What is "Time" made of?

Yes. In philosophy class. Descarte I believe. Everything could be an illusion. But I never applied this to physics. More metaphysical.

It's interesting to think about, but I find this sort of thinking leads to a lot of dead ends and rarely any practical experiments or uses in "real life" (or rather the "big illusion" if you prefer).

::update:: oops... the response below for vx220...

As far as time = motion. I see that we have a fundemental difference of opinion that can not be resolved. I feel the universe would exist even if it didn't exist in our minds and that there are potentially portions of the universe which exist forever outside our observation. I believe these loctions are real and experience time without our observation. I believe complete destruction of the earth does not mean the end of universal time... even if we were to be the only life in the universe.

But I see I'm not going to convince you. Your view is as valid as mine. It would be nearly impossible to disprove your argument (or prove mine) in experiment, but now I see where you're coming from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Holographic storage. Quantum computers. Quantum teleportation. There are plenty of experiments which prove that there is no solid universe, and that the quantum world (the real world), there is non locality. The fact that observation changes information, and the fact that there is proof that distance and seperateness isnt real, and the fact that if you break a hologram theres infinitely smaller holograms, it basically proves the thesis that "matter" is a hologram. We have teleported atoms, in such a way that one atom was in two places at the same time, this is impossible unless there is just one thing under the surface of it all.


As far as time = motion. I see that we have a fundemental difference of opinion that can not be resolved. I feel the universe would exist even if it didn't exist in our minds and that there are potentially portions of the universe which exist forever outside our observation. I believe these loctions are real and experience time without our observation. I believe complete destruction of the earth does not mean the end of universal time... even if we were to be the only life in the universe.

What I said had nothing to do with the earth, or earth based life. I said the universe does not exist outside of divine observation. Just as a quantum particle comes into existance when you observe it, the universe is the same, it only exists because it has cosmic observation in place to maintain the three dimensional structure of matter.

I'm saying that if there were no observers, the material hologram would collapse out of existance back into a singularity, a quantum dot of absolute unity. I'm saying the big bang is the source of all observation, all life, and the spread of energy which is the spread of life and observation, along with design.

I'm saying that the universe cannot and does not exist without energy. I'm saying matter is energy. I'm saying that observation is the universe, and that which cannot be seen, heard, felt, experienced, or observed, ceases to exist, and the only reason anything exists is because it's observeable.

I don't even mean observeable by humans, I'm saying observable by any potential lifeform of the future, or of the past, or of the present, I'm saying any thing which exists must be observable. This is universal law. Very much like the law of life and death.

So if you believe the universe would exist even if you cannot observe it, it's equal to the belief that there is a heaven or hell, even though you have no way of observing it. Quantum entanglement we CAN observe, quantum particles we have seen teleport, morph, and phase into and out of existance with observation. It's basically a fact at this point. The most important quote I can give to explain it all

Our universe is a quantum dot, a singularity, that expands as observation expands. Motion is not real, because the true universe is just a dot, a 2 dimensional dot, or maybe even a 2 dimensional string. This is if you follow string theory.

The reason I prefer a dot is because, at some point there was a big bang, and a singularity, this much is proven, at some point all of us, all of this, we were just a dot of energy, so small and so tight that it was absolute unity of existance, everything was one dot. If consciousness existed within that one dot, we were one person, one being, one consciousness. This was a timeless moment. The creation of the material 3d universe is what caused the creation of the seperateness of existance, distance, change, because you cannot have a 3d universe without the 4d which is change, so you had 1d dot, which became a 2d string/line, which becomes a 3d sphere, which spins in 4d change, in 5d space (infinite distance in all directions, infinite expansion, infinite sizes).

To help you see what I mean, I'll show you an image.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The math
http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/overview.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wormsworth, you ask me to answer questions that I can not answer. I do not accept the notion of time as you do, therefore I can not answer your questions which imply that time is something everflowing or even absolute and must flow even if there is nothing in the universe. This requires absolute time which is proven false.
Most our dynamic physics formulas are based on time - it is a concept hard and impractical to give up on. But time can basicly be substituted by the reference repetitive motion - clock ticks or whatever. If we do that then all of a sudden all relativistic phenomena and paradoxes of time dilation become much more obvious and clearer.

Relative motion is considered to be the same in both reference frames. Distance contracts. Since the distance contracts - it contracts for our reference repetitive motion(clock ticks or whatever) also which makes the clock tick rate change when compared to the static clock tick rate that didnt experience distance contraction - this is the time dilation.

I would rather define the universe with everflowing angular dimensions.

Take those two solid bodies of yours. Their attractive motion is a wave like motion. For each position of the two bodies, their distance is sine of the angle and their motion is cosine of the angle. As the "relative" angle for the two bodies system progresses linearly their distance increases and their motion decreases. At maximum distance the angle is 90 degrees and continues to progress over 90 degrees. At that point the motion goes into negative and distance starts to decrease as they follow the sine and cosine of the angle. The amplitude and frequency of this wavelike motion is the total energy of the system. Amplitude is the initial kinetic energy of the bodies when they started separating, frequency is the mass - gravity.

It is a bit mind melting to apply this way of thinking to more than