality. I acknowledge time as a useful human tool in the same way I acknowledge my computer. On my computer I can construct a car, I can then simulate the world to see how that car will run. I might even be able to consider that car a real creation simpy because "I see it". But I would be wrong if I did. Until I build that car out of real world matter, it remains a very sophisticated concept. Time is no different, it's a simulation in our own minds, we look at the past, we look at the present and we hope to predict the future. Oh I love it when people start using the word Reality to justify there ideas lol. It's such a heavy, all encompassing word isn't it. Reality, the existence of everything without lies. And yet, you're able to reduce the whole universe concept down to a simple cube. As if it were some kind of ever expanding scaffolding structure in the sky. Now it's not a bad concept if you really really have to compare everything to something physical. It's a nice image, something to get your mind around. However, that is not reality, that is not real, that is one of the many little ways human beings relate something that really isn't matter, to something we feel we could hold. I never suggested multiverses, one of my potential "models of time" simply worked like a video stream. Images and images all attached to frames organised by a time index. It's a common delusion, because... heck who hasn't watched a movie? And who doesn't understand the basic principle of movies? The problem with movies, is that they get larger. You create data "out of nothing" almost. The empty space that is your hard drive stores image after image until there is no more space on that drive. But how can that work in a universe that doesn't allow us to create matter or energy, merely convert between the two? The very concept of taking snapshots of the universe then keeping them in nice neat frames means you have to duplicate the universe "data" aka it's very substance, and then create a new frame by which movement can occur breaks the very fundamental rule that you can't simply and convivially "copy the universe". Again, this isn't a multiuniverse idea. It's the same universe because if time works in that way because time is part of that universe structure, and thus this way of storing versions of itself is simply a function of that very same universe. However, this model seems fundamentally flawed to me, and yet another example of human beings trying to understand their world by making up stories. We have to start separating the stories from the reality gentleman, and produce some actual experimental evidence. So far the one consistant theme in recent conversion has been No one has invented an experiment demonstrating time. Until this is done, time remains theoretical, not a demonstrable function of the universe. And the next person who says "distance exists and therefore time must" might just get a nasty nose tweaking, and a lecture for lazy thinking. The following is a visual log showing how my idea's about time have changed between 1999 and 2013.

No I didn't, you are talking about distance not motion. Bounce a ball, watch it. Forget where it was, dont guess where it will be, just let your eyes track it from moment to moment. As you watch the ball, try to see the past without referencing memory, try to see the future without guessing or analysing, impossible right? So if you can't see two of the three fundamental elements that make up time, I.e. the past and the future and the same moment you observe the motion of the ball, then how can you claim time exists? The following would be relevant demonstrations of time. 1) take two identical balls, same material both with the same amount of down force applied at the same angle. Now if you can get them to bounce at different rates, the that is a valid test of time dilation. With different forces, and materials taken out of the equation, then time would become a controlling factor. 2) start demonstrating what will happen with perfect accuracy, on any given subject. Starting with this weeks lottery numbers. 3) demonstrate a way of revealing past, present and future all in the same moment. If you can do any of these then you have proven time. But simply moving something doesn't demonstrate time, it just shows you can move crap. You only need two things to achieve movement, space and force applied to an object. Adding time in there only shows you can't break away from your own common perception. Sure I can, I can move an object without telling you the time at all.

OK, so the solution is simple. We must put aside "opinions" and develop an experiment that proves time exists. If you have any suggestions for this then I will be happy to discuss it. Having said that, I back up my opinion by saying the following. I can demonstrate motion. So, as I don't think time exists, the burden falls upon anyone who argues it does exist to demonstrate it with a repeatable experiment. P.S. YAY!!! Star Trek Into Darkness just got released, whooooooooooooo! I didn't get a chance to see it in the cinema and I've been desperately avoiding trailers, reviews and anything that might spoil it. It's downloading now ( thank you broadband I love you ) so I'm off to kick back with ice cream, and absolutely not look at this thread again until the movie is over just in case someone posts a spoiler. *** Beams up to his sofa ***

No, I mean I already explained that the properties attached was simply an expression. It's an expression of what we've seen it do, and what we expect it to do. It's the same as saying there are four marbles on the table. The number 4 doesn't affect the objects themselves, it's merely for our own understanding of how many marbles there are. The marbles themselves are not affected, if I say there are 5 marbles when there are only 4. The same way as an object is not affected simply because I chose certain termanology to express observed past behaviour and expected future behaviour. These are human tools, and perception. They affect only ourselves.

I've already explained that.

No, motion is the properties attached to an object. I discribe it as that not because there are actual properties attached to an object like limpets, but because when I program we define what an object does by assigning data to that object, speed, rotation, etc. In reality it's just part of what the object is, and an expression of what is driving that object onward. We only perceive motion because we record the past in our minds, and compare it to the moment we are in. This is a very human illusion.

No, its motion, as in, the universe in motion. Time is just an indexing system used to predict the future and reference past records. It's great because it's way more accurate than human memory when paired with devices such as camera's, electronic sensors, etc. It's also useful for keeping a date. And of course we invented time. It's always been a measuring tool. Time dilation isn't proof of time. It's just a mathematical expression designed to compensate for certain kinds of errors that accumulate with fast moving clocks. If time is real, an actual physical dimension. Then how does it make sense? We know you can not create energy or matter, you can merely convert the two. But think about it, if all previous states of the universe are somehow "frozen" and "saved" and thus "accessible" by time then the universe is continuously doing just that. It's making endless copies of matter, much like a video stream. I mean that works great for videos, but for a whole universe? To top it off, if time works like this and "time dilation" exists, then bits of the universe are being copied faster than other bits of the universe, so as one bit of the universe has it's time flow slowly, another bit is copying a whole lot more matter unevenly. Why would this happen? This is all getting needlessly complicated, this is the point where Occams razor comes in: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Well if time really is real, then it can only work in one of two ways as I see it. First, what I stated above, time is somehow "archeiving" the universe, making endless and rather lumpy copies of everything that exists... that's a hell of alot of effort. Secondly, it simply controls matter, that is somehow time will allow you to fast forward matter thus increasing the speed of all matter based interactions energy exchanges, collisions, etc. Or slowing down such interactions, or even worse allowing you to spontaneously reverse all interactions. Now if this second one is true, then we're not duplicating energy and matter, but instead we're saying time has the ability to control matter, slow it down, speed it up, perhaps even reverse it. Now if the second one is the version of time you like then here's another question... We know matter and slow down and speed up when under the influence of other forces, and in the presence of other matter. If we accept this, then what is the need for time? It doesn't even keep time. It allows bits of matter to progress at one rate and another bit of matter to progress at another rate. What is the point in it? Can we not express the same design on the basis that only matter slows down and speeds up due to the existing forces we can actually demonstrate? Time is completely anti Occam as far as I can see, it's a very very complicated set of rules based on idea's we can't test and align with actual experiments. Where as my concept here can be summed up as: "Stuff moves,"

Time doesn't make me unique. What makes me unique, is the construction of atoms within my body. Are you giving time such power over matter that it is responsible for making everything in reality? And no you don't need time to go from one place to another. Because matter is always where it is. You're basically trying to justify time by saying time is the same as distance. this is not true, That is a function of space. There can never be two of me, there can only ever be one of me. The closest you could get to duplicating me is forming an identical clone using a completely different set of matter. It might look and sound like me, but it won't be my unique configuration of matter. This is the problem MyUncle highlighted so well. You appear to have this image in your head that because something was at point X in space, and is now at point Y in space, that the object must exist at both points at the same moment. You are claiming that the past remains real, that it is a tangible still frame like a photograph. This is in error, to accept what I'm saying you need to achieve two things. 1) Accept that there is no past. 2) Accept that there is only ever the moment. Now if you only have the moment, that means that past is as much an illusion as your idea of the future. Therefore you don't need time to separate two positions, because there isn't two positions. There's just the 1 position. All you have is a prior memory of an object at a certain point, then when you compare an object at a new point you create the idea of distance. There is no distance outside mathematics, because mathematics job is to compare recorded history against other recorded history. It isn't a natural function of the universe any more than time is. What there is, is an object that has certain properties, a certain amount of momentum, a certain amount of energy, a certain angle within space. It's is constant, it is happening constantly in the moment. So to take a zen approach to this, shed your past selves, live in the moment, stop comparing past memory to on-going experience and just look at what's in front of you. There is no time, there is simply the ever moving now. There is no distance, there is simply matter with properties.

