TIME, what is it.

[Nobby Noboddy]

On 1/16/2022 at 6:30 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Well, yes, actually now I think about it, there is actually a future, but it is all certainly determined by the actions that we take in the present, the NOW.

 

I can predict with some certainty that tomorrow morning I will get up, have a shower and travel to work on the bus.

 

Will the bus be on time? Which vehicle will it be? At this point in time, I have no idea, apart from that it'll probably be one or two minutes late

 

That much I know will happen. But its the future, and anything could happen really.

Precisely. It is down to our personal experience of the phenomenon.

 

We are destined to meet at 3pm, five hours hence. For me it takes fucking eternity because I'm so excited to see you, for you it seems to fly by because you hate me and don't want to meet.

 

Our minds are set to expect continuation which is reinforced by every moment. It's extremely difficult to conceptualise an end to consciousness.

[RobSS]

Another interesting thing about time is that when you find yourself in a dangerous situation, your brain releases large amounts of adrenaline and your heart starts beating fast, which causes you to perceive things  happening more slowly. I experience that on stage... when you've go a large orchestra behind you and an audience in front of you, the first few moments can feel like your in a time vacuum - it's like the second-hand of the clock freezes, then all of a sudden, you go with the flow and the whole experience is over in a flash.

 

[RobSS]

Salvador Dali -~- Melting Space-Time

(from his Imaginations and Objects of the Future portfolio, 1975)

 

[alexa]

23 hours ago, peter said:

Another one of your insightful contributions, 

 

I can do better

 

 

[Solasta]

2 hours ago, alexa said:

 

I can do better

 

 

 

UT time. Whilst we have time zones on Earth, when objects move out into space they adopt the Universal Time, which is Greenwich Meantime.

[RobSS]

One of Dalí's best known works, The Persistence of Memory (1931)

 

 

[peter]

5 hours ago, alexa said:

 

I can do better

 

 

You think so? ,I'd get on your knees and start praying or maybe you shouldn't because it doesn't appear to be helping at all

Every time you put one of these up it reminds me of that famous line from Forrest Gump , and no I don't mean "Life is like a box of chocolates "

[RobSS]

9 hours ago, alexa said:

 

I can do better

 

 

 

That's a good reminder that time is just a concept that inhabits the imagination. It's like countries... when the earth is looked at from above, borders and dividing lines between countries are no where to be seen... all that's seen, on the surface, is land and water. In other words, just like countries, time is an invention of the brain.

 

 

[bobb]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:50 PM, Grumpy Owl said:

This is why I believe people see 'ghosts' at certain locations, somehow (I cannot explain exactly how) some people are able to briefly step out of, or allow another 'timeline' to bleed into their own.

 

And this leads into the concept of 'parallel universes' too, every action or decision that one makes helps to create the 'now'. But amongst the infinite possibilities, there is another parallel reality - which I am not experiencing NOW - where I didn't get a beer from the fridge but had a glass of wine instead.

 

I am not a big fan of the Multiverse theory, not saying it's wrong but rather I come from the idea that Nature is conservative with what it does, and makes no sense to me that it would endlessly repeat something where one will do that contains all it's expression, however I do think that in the 'Now' there is an endless probability set up until a course of action/direction has been taken, and the 'ghosts' thing could be echo's of something rather like throwing a stone into still water and watching the ripples expand outward until reflected by an object in the waters surface (zen garden comes to mind here), I have often thought that places that have a reputation for the unexplained to occur could be like the object in the water causing the reflection of an event like an echo which gets manifested in the observable 'Now', in a kind of diminished/faint way.

It could also be the existence of other 'Timelines' as you say and at certain points these 'Timelines' can sometimes merge, I am thinking not in the sense they carry whole Universes with them but rather a place where other possibilities can emerge for this Reality/Universe to switch over, rather like roads or train tracks with junctions, and these would also act as the point for echos/ghosts to emerge.

