Page 6 of 12

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:55 pm
I believe the first language depended upon imagination, which captures time perfectly due to its allowance of continuous change in imagination. Then, when abstract meaning entered the picture, it led to cause and effect within 'thought'. Thought depends upon cause and effect and meaning within that cause and effect, such as thinking 'i am here now' and 'i am there now' or 'I am thinking this now' and 'I am now thinking something else.' Thus cause and effect are of the nature of thought. Thought also captures time as broken up into temporal sequences as it takes one moment to the next for thought to appear. Only language can capture this cause and effect and temporality, although I am not sure which preceded which: the recognition of cause and effect and new meaning due to the temporality of such observed,or the language first and then the recognition of cause and effect and impermanence?

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:18 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:56 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
But my statement is true of relational time not absolute time which is repetitive
Is absolute time block time and how are relative and absolute time compatible
Absolute time is not block time. Someone, other than me, will have to determine compatibility. I did not need relative time. It seems like a question for Einstein or his successors.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:22 am
Block time is a frame of reference. It comes from combining two incompatible frames of reference: time and dimensions. To do that it was necessary to make time and dimensions compatible. Time is treated as if it is a distance. But if time is a distance, movement, states and energy can't exist. This is resolved by saying that dimensions move. But if dimensions move, that happens because they change states and there comes time; from changing states not from changing dimensions. Dimensions cab't change without time.

I have to take block time seriously because it is widely used by scientists, But from what I can figure, it is some sort of device that scientists use to get from point a in their logic to point b. It seems not to have a practical value because it is not used in watches or anything else.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:42 am
I think block time is objective time. By contrast subjective time is what we use because we have notions of past and present and future
But time might not be like that and like space simply be a point or location and nothing else. Time could also be the expansion of space
And there is the concept of no time or timelessness that I think is false. However that aside I am open minded as to what time could be

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:17 pm
There is no evidence that space moves. It just exists, immovable. The diagrams that show space changing are a depiction, not an actual representation of time. A time line shows that time is continuous, immovable. That is a useful depiction but hardly accurate because time is continuous in time not space. A fluctuating line would be better but would still exist in space. Depicting time in time is not possible because only one point in time exists at any one time. If this is confusing, its because I am using two connotations of the word time but there are not two words to use.

PS: As far as anyone knows space is not expanding. Objects in space are moving outward into undetected space that may have always existed.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:43 pm
I have not posted about space and I have some thoughts that could be pertinent to time and are definitely pertinent to space-time. The first thought I have is space is present. Whatever it is, it exists. It does not have measurable characteristics by itself but objects that are in space reveal the characteristics of space. I can’t say that space is nothing. Space is a wide expanse of abstract dots I might say. This is not technically accurate because dots can be thought of as physical while space cannot. But each dot is unique leading me to say that each space is unique. Now forget about dots. Each space is connected to many surrounding spaces and is indirectly connected to every space in the universe. The reason I say indirectly is because you cannot leap past spaces without physically passing over the interim spaces. But logic tells me that every space in the universe is physically within reach which means that space is connected directly or indirectly.

By the nature of how objects appear not only does space connect but it also separates. San Francisco and New York are separated by miles and miles but on a more basic level they are separated by space. One might instead say “they are separated in space.” Okay, but without space they wouldn’t be separated at all.

What I have said could be true. On the other hand space could be twisting, expanding, compressing and moving and no one would ever know. This is because the behavior of space doesn’t affect the behavior of objects in any way whatsoever. So there is no way of knowing how space behaves.

I tried to post a diagram of space time but I couldn't but I will tell you it is a diagram of space.

Physicists will say that this is not space. It’s space-time. If that is so, don’t make it look like space. Make it look like space-time whatever that looks like.

The reason I sound annoyed is because the physicists have no idea if space is curved or time is curved. So curved space time is neither time nor space. It's a hypothesis. I say prove it!

"The Physicists' New Clothes" by Hans Christian Anderson.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:59 pm
Am I the only person that questions space time?

It is possible to determine the characteristics (behavior?) of water and it is also possible to determine the characteristics of oceans but when you put the two together you haven’t created new characteristics that are neither water nor ocean. But that’s what space-time does.

As far as anyone knows time is not curved nor is space curved but space-time is.

Space is dimensional. Time is a sequence of changes. Yet space time is dimensional only.

Planes have a meaning for space alone. Planes have no meaning for time alone. Yet space time puts many different times on the same plane as many different spaces (this is true of some space-time depictions, not all.) To clarify, x,y,z exist on one plane together but all x,y,z,t exist on different planes. Showing x,y,z,t on one plane is not right and that is only if t is a plane which it's not.

We can measure time and we can measure space but we can’t measure space-time because space and time have incompatible measuring methods. Do I use a clock or do I use a yardstick for measuring space-time?

A space is connected to every other space in the universe but time is not connected to every space in the universe but space time suggests that all space times are connected. Time is not connected by space and space is not connected by time. The connections are independent of each other.
Space-time indicates that they are dependent on each other.