The object itself can not accelerate, an object is accelerated by something. For example, while a car can accelerate, it does so by converting fuel into kinetic energy by blowing it up with a spark. It relies upon gravity and pressure to pull fuel down, and a battery flowing electrons down a copper wire to produce that spark. Another way of moving that car of course is to get out and push. Even when we move it is the result of some very clever chemistry producing the energy needed from the food we eat so that we can contract and relax our muscle fibres. The way I think of all this is as a set of properties applied to matter. The mass of an objects, the drag forced upon it, the resistance of air, the force propelling it forward, that angle at which it strikes the surface, it's shape, etc etc etc. In the moment matter has all of these properties acting upon it, if it's producing internal explosions, then the cylinder is pushing down, and that small amount of energy combined with the other cylinders provide it with the rotation needed to pull the car along. The grip of the tyre upon the road stops the wheel sniping freely and gravity drags the object down so that there is a grip. None of this is "planned by time, nor controlled by time" it is all happening in the moment, it doesn't care about the future, nor does it worry about the past. Matter has job to do, and it just gets on with it. Only humans are able to turn conceptual idea's such as past and future into something they believe is real. Yes I agree 100%. At the end of the day, human imagination is a fantastic experience to the individual. It can allow the user of imagination to very nearly transport themselves into realms of magic, dragons, warriors, and in my case a time travelling pixie called Harry who goes back in time just to warn his grandfather that next time he comes back, he might be trying to kill him in order to avoid the potential paradox. Nice stories. I write them all the time. The advantage writers have, is the ability to see imagination "from the other side". I know the stories I write are made up. But, does the reader know they are made up? In some cases, people get totally caught up with them, or simply take idea's they like and then quote them as fact. Then the person they've quoted it as fact too, who may not be aware that this reader has obtained it from a fictional source might take it at face value and repeat it themselves. Then before long we have a situation where someone believes a popular myth, it ends up on mythbusters and they are forced to bust it. So in this age were anyone can spread an idea via facebook, it becomes even more important to sit down, think about what you hear and take it with a pinch of salt. It also means that just because a lot of people say time is a dimension, it doesn't make it necessarily true. In fact the more I personally think about it, and the origin and original purpose of time, the less I can see it as a real world function, and the more I see it as ye another story many people believe.

What is motion? It's simply an object that's had enough force applied to it to overcome resistance, friction and surrounding mass. Eventually these factors on earth will strip an object of it's motion. Time itself has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. I repeat, time is a tool used to accurately described what has happened, and can be used to predict what might happen. We know that something has taken 20 minutes to move form A to B and that C is twice the distance of A and B therefore assuming it maintains the same speed it will take 40 minutes to arrive. Very useful, epically when gran asks you how long it will be until you arrive. This however doesn't make a dimension, it makes a tool. A very useful tool, but just a tool. Because again, we can not go back in time, we can not go into the future, we can only exist in the present. This means time, at least to my mind, can not be described as a dimension, X Y and Z are not manipulable, we can't shrink space or expand space but we can freely move around in it, unless prevented by other lumps of matter or powerful forces strong enough to overcome our energy.If it doesn't carry the basic properties of a dimension we can test and experiment with, then how can we call it a dimension at all? If you remove spatial dimensions, then matter can not exist at all. What you're describing there is the end of everything material we know. I repeat, time does not separate space. Space is it's own separation. It's own dimension, Distance can actually be ignored. You have an object with momentum and energy overcoming all local resistances. In the moment you don't see distance, you see something with momentum. We can remember the past, where the car was at A instead of B, but that's simple data analysis, we constant compare the past to the present. But the past doesn't exist just because we have a memory of it. It just means that in the moment we experienced it, the process in our mind conveyed that information into pathways within our rather sophisticated minds. In analysis, there is distance. In the moment, there is only motion. Distance is a conceptual idea, rather than a reality. Time is the same as far as I'm concerned, it is a conceptual idea about the past, and the future. But there is only the now.