[Moss318]

Time is the perfect vibration. It has no beginning or end it’s circular by nature.    The power of times autonomy has to be a manifestation of why we heal.
 

 

 

[TheConsultant]

Time is a measure and entirely human made. 

[jois]

39 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Time is a measure and entirely human made. 

I'm not sure about that. Certainly what we measure is a construct to reflect how we experience time. But time will still exist when we have gone

[TheConsultant]

1 hour ago, jois said:

I'm not sure about that. Certainly what we measure is a construct to reflect how we experience time. But time will still exist when we have gone

Time is illusory.

"Why is time controversial? It feels real, always there, inexorably moving forward. Time has flow, runs like a river. Time has direction, always advances. Time has order, one thing after another. Time has duration, a quantifiable period between events. Time has a privileged present, only now is real. Time seems to be the universal background through which all events proceed, such that order can be sequenced and durations measured. 

The question is whether these features are actual realities of the physical world or artificial constructs of human mentality. Time may not be what time seems — this smooth unity without parts, the ever-existing stage on which all happenings happen."

Can I guarantee that or would I bet money on it? no, but its not a "thing" outside of us. IMO.

 

[jois]

1 hour ago, TheConsultant said:

Time is illusory.

"Why is time controversial? It feels real, always there, inexorably moving forward. Time has flow, runs like a river. Time has direction, always advances. Time has order, one thing after another. Time has duration, a quantifiable period between events. Time has a privileged present, only now is real. Time seems to be the universal background through which all events proceed, such that order can be sequenced and durations measured. 

The question is whether these features are actual realities of the physical world or artificial constructs of human mentality. Time may not be what time seems — this smooth unity without parts, the ever-existing stage on which all happenings happen."

Can I guarantee that or would I bet money on it? no, but its not a "thing" outside of us. IMO.

 

Anything with mass experiences time.ie it decays over time or no time no change. Our concept of time as a linear flow in one direction , of the past ceasing to be ,of a future yet to happen it probably illusionary.

 

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for its existence excempt from us is time dilation is the cause of gravity. No time. no stars etal

Unless stars are illusionary?

Edited September 11, 2022 by jois

[TheConsultant]

5 minutes ago, jois said:

Anything with mass experiences time.ie it decays over time or no time no change. Our concept of time as a linear flow in one direction , of the past ceasing to be ,of a future yet to happen it probably illusionary.

 

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for its existence excempt from us is time dilation is the cause of gravity. No time. no stars etal

Unless stars are illusionary?

Time has no baring whatsoever on what we call gravity. None. Zilch. Nada. Gravity is acceleration towards counterspace. Whether that be between multiple bodies or on a singular body, its acceleration towards that infinite point. 

Edited September 11, 2022 by TheConsultant

[jois]

16 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Time has no baring whatsoever on what we call gravity. None. Zilch. Nada. 

I beg to differ.time dilation causes things to clump together.

 

That curved space thing is trying to explain relativity to simpletons. It's curved space time that causes gravity.

Edited September 11, 2022 by jois

[TheConsultant]

1 hour ago, jois said:

I beg to differ.time dilation causes things to clump together.

 

That curved space thing is trying to explain relativity to simpletons. It's curved space time that causes gravity.

Space is not a thing acting on something else and time is a manmade construct to measure mass and magnitude

Give this a whirl?

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by TheConsultant

[jois]

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

Space is not a thing acting on something else and time is a manmade construct to measure mass and magnitude

Give this a whirl?

 

No space time is a thing.nether space or time exist independently of each other.

 

It's Einstein saying this not me.

[TheConsultant]

29 minutes ago, jois said:

No space time is a thing.nether space or time exist independently of each other.

 

It's Einstein saying this not me.

Einstein was wrong. Space-Time is merely a euphemism for aether.

[jois]

42 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Einstein was wrong. Space-Time is merely a euphemism for aether.

Einstein was a bit wrong.his work doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics. He may be wrong on the largest scale of galaxies. Yet to be resolved with certainty

 

The bit in the middle has been tested to distruction.

 

Aether and space time could be considered analogous. Except one has a strict definition and can be shown to exist mathematically. The other doesn't have either and can't be detected.

 

But I'm fine with you calling space time aether if you want. As long as you use the space time definition and not just mumbo jumbo, otherwise conversation on the topic is near Impossible

Edited September 12, 2022 by jois

[TheConsultant]

52 minutes ago, jois said:

Einstein was a bit wrong.his work doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics. He may be wrong on the largest scale of galaxies. Yet to be resolved with certainty

 

The bit in the middle has been tested to distruction.

 

Aether and space time could be considered analogous. Except one has a strict definition and can be shown to exist mathematically. The other doesn't have either and can't be detected.

 

But I'm fine with you calling space time aether if you want. As long as you use the space time definition and not just mumbo jumbo, otherwise conversation on the topic is near Impossible

Einstein deleted aether with space-time and subsequently dumbed society down as a consequence of that. Correct observations in experimentation has no baring whatsoever on their explanation for what is occurring. A little magnet defies e=mc2 on its own, as well as the first and second laws of thermodynamics, newtonian law of gravitation and probably a lot more. What we erroneously call a gravitational wave is in fact a ripple in the aether.

Aether has been detected many times. Quantum just calls it Quantum Fields/liquid/gas/fluid. Its all field theory. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by TheConsultant

[jois]

6 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Einstein deleted aether with space-time and subsequently dumbed society down as a consequence of that. Correct observations in experimentation has no baring whatsoever on their explanation for what is occurring. A little magnet defies e=mc2 on its own, as well as the first and second laws of thermodynamics, newtonian law of gravitation and probably a lot more.

Aether has been detected many times. Quantum just calls it Quantum Fields/liquid/gas/fluid. Its all field theory.

Ok I'm good with you calling it quantum fields as well. As long as we are using the definition of actual quantum fields.

 

No magnets don't disprove Einstein or Newton. They do prove Maxwell to an extent.

But then Einstein s work was an expansion of maxwells

 

Would you care to explain why you think they might ?

Edited September 12, 2022 by jois

[TheConsultant]

7 minutes ago, jois said:

Ok I'm good with you calling it quantum fields as well. As long as we are using the definition of actual quantum fields.

 

No magnets don't disprove Einstein or Newton. They do prove Maxwell to an extent.

Pw

 

Would you care to explain why you think they might ?

I don't think they might, I know they do. What is the "force" holding a magnet on to a surface defying the gravitational effect? Where or what is that input? 

Zero input and yet has enough energy to negate gravity at 9.81m/s^2. So at zero, it defies E=MC^2.

What is your definition of a quantum field? 

And an experiment you can do at home:

Edited September 12, 2022 by TheConsultant

[jois]

9 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

I don't think they might, I know they do. What is the "force" holding a magnet on to a surface defying the gravitational effect? Where or what is that input? 

Zero input and yet has enough energy to negate gravity at 9.81m/s^2. 

What is your definition of a quantum field? 

Well sorry to state the obvious. But the force holding magnets to surfaces is electro magnetism as explain by maxwells equations.

 

In short electro magnetism is a more powerful " force"  than gravity

I've used quotations marks as it's not a fundamental force despite people commonly claiming otherwise.

 

The definition of quantum fields in that contained in the Schrödinger equations.

Edited September 12, 2022 by jois

[TheConsultant]

1 minute ago, jois said:

Well sorry to state the obvious. But the force holding magnets to surfaces is electro magnetism as explain by maxwells equations.

 

In short electro magnetism is a more powerful " force"  than gravity

I've used quotations marks as it's not a fundamental force despite people commonly claiming otherwise.

 

The definition of quantum fields in that contained in the Schrödinger equations.

Electromagnetism and magnetism are entirely different things.