Space-time is a device. It is not logical on its own.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:04 pm
Space can be distorted or curved by gravity and so in that respect it is movable although a better term would be malleable
The larger an object of mass is the greater the distortion the greatest distortion occurs at the event horizon of black holes

Space and time are connected to each other as space is required in order for time to pass
Time cannot pass within a space of zero volume since such a space cannot exist in reality

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:19 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:04 pm Space can be distorted or curved by gravity and so in that respect it is movable although a better term would be malleable
There is no way to tell if space is curved because space has no measurable characteristics. Besides space doesn't interact with matter. It is only the media where objects exist. What this means is, that if gravity bends space, space does not bend the path of objects. Objects pass through space without being effected. You have learned something that was made up but I don't know why it was made up.

surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:04 pm
Space and time are connected to each other as space is required in order for time to pass
Time cannot pass within a space of zero volume since such a space cannot exist in reality
Other than connected, you are making a true statement but time is not connected to space and space is not connected to time. As an example time passes over space but doesn't connect to space in any way. Space-time seems to show that time is connected to space but that is one reason that space-time is invalid.

If you have a space of zero volume between two spaces of positive volume, that may be possible but time will not effect any of the three spaces because time effects objects not spaces.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:35 pm
There is a difference between "in space" and "by space". To accept space-time one would need to change in space to by space. That is not right.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:31 pm
Gravity exists in space over time. In space-time gravity seems to effect objects in different spaces and in different times at once (one time?) but its hard to graph gravity in 4 dimensions without violating some natural laws. In space-time, If you hold time constant, then gravity effects objects in space. If you hold space constant, gravity effects objects in time. But if you don't hold either constant, gravity seems to effect many objects in many times and in many spaces. How can that be?

In other words how can the source of gravity effect objects at x,y,z,t+n and also effect also effect objects at x+n,y,z,t? Are their 2 independent gravities and do they conflict with each other?

The answer is gravity only effects objects in three dimensional space the same as energy. But wait just a minute. If gravity effects objects in three dimensional space then objects are in three dimensional space not in 4 dimensional space.

I know that not everyone will follow my train of thought but, if a few do, then I have gained a small foothold.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:25 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:31 pm Gravity exists in space over time. In space-time gravity seems to effect objects in different spaces and in different times at once (one time?) but its hard to graph gravity in 4 dimensions without violating some natural laws. In space-time, If you hold time constant, then gravity effects objects in space. If you hold space constant, gravity effects objects in time. But if you don't hold either constant, gravity seems to effect many objects in many times and in many spaces. How can that be?

In other words how can the source of gravity effect objects at x,y,z,t+n and also effect also effect objects at x+n,y,z,t? Are their 2 independent gravities and do they conflict with each other?

The answer is gravity only effects objects in three dimensional space the same as energy. But wait just a minute. If gravity effects objects in three dimensional space then objects are in three dimensional space not in 4 dimensional space.

I know that not everyone will follow my train of thought but, if a few do, then I have gained a small foothold.
I need to simplify that last post. Space-time means that the gravity from the sun will effect both its past and future self and Earth's past and future position and as time passes there is an accumulation of gravity's effect.

No!

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:55 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Space can be distorted or curved by gravity and so in that respect it is movable although a better term would be malleable
There is no way to tell if space is curved because space doesnt have any measurable characteristics. Besides space doesnt interact with
matter. It is only the media where objects exist. What this means is that if gravity bends space space does not bend the path of objects
Objects pass through space without being effected
Space might not interact with matter but gravity does and it is gravity that exists in the space between objects
And so it bends the path of objects instead of space which is simply the medium that gravity propagates within

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:15 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:55 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Space can be distorted or curved by gravity and so in that respect it is movable although a better term would be malleable
There is no way to tell if space is curved because space doesnt have any measurable characteristics. Besides space doesnt interact with
matter. It is only the media where objects exist. What this means is that if gravity bends space space does not bend the path of objects
Objects pass through space without being effected
Space might not interact with matter but gravity does and it is gravity that exists in the space between objects
And so it bends the path of objects instead of space which is simply the medium that gravity propagates within
That's true and you confirm my understanding. A clarification not a contradiction to what I said.

If there were gravity in the fourth dimension it would effect the current universe. No effect, no gravity. No gravity, no masses. No masses, no objects.

### Re: Seeing Time

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:49 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:15 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:55 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
There is no way to tell if space is curved because space doesnt have any measurable characteristics. Besides space doesnt interact with
matter. It is only the media where objects exist. What this means is that if gravity bends space space does not bend the path of objects
Objects pass through space without being effected
Space might not interact with matter but gravity does and it is gravity that exists in the space between objects
And so it bends the path of objects instead of space which is simply the medium that gravity propagates within
That's true and you confirm my understanding. A clarification not a contradiction to what I said.

If there were gravity in the fourth dimension it would effect the current universe. No effect, no gravity. No gravity, no masses. No masses, no objects.
But you (and I) are in disagreement with the physicists who say that gravity warps space-time and that causes light to bend.