How does a temporal dimension differer from a spatial dimension and why does it need to be a dimension at all? The co-ordinate system isn't a dimension it's a representation of spacial co-ordinates. T doesn't refer to the dimension specifically, if is a reference system for timing specific events. When refering to previous states of the universe we talk about the past. When referring to future events it refers to predictions made. These two aspects don't exist any more, one is a record of events and the other is a prediction of events. The only aspect of time that is real, is the present. Don't mix a clever indexing system with something that's real, the past is no more real than the future. C is the symbol that represents the speed of light. Einstein's theories demonstrate that you would need infinite energy to move any significant mass at the speed of light. From what I understand of what you're saying, the slower something is in X Y Z the faster it is in T. How can this be demonstrated, and are there any experiments that prove this, or is it simply an unproven mathematical statement? Also why if Time is a dimention is it not subject to the same infinite energy requirements that X Y and Z need? I'm glad we can agree that time doesn't mean time travel. However you've already said that objects move through time as the speed of c, if you can travel in one direction why can you not travel in another? After all in space, you can go backwards and forwards. How do we know that time exists in the same way that x y and z exists? Again what is the experimental evidence for this? As for distance, it is the gap between two objects. This is enabled by the spacial framework. Matter exists within that framework. It doesn't have to be anything in the material sense. I'm not getting spiritual on you, but it's simply fact that not everything is made up of matter, so not everything can be related in terms of matter. Therefore the question "What is distance" doesn't' hold any meaning to me. Distance is simply one point separated by another point, which is an inbuilt feature of the spacial framework. Your phone only occupies a finite amount of space, expecting it to collapse on itself or expand to fill everything simply doesn't match observation. You don't need time to separate buttons, that's the job of space. You also don't need time to move within that space, you simply need motion. Motion is a built in function of matter, apply enough force to it, and it will move through space. No time required. I disagree, because with X Y and Z I can move freely between multiple points (within certain physical limitations, I can't for example escape gravity on my own, or walk through solid objects) but I can push air out of my way which is very useful when I need to cool down. We can not move freely in time we are forced and bound to "the moment", the ever moving now. All we have observed so far is that a couple of clocks lose synchronisation when travelling around the world at different directions. This doesn't prove that time is flexible or the dimension is manipulable. All this demonstrates is that the matter upon which clocks are based are affected by external forces. Even scientists describe it as "losing some ticks" which sounds to me, more like a suppression of motion. Heck, it might even be an alignment issue, after all we've seen in the slit experiment that radiation's path can be altered. This seems a much more sensible explanation to me, and it doesn't require the creation of a whole extra dimension to pull it off. This deals with the complexities of particles acting as objects and waveforms, this applies to photon's, electrons and in fact any kind of particle as is the basis of a completely different discussion.

It's how most people who claim time exists tend to describe it. So Delta1212 what is your concept of time? How does it work? How can it be observed? Can it be manipulated like space as time dilation might suggest? Why does time have such massive influence on matter? Why is time even needed as anything other than a simple "index of events" system? Have you ever observed time serving any kind of practical function other than keeping your diary organised? If I asked you "how would you define time?" then what would you say?

The word motion simply means the action or process of moving or being moved. If I nudge something with my finger I have achieved motion of that object. Hell I've achieved motion of my finger prior to even that. This is the problem with peoples thinking, they think in a very materialistic way. You hear a word like motion, and attach an extra complicated meaning to it, raising it from a simple process up to a physical entity in it's own right. It's what leads people to start thinking of simple concepts as complex entities themselves. The same is true with time. Some artist sat down once and said "wouldn't it be nice if I could go into the past and future at will?". Then they coined the phrase "time travel" and now as a result we have multiple generations of people spouting metaphorical nonsense about time being some kind of physical entity that a human being can swim up and down like a river. When faced with paradoxes like killing your own grandfather, people complicate the matter even further, rather than accepting that if time travel can't work. At this point people get even more ridiculous by saying that every human decision somehow splits the universe into multiple different universes just to accommodate someone deciding to kill their grandfather. Which it turns out was never their grandfather at all. This kind of stuff is a perfect example of human beings playing with stories, then starting to blur them with reality. Choosing belief over cold hard logical thought. Accepting what people tell them, over actually spending time thinking about things themselves.

Exactly, so far outside mathematics I can't see any demonstration of time. Within the mathematical framework it can easily be relabelled to something other than time without changing the method. As a way of indexing and organising events, recorded or predicted it is a very useful tool. As I see it there's probably more evidence for Santa Claus (just type it into youtube lol) then there is for the existence of time as a dimension. Unlike space, if time does exist in that way it can not be directly observed.

