That is speed which is displacement divided by time. Speed is a mirage. The real thing is displacement and of course time otherwise the speed cannot be defined.-1- wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:58 pmTime is motion has not been proven. I totally agree with that. For two reasons:jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:53 pm Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.
1. Time does not mean motion. Time is displacement divided by speed. Nobody has tried to even suggest that time is motion.
2. Nothing gets proven. In science. It is a misconception to think that science endeavours to prove anything. It can't. It won't.
Seeing Time
Re: Seeing Time
Last edited by bahman on Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
If there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:24 amHow that (the bold part part) is possible when there is no time, which is a substance, that can differentiate them? In another word, cause and effect lie at the on a timeless point if there is no duration.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:46 pm Two states cannot exist together. But one state can precede and effect the next state. If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once. There is a chain of events that seem connected but in reality only the last state is connected directly to the present state.
One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.
There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
Time is an index, a measurement and a phenomenon. Speed is a measurement that doesn't cause the other two perspectives.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:28 amThat is speed which is displacement divided by time. Speed a mirage. The real thing is displacement and of course time otherwise the speed cannot be defined.-1- wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:58 pmTime is motion has not been proven. I totally agree with that. For two reasons:jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:53 pm Okay but time is motion has not been proven. Even if it is widely accepted, that does not make it true. I can deduce that motion requires time but that does not mean that time is motion. Throw out the unproven assumption and take a fresh look without the baggage of time is motion. There are dots connecting a theory but the dots aren't proven. Even so they lead to what time is without the conundrums we have now. Isn't it worth a try? After all evolution was not proven at first but later facts proved it was true.
1. Time does not mean motion. Time is displacement divided by speed. Nobody has tried to even suggest that time is motion.
2. Nothing gets proven. In science. It is a misconception to think that science endeavours to prove anything. It can't. It won't.
Re: Seeing Time
I am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:32 pmIf there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:24 amHow that (the bold part part) is possible when there is no time, which is a substance, that can differentiate them? In another word, cause and effect lie at the on a timeless point if there is no duration.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:46 pm Two states cannot exist together. But one state can precede and effect the next state. If duration is a natural phenomenon, there would be conflicts between many states and we would see many states at once. There is a chain of events that seem connected but in reality only the last state is connected directly to the present state.
One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.
There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
Re: Seeing Time
Time is only an index when we formulate motion. Time is real but we don't have any sense to experience it.
What do you mean?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 pm Speed is a measurement that doesn't cause the other two perspectives.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
When thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 pmI am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:32 pmIf there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.
One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.
There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
Re: Seeing Time
Gravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless. I have a question for you: Do we live in a temporal world or timeless one?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:47 pmWhen thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 pmI am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:32 pm
If there is only one state (at a time), then duration must be memories (in some sense) of past states. Memories exist in the brain or records, not in nature.
One state can be thought of as an accumulation of past states plus the current change. But the accumulation is not divisible into past states nor can the current change occur without the accumulation. For duration to occur in nature past accumulations would need to be stored in nature. I have no reason to believe that's true and in fact i can't see duration.
There is duration but it is not in nature. Yet the way time changes creates the basis for duration.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
We experience change and we associate time with change. The question is time only relational? I say no, there is a phenomenon that has not been explained.
Measurement is not a cause or a property. It is information about a cause or a property.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:15 pmWhat do you mean?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 pm Speed is a measurement that doesn't cause the other two perspectives.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
Your putting words in my mouth. I never said timeless. If I've confused you, I haven't been clear or you don't understand.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:56 pmGravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless. I have a question for you: Do we live in a temporal world or timeless one?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:47 pmWhen thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 pm
I am talking about causality which is real. Cause and effect must be separated from each other by a substance so called time. Without time, cause and effect lie at the same timeless point. This means that all processes should be performed on an instant which is not the case.
Re: Seeing Time
I didn't said that you said. I just asked a question.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:06 pmYour putting words in my mouth. I never said timeless. If I've confused you, I haven't been clear or you don't understand.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:56 pmGravity is something which allows causality. Time is something which allows causality to be temporal instead of timeless. I have a question for you: Do we live in a temporal world or timeless one?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:47 pm
When thinking about the source of time, one should look for a phenomenon that exists without time. Does gravity exist without time? Something must. And that something must create states, not time directly. Then time is the result of changing states not the cause. But without changing states there would not be processes at all. All objects would be fixed in their position.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
So, does gravity create states and time? Who knows, but I think it's a good guess, No?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pmDoes gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
Re: Seeing Time
Yes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pmDoes gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
You seem to be saying that the force of gravity is a function of change in mass. But gravity is a function of mass not change in mass.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:20 pmYes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pmDoes gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Seeing Time
My thinking is that there must be something that exists when there are no states and there is no time. Perhaps there is some mysterious wave. Gravity waves is my guess. But there must be something that opens and closes each state and that something must have a physical impact (that is so subtle that it has never been measured or it has been measured but hasn't been associated with time.]