uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pmI'm simply saying that as to the true nature of time, if it even exists, no one can say they necessarily know.
That's been dealt with on this thread. Whatever the "true nature of time, if it even exists", the only thing that we can measure, or count, is periodic events.
But there are NO actual periodic events, so there are NO actual intervals to measure.
Human beings have just devised, invented, and created a way to make measurements. They use increments for these measurements. But just because human beings, themselves, MADE UP increments and a measuring tool like a clock, does NOT mean there are actual increments, periods, nor intervals in Life, Itself. Giving names to differing increments used for measuring, for example like the passing of one day to the next day, last hour compared to this hour, et cetera, and, giving a single name, like 'time', to this type of measuring does NOT mean that 'time', itself, exists nor that there are any actual period events to measure. Human beings, by the very nature measuring some thing with separated human made increments, does NOT mean there are actual separating things like periodic events. The actual process of measuring makes the one event look like and thus seem like separate periodic events.
If an observer only wants to see separate events, then they can, AND, if another observer only wants to see one event, then they can also. But, if an observer actually wants to see
what IS, which is the Truth of ALL things, then they can also see that. Remember, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm For all practical purposes, that
is time. Periodic events demonstrably, without any exceptions, have always been observed to 'take longer' the faster the arena they happen in is moving, and/or the stronger the gravitational field in which they occur.
What do you mean by 'periodic events', 'demonstrably', 'without any exceptions', have 'always' been observed to take longer?
I have NOT observed what you are proposing here.
To Me, there is only ONE event, which as of yet I have NOT observed to take any longer nor any shorter relative to the speed I am traveling or not-traveling in when compared to any other thing also. So, nothing like what you say has been demonstrated to Me, yet. Is that ONE EXCEPTION? And, how long is 'always'? Is there any evidence that what you are proposing 'has ALWAYS' been observed? If so, then by who?
Also, I thought others said that NO MATTER how fast the arena one happens to be in and is moving, what you call, "periodic events" or what others might call "time" changes at the same rate of let us say one day per day. That is there would NOT be any noticeable difference to observe.
Is the rate of change noticeably different in the frame or arena that one is in the faster one is moving?
NOT every one observes the same things here.
I agree, wholeheartedly, that things can APPEAR to have changed, to some people, the faster one has moved, BUT do things ACTUALLY change is another matter?
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pmSpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pmThings within the universe can be directly influenced by other things in the universe. Before anyone can say with certainly, all things within the universe must be considered and eliminated as possible influences, before any single influence can be said to be a causal.
We can manipulate things like electromagnetic fields with ease, and there is absolutely no evidence that even huge differences make any difference.
So what?
What human beings can do is one thing. What the Universe, Itself, can do is another thing.
To say, some thing happens BECAUSE of one or two things, without looking at ALL the possibilities of WHY 'some thing happens' speaks for itself about human beings closed way of looking at things.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm Whereas even minute differences in gravitational fields are shown to affect the rate of processes.
The 'processes' of WHAT, exactly?
And reaching the conclusion that 'some thing happens' in gravitational fields solely because of the
gravitational fields, themselves, without looking at EVERY thing speaks more about human beings closed way of looking, "learning, and discovering". If outcome also happens to coincide with what was EXPECTED, then more questions should be asked to HOW EXACTLY were the findings reached.
I have also heard scientific reports about how television watching in younger children is associated with the development of asthma. Just maybe watching television develops asthma, but I wonder if they take into consideration ALL things BEFORE they come to reach that conclusion. To Me, there is a whole range of questions I could ask in regards to HOW EXACTLY they came to that finding.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pmHow much does humankind actually know? I'm not talking of what we believe we know? What do we actually know with certainty? Can we ever know the answer to that question?
What we know is that processes happen less frequently the greater the speed, and/or the stronger the gravitational field.
If you did not answer the question earlier, the PROCESSES of WHAT EXACTLY is 'it', which you say you KNOW happen less frequently the greater the speed, and/or the stronger the gravitational field?
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm We know that, because we can see it.
In the current era of when this is written, some people KNEW that no physical thing can travel at or faster than the speed of light. "It is impossible", they would say. These people KNEW this because that is HOW THEY LOOKED AT THINGS and thus ONLY what they saw. "They know that, because we can see it", they would say, and thus they were also NOT open to any thing contrary.
In earlier eras, some people KNEW that to run the four minute mile was physically impossible for human beings. "It is impossible", they would say. These people KNEW this because that is HOW THEY LOOKED AT THINGS and thus ONLY what they saw. "We know that, because we can see it", they would say, and thus they were also NOT open to any thing contrary.
In an even earlier era than that, some people KNEW that for human beings to travel faster than a horse that it was physically impossible. "It is impossible", they would say. These people KNEW this because that is HOW THEY LOOKED AT THINGS and thus ONLY what they saw. "We know that, because we can see it", they would say, and thus they were also NOT open to any thing contrary.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pmWhat we don't know, is the mechanism that causes it.
Just maybe there is NO mechanism that causes "it". Just maybe there is no actually slowing of "time", and it is ONLY just what APPEARS to happen. Or, is that just impossible?