Seeing Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:30 pm

In a different article in Philosophy Now, there is the following quote:

"A statement is conventionally true if and only if it is acceptable to common sense and consistently leads to successful practice… A statement is ultimately true if and only if it corresponds to the facts and neither asserts nor presupposes the existence of any conceptual fictions.”

Why is block time exempt from those precepts? Don't accept block time. Examine it's logic.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:59 pm

Reference is a relation between objects in which a set of representations designate, or acts as a means by which to connect to or link to, objects. The reference is accomplished through a name or other proxy for the objects that are being referred to,

All the senses are representations. Odors are representations of physical objects and, while the science of odors focuses on the formation of odors, the purpose of odors is to represent objects.

Fire and lemons are two different unrelated things, but the odor of smoke and the odor of lemons relates them.. People can react to smoke and lemons, The odor of smoke and the odor of lemons are related even though the two are not physically related.

Odor can be said to be a frame of reference or a set of criteria in relation to which judgments can be made. Moreover odors can be seen as abstract. While their formation is determined, their manifestation is not but their manifestation is completely different from the objects they represent.

As a whole senses are for reference.

Time, in one contest, is used to link to events. Block time links to events as well but relates to indiscernible events. They can't be proven unless the logic is unassailable. It's not!

I should point out that time, the frame of reference, comes from memories which are discernible. Block time doesn't come from memories.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:33 pm

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events as specified by seconds, minutes hours or dates.

A timeline is a representation of related events arranged in chronological order and located along a line.

Time progresses while a timeline locates events.

Space-time is a system of one temporal and three spatial coordinates by which any physical object or event can be located.

So space-time locates events similarly to a timeline.

Timelines don’t progress. Time on a timeline is represented by distance. Time in space-time is represented by distance. Neither the timeline nor space-time progress. They are distances, not time. Time causes events to progress, distances don’t. With time, events in space-time can move. Without time, events in space-time cannot move.

Space-time is a spatial representation of a non-spatial phenomenon.

Physicists may know this but many people don't.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:40 pm

Saying that a timeline is time like is not true. It's a play on words.

This is a specific example of a fallacy that comes from a compound word.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:24 pm

A frame of reference is a way of referring to something. Dimensions are a way of referring to space. It is used to specify locations and distances. Calling dimensions, “space”. Is a misnomer. Calling time, another frame of reference, “events” is also a misnomer. Combining dimensions and time creates a frame of reference for locations, distances and events in a dimensional format but does not create locations or events.

Dimensions and time are still used as separate frames of reference as always because two frames of reference are more useful than a combined frame of reference which is not useful except to people who don't understand "frame of reference".

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:18 pm

Dimensions are used to represent locations in space. They have three perpendicular lines which intersect at any point. The point of intersection gives the coordinates of any point.

Block time has three lines as well, 2 for space and one for time. Without a third spatial line block time does not represent locations in space. It places timelines in three dimensions. Block time is not a way of locating points in space. Representations of timelines in space is not useful and block time can’t be used to locate points.

But block time is deemed to lead to reality which is reversed from reality leads to concepts.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:07 am

I have a text about space-time. The authors don't get to space time until chapter 5. Before that they explain relativity without referencing space-time. Is space-time even necessary?

In addition my objection is to the term "space-time" as well as certain claims made about space-time. The term space-time comes from the identity t=d(lt) where d(lt) is the distance light travels in a set time. d(lt) and t are in meters usually. (Go figure)

Now I don't know about anyone else but I would think that space-time is actually space-d(lt). Calling space-d(lt), "space-time" is not accurate.

Another issue is whether there is actually a fourth dimension. I might have a set different lens and the world looks different through each lens. That doesn't mean that the lenses create a fourth dimension. Does it?

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 pm

If you ask ask a young child "How does a car move?", they might say, "Mommy makes the car move" which is true but incomplete. This is a simplistic answer.

Why does anything move? Energy. E=MC^2. M comes from the big bang which is an incomplete answer. C comes from distance and time which are relational and not explanatory. But these posts are about time and relational to movement is not an acceptable answer for time, especially since movement is the question.

I have proposed that time comes from changing states and changing states comes from something physical like gravity waves. Even if that's wrong, it is an explanation that is non-relational. Ultimately this explanation will start with the big bang but it seems to me that it advances the discussion of time beyond "it's relational".

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:39 pm

In science, advances are often made with theories that make sense. They come from what it dies, to what it is to how it does it. Until it is discovered how it does it, it may make sense but it isn't proven.

A rain god may make sense to some primitive people but how a rain god causes rain was never explained, So rain god is only a theory and not a good one.

I don't know how gravity does what it does but it makes sense so I accept it. I don't accept space-time because space time is a frame of reference and frames of reference don't explain how it's done, bot even a little bit.

Does time create the past or does the past create time? Are both true because there are two connotations for time?

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:33 pm

I have thought that I must in over my head. I seem to be at odds with Einstein and Einstein has been proven again and again.

I do not challenge Einstein about what relativity is and what it does. What it is and what it does have been proven and although I can’t prove it myself, I accept what the physicists say.

But space is relational to objects and time is relational to movement. If the relations change in relativity, what causes the relations to change? It must be that objects change distance and/or position and movement must change velocity and/or direction. Otherwise the relations don’t change at all.

I suppose that “space-time” is not relational to objects, movement or even events but then what is it? What is it comprised of, how was it formed and how does it operate? Don’t say it can be curved. What aspect of space-time is curved? Certainly not space nor time which are relational and can only appear to be curved by curving objects.

Space-time is the miracle substance/phenomenon that physicists say they have proven (but I am skeptical).

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:20 pm

There are two connotations to cause. Dry weather doesn’t cause sprinklers but dry weather causes a person to water the lawn. Dry is indicative of the need for water.

Many phenomenons are indicative. Colors are indicative but not physical but light waves are physical. Without colors, light waves have no indicative effect on people. Time is indicative not physically causative. Distance is indicative but not physically causative. Numbers are indicative but not physically causative.

Some physical occurrences are not discernible but are detectable and explain phenomenon that are discernible. Light waves are not discernible but are detectable and are explanatory for vision. Space-time is not discernible nor does it physically explain time. Until space-time has a physical cause it is a theory and a theory that has serious flaws (as I have previously pointed out). In the meantime space-time does not have a detectable cause and so it should be considered with skepticism.

Absolute time may be linked to gravitation waves which are physically detectable, might exist without motion and may create states which could be a basis for time. I suggest that it is a theory that can be seriously considered.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:07 pm

Space-time and block time are seriously flawed concepts yet they are also deeply imbedded in scientific literature. They are attributed to Einstein. I have my doubts about that and it seems to me that he must be wrongly quoted.

The question I can't answer is why? Who stands to gain from this fiction?

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:42 pm

Real-time is the point at which processes and events occur. While real-time is in the present now, it was also in the past when past processes and events occurred. This has to be true. If real time was not in the past, processes and events could not have occurred.

When thinking about the past, present and future the function of real-time needs to be recognized as the source and the explanation of time must start with real-time. Saying that the past leads to the present is perhaps true with regard to sequence of events and processes but the function of real-time is not dependent on the past.

To see this consider a sprinkler. The function of the sprinkler is not dependent on the past location of the sprinkler head but where the sprinkler points is dependent on the past. The same is true of time. Thinking of time as a function of the past is thinking of a progress. Time is a function of real-time and the function of real-time is unconstrained by the past.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests