Why Time Does NOT Exist!

Originally posted by blue bird
With infinite universe - infinite mass -infinite inertia= NO MOTION POSSIBLE whatsoever!

Exactly, and that is why 'faster than light travel' is possible. Non-locality. The universe has always existed and is eternal in space, thus light has always existed and is eternal in space and time, and there fore in this aspect light is not traveling in a non-local universe, rather it is already every where for ever.

There is motion and no motion, the optical illusion of separation presents the idea of motion.

Thus finite universe with no boundary - appearing lines that stretch infinitely are rapped around surface of balloon - no outside!

There are finites and infinites, that is why it is unlimited and boundless, it acccepts and consists of all. It has no shape and it has no boundaries. The universe its self is immeasurable and not finite, but allows and consists of optically illusional finites, especially for those at a less evolved awareness.

and talking about topology of the universe, we don't just gaze at night sky - but we measure ...cosmic microwave background...

But for got to measure our own. Sounds all nice and fancy 'cosmic microwave background'. There are microwaves every where, even in my kitchen. When it comes to the universe there is nothing to measure, when you've measured nothing you'll know the size and age of the universe

[edit on 26-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You seem to mention them any way, just pointing that out for you.

I can assure you that i am holding back most of the 'criticism' and almost all the language that i feel would best describe your 'work'.

That is where we are going wrong. Your expectations are keeping you from learning nothing.

My expectations are just fine and i do on occasion learn something from people i consider to be as ignorant as you are. You have not lived up to those expectations but i am no cynic.

It is your choice to choose whether your time be wasted any more or not, not mine.

It is not my choice to waste time as i responding in the, apparently vain, hope that you would explain yourself and not indulge in any more fallacies.

That is correct, absolutely nothing. I find it ironic my self as I would expect many others to as well. Nothing is really eternity and eternity is nothing, thus every thing is eternal.

Nothing = eternity and eternity = nothing meaning everything is eternal? Can someone point out the reasoning involved?

If time is so important to you then I shall respond to you no more. My respect, as with others, is earned and not demanded nor abused.

Who respects this type of 'reasoning' and why should i respect them?

Polite, truth seeking, and civil conversation abiding by the ATS T&C is all that was asked for.

And also some thinking, facts and reasoning in general. Do you think being 'nice' is good enough while you go about stringing together some ideas and opinions?

If you are willing to try once again then let me know. It is not I making snide remarks and false accusations about you.

Well i tend to stick close to what i can substantiate so there is not much you can say about me that will not look as false as it is. It's interesting how even outrageous accusations against you will still seem reasonable and maybe you should focus on why that happens to be case.

Honestly, and in all sincerity, a mirror and a physics book would help.

Read those and they at least attempt to stick to reason.

You are not in any way separate from the universe, you are the universe declaring its self.

Oh come on?

Exactly. That can only be accepted through denying the infinite and eternal interconnection of all forces...

We do not know that all forces are interconnected or infinite or eternal. Why do you insist on stating your speculation as fact without ANY, ANY evidence?

thus the illusion of closed systems are seen and the fallacy of "external" forces prevails.

We do not know if the Universe is a closed system or if it happened to be open there were external forces to act on it...

It does have meaning beyond your snide replies and false accusations. Where did you expect me to pull it from?

I do not believe that extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence but i do believe it requires at least SOME validation or connections with what is known so far.

No one else has seemed to figure it out. There always has to be the/a first in a closed system (Earth).

The Earth is not a closed system and millions of people 'figure out' entirely false things every day. Rambling away and feeling 'right' does not make one so.

Now you're just making personal attacks and being mean, I have for given you, but I'll have you know that I take no medicine except for an occasional beer now and then.

Well i have been wrong before, and probably will be again, but i am of the opinion that you could benefit by some. I don't think it's a personal attack when you think some one's health and mental well being might be improved with some off the shelf medication but i understand if you would rather experience your current delusions of grandeur! Regular people like me don't get to speculate so wildly and must stick to boring old 'facts' and 'evidence'.

Eternity. It is me and I am it.

Just shows how you little time helps when one's reasoning is unbalanced.

Your limited awareness is respected.