Yep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncAfQ4Hh3ig Tell me why time has to exist for that to work? I have space! I have my finger! I can move stuff. Why exactly is time necessary, other than as a reference point for any single frame within that video? I've never refuted that time was a useful tool but the way popular media, fiction and frankly the average joe on the street thinks about time, they credit it as much more than that. Why does it need a live functioning presence in the universe just so something can move, or sit still (and the word still is a little misleading given that the world is spinning at around 66,500 Miles per hour). Moving stuff around is what space is for. Why exactly does time have to be an actual real function of space just so I can move stuff around with my finger?

Good, motion exists. I'm still waiting for your experiment that proves time does exist.

First, belief is not required. If you want to believe in something go talk to god. Second, you have yet to come up with an experiment demonstrating time exists. I have however come up with an experiment demonstrating motion exists. Until you do so, either put up or shut up about evidence. Thirdly, each captured frame in that video is a record of the world was it was. This is Past State information. You will never work with real time information, if for no other reason then a human being isn't a capable of doing so, it will take time for you to see something, and react to it. This is a proof of human latency, so even we ourselves are never actually processing information and reacting to information in real time. Now you claim the burden is on me to provide the evidence that time doesn't exist. You can not prove something doesn't exist you can only prove it does. So the burden is on you to produce an experiment (which you can't do) that demonstrates that time is real. Don't sit there saying "A sequence of images is time" because it's not, it's a record of the universe as it was. You can not rewind the universe to that point. You can only sit there with your lagging senses doomed forever to be behind even the concept of "the moment". Never ever seeing the present, and forever doomed to observe the universe as it was and not as it is. Until you can produce an experiment that demonstrates otherwise you have absolutely no right to sit there demanding evidence from anyone else. I have now done so, the burden of proof is on you. When you use a formula to predict something, then you use time to mark a future event. This doesn't prove time exists, only that the measuring tool is used to express a possible, as yet unproven future event. When you use time to reference a past event, then you are using it as an index to mark at what point in the past it happened. This is used for reference, Alternatively you also use formula to state what happened in the past based on events that have happened more recently. But this is a prediction and not fact, and worse it's one that can never be proven unless records appear marked at that time or close enough to that time to prove it. Time is more like record keeping than an actual function of the universe. Do you beleive the index on your filing system is a real element in the universe? No of course not. Or at least I hope you don't!

Yeah, I develop enough software to know how screens work mate. X and Y are the only co-ordinates you'll ever see. This is 2D information. Also if you'd engage your mind for a few seconds and take a look at a CMOS or CCD sensor you'll notice they are flat, and the light sensing elements of the device only capture along an X and Y plane. In fact I perceive 3D not 2D. because I have two eyes, I focus on distant and local objects. The human eye is far more complex then a CCD or CMOS camera, with all sorts of biological tricks that allow us to judge distance. This is why so much money is put into 3D technology design to fool our senses into perceiving depth. The reason it's so difficult to make this technology work well, is that human eyes are rather sophisticated devices and inaccuracy's of the technology produce motion sickness. A film has to be recorded just right in 3D if you don't want your audience vomiting in their popcorn.

Why wouldn't it be? Try suggesting your own demonstration of time. Why do I have to do all the work? Not as far as I know. As far as I'm aware there is absolutely no device in existence that directly analyses or detects time. We only have tools that detects matter itself. Because my iPad just recorded that it does in wonderful 2D. My iPad doesn't have a brain, in records the light bouncing off surfaces, into a sensor then converts it into a 2D presentation. Now the problem with treditional camera sensors is that the light is focused through the lens then recorded. So you're stuck with that image. But there is a device called the Lytro Light Field Camera that doesn't prefocus the light but instead captures the angle and intensity of the light. The net result is that the 2D image can be "refocused" with some of the extra 3rd dimension of space that traditional photographs lose. You can view this device here and is on sale publicly. It's the fact that we can produce tools like this, work with angles, and independently use tools to measure the depth of your surroundings then reproduce it in a consistent way, that demonstrates that something exists. Now you are more than welcome to spend your life trying to explain "why it appears to work, yet is in fact something completely different" but until you do, this is established fact. The ability to regularly reproduce an experiment, and get the same results over and over again at the hands of many different people world wide is the difference between perception, and reality.