I will let you know if and when, i am looking, i find something about you worthy of my respect.

Nothing.

So all the scientist and thinking people of the world are wasting their time by actually considering 'things'?

Authority is not seeked nor is it answered to. I am a self governed autocracy, but allowing others to evolve if they so wish and not wanting any power over them.

Right.... When someone accuses me of arrogance i will make a point of providing them links to some of your posts.

If what I present angers you to the point that you must personally attack me instead of evaluating the 'substance' then it is best for both of us,

What substance? What can i attack but the person when their views are so nonsensical as to make a critical evaluation impossible?

and out of respect for each other, that we cordially bring this conversation to a halt.

Cordially? Respect?

This is not a personal attack nor a snide remark, but it is the truth: you are allowed "your" 'stupidly arrogant opinion of me',

I sure am and i do not like having this opinion of anyone but what can one do when you are provided with so little to work with?

but in doing so you will lose much of my respect for your judgement. As I think no less nor higher of you than me, or of you than any one else here.

And to be judged by someone who's opinions are so internally inconsistent is not only of no use to me but easy to disregard. If you want to express strong opinions about me go totally out of your way and base it on something remotely factual; that way you get to work with some facts and give me a reason to consider your criticisms of me.

Exactly. Nothing can only be proven through the words and that takes intelligence and patience.

But the words should be based on some understanding of the world around us and frankly you have not showed that you have a grasp of even such mundane matters.

e not claims nor are they disprovable. It is merely the truth of every thing, that is why I am not arguing when you want me to... there is nothing now here and nowhere to argue about and that would be pointless because it is already known to be not known. I don't want credibility nor am I here for offense or defense, it is not a battle that is seeked.

If you do not seek confrontation do not attempt to spread what you can by no means support.

originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal: there is complete acceptance of the duality that then reveals the most high triality: that is Existence.

Accept and deny right and wrong (duality, opinions) and see neutrality (ultimate knowledge, existential and universal personification [God])

Not following but then how can anyone who attempts to validate before continuing.

[quote[I have never demanded recognition, nor do I desire it. That is a false accusation.

Well sane people do demand recognition if only for being able to do very basic math. Do not tell me that you do all this typing without the hope that your point of view might be recognized.

[quote[That depends on the civility and genuineness of your future responses.

I am doing my best but i suppose i will just take longer breaks in between these responses to nonsense.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Since you do not have any closed systems then how can you claim to know any thing about them and/or their existence?

Because we have defined what a closed system is independent of the fact that we may or may not be aware of any.

I have provided unsubstantial substance ('no-thing'), you have provided unevidential and vacuous discernment, but discernment none the less.

I am pretty sure there is nothing to respond to here....

It is being explained in depth if you're willing to read calmly and patiently.

Patience i clearly have , i am still reading this nonsense, but it's hard to be calm when dealing with people who have formed so many opinions on spacious 'reasoning'.

Incorrect, but your limited awareness is respected. Some thing that constantly changes is consistent. It is consistently changing.

Something that changes is not consistent ( it's different than it used to be) and if you attempting to say that the only constant is change you should say that instead.

Words are here to play with. See what you can come up with, then prove it through mathematics and bring it to life.

Mathematics has internal, if self imposed and correcting, rules but you are not operating within any boundaries.

You are correct. There is nothing constant about some thing and that is its constant consistency as its unconsistent constant; some thing is never constant, that is a consistency. Its eternal variance is its constant.

More logical fallacies.

sadly continued below

An unconstant unconsistency would mean that we have a constant consistency because unconsistency would not be constant. If we have an unconsistency that is not constant then it has stopped its unconsistency and thus become a measurable and a predictable, making it a consistency.

If you can type these things with a straight face i'm very, very worried for you!

When that is understood... that which is the consistency of unconsistency because even where we think we have closed and limited systems we are only measuring and observing them through and of the unlmited system (existence/universe, thus we are the 'external force' that is supposed to not interact with a truly closed system)... and welcome to the world where once thought impossibilities are the realities of every day life.

We simply do not know that and there is no evidence to assume the systems we are currently observing are unlimited.

The possibilities are consistently unconsistent. Potentiality is unlimited.

I mostly followed that 'argument' and it seemed like a matter of statistics to me. What about it proved that 'potentiality' is unlimited?

Qualifications and credentials are merely systematized clearances for work in a crumbling social ideology.

Right! Where to start...

Stellar

[edit on 11-6-2007 by StellarX]

wow i cannot beleive people are still responding to this thread

www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

you can check this site for an interesting theory about dimensions, and how they might be connected to time.

Originally posted by Mysteri
wow i cannot beleive people are still responding to this thread

"The people' would like to stop but it's hard when a topic that does not belong on the ATS forum ( much rather on BTS ) gets so much traction and admins do not seem to have the presence of mind to consign it to trash bin.

That's why, the fool that i am, i keep responding to a poster and a thread that simply do not belong on the science forum of ATS.

The worse thing about this is that some people might have even gotten the impression that i like shooting down novel or informed approaches to investigating the world...

Oh well

Stellar

Wow this thread goes on and on and on. I haven’t read all of it.

I think you are all missing something of crucial importance.

What is time?

Lets start by looking at something completely different:

What is mass?

Mass is an objective, derived, measurement which takes into account both the force which acts on an object when it is inside of a gravitational field and the amount of force it takes to accelerate an object regardless of its location in space (inertia.)

So in this sense mass is only a standard of comparison. It is much as money is to barter. We can say this item is worth twice that item. Or we can convert both the items to their stated worth in an arbitrary measure (currency) and say this item is 10 dollars and that item is 5 dollars.

Similarly with mass we can say this item has a mass of 10 kg and this item has a mass of 5 kg.

Now returning to the subject of time:

Are we not putting two events side by side and comparing them? Is this not the same as above. Time is just the standardised measurement, or method of comparison, we use to objectively compare two or more events.

So despite the fact that time is a human concept, it relates to reality in the same way mass, length and any other scientific measurement does and hence is just as important.

To state otherwise: time does not exist, as mass does not exist, but some events occur more rapidly than other events, just as some objects are easier to accelerate than other objects, and hence it is necessary to have a standard method of measuring these differences.

Differences exist in nature and in reality, to deny this fact is to deny reality itself. To apply mathematics, we must measure these differences. To measure we must have units of measurement.


[edit on 20-6-2007 by Yandros]

Having read most of these posts and having some difficulty understanding some of the more esoteric replies here is the problem as I see it.

We have TWO concepts of time which is creating some confusion.

A) Time as a measurement. This is how we relate one event to another. The difference between percieved moment A and percieved moment B.

B) The actual driving force behind said changes noted in point (A). This is also understood as time. But it is the driving force of the change of events themselves.

This is what we need to understand ( Or I do anyway ). Perhaps we need a better term for (B) rather than just 'Time' as we use it now so we can differntiate between time as a measurment of change, and time as change.

** Note that:
(A) Does not exists in and off its self. It never will as it as a measurement.
(B) DOES exists as an independant entity as it is the driving force of
change. (or rather it IS change)

[edit on 29-6-2007 by gold32]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by gold32]

Source:
discovermagazine.com...

Ferenc Krausz is a Scientist that has cloaked the shortest time intervals ever recorded.
The Shortest time ever recorded is 100 attoseconds, (One attosecond is to one second what one second is to the age of the universe.). :O (this took place in 2004)
Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

To give some perspective:
1 Attosecond is 10-18
Planck time is 10-44 (the shortest physically meaningful interval of time)

What is Planck time?
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. Planck time—the smallest unit of time that has any physical meaning—is 10-43 second, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of an attosecond. Beyond that? who knows .....At least for now.

External Source:
time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

Does time exist?
If so which way does it go?

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Mysteri
wow i cannot beleive people are still responding to this thread

"The people' would like to stop but it's hard when a topic that does not belong on the ATS forum ( much rather on BTS ) gets so much traction and admins do not seem to have the presence of mind to consign it to trash bin.

That's why, the fool that i am, i keep responding to a poster and a thread that simply do not belong on the science forum of ATS.

The worse thing about this is that some people might have even gotten the impression that i like shooting down novel or informed approaches to investigating the world...

Oh well

Stellar

Stellar, I like your style. Your humour and effort are top notch. I don't want to try to convince you time is not linear, I only share with you my reasons for needing a different model of time to explain my experiences. You asked, 'if precognition truly is seeing the future.', in regards to my post on the subject. Well, in my case there have been a handful of times that, yes, I saw a detailed, specific image of a future event. Like a video. Not all the times, though, sometimes it was not. But, in 37 or so years since the first time, I have had around half a dozen very accurate ones.
This eventually caused me to seek out a means by which such a thing could be possible, because it clearly was, and my then current view of time appeared to not allow for such phenomena.
Cheers.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Stellar, I like your style. Your humour and effort are top notch.

Thanks!(?)

I don't want to try to convince you time is not linear, I only share with you my reasons for needing a different model of time to explain my experiences.

There is no reason not to try convince me btw.

You asked, 'if precognition truly is seeing the future.', in regards to my post on the subject.

Don't remember doing that and if i did i think i may rather want to ask if it's the observation of a fixed future...

Well, in my case there have been a handful of times that, yes, I saw a detailed, specific image of a future event. Like a video. Not all the times, though, sometimes it was not. But, in 37 or so years since the first time, I have had around half a dozen very accurate ones.

What's the 'hit/miss' ratio and has this allowed you to affect change or positive changes? Is it beneficial, warnings or just glimpses of larger events , wars, devastation etc, you have no control over?

This eventually caused me to seek out a means by which such a thing could be possible, because it clearly was, and my then current view of time appeared to not allow for such phenomena.
Cheers.

Well time is not strictly linear, we can time-reverse a single particle or wave ( or groups of them ) for short amounts of time, so i can't argue with you even if i wanted to. Given that and the possibility that a multi verse might exist were millions of alternative histories are played out i don't see how i can make any substantive objections to your claims.

As i tried to explain earlier i try not to object to anything unless my very open mind suggests that there is no way a given idea can be connected to what i have learnt so far. I do my best to stay modest but i have been about and when i am telling you your full of it that's 'bad' and you should muster your sources and knowledge as i already did.

Stellar

jeez stellar chill out, oh and i would like you to provide some scientific proof for the fact that particles can be reversed in a linear model of the time concept please

Originally posted by Mysteri
jeez stellar chill out, oh and i would like you to provide some scientific proof for the fact that particles can be reversed in a linear model of the time concept please

I can show you some post's where i am in fact not chilled out. Why do i get the distinct impression that you would not know what to do with 'scientific' ( no less!) proof?

www2.slac.stanford.edu...

www.lbl.gov...

Maybe that's not enough proof but if you wish i can spend the time to go find my links to more specific experimental 'proof'.

Stellar

and both articles you just linked are theoretical speculation on the behavior of specific particles and how they might act, not a single word on any actual experimentation or results

Originally posted by Mysteri
and both articles you just linked are theoretical speculation on the behavior of specific particles and how they might act, not a single word on any actual experimentation or results

The articles also happen to make it clear that there is no requirement to 'prove' it because it is a inherently assumed, under current models, for things to operate as they are observed to. If you wish to argue that time is universally linear on a quantum level then feel free to do so!

Stellar

The human notion of time, describes the rate of change of a form in relation to all other forms in existence. There is no second, no year, man made those. Just things changing shape over and over again. We exist in a soup of vibration, time just helps us to organize ourselves.

This is how i see time, correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no time, everything happens at once. "past and future are only present projections of memory and hope" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
So you die the same monument you were born and the same monument the big bang happened. Kind of freaky if you think of it this way.

If you think back to your younger years, and try to find out how far you've come, the time difference is also instant.

i think you are starting to get it but forget the "everything happens at the same time" thing time is simply an illusion we cast over ouselves for accuracy in day to day activities, its just a form of measurement we have been using for so long now it has become misconstrued as an actual elemnt of nature.

Time is a 'frequency state' in which we vibrate at or in.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by menguard]

Originally posted by Mysteri
...................its just a form of measurement we have been using for so long now it has become misconstrued as an actual elemnt of nature.

But what are we MEASURING than !?

We measure mass also....


Maybe anti-realism is a lot of fun....theories on the side - but how we can ignore our experience of time passing...irrevocable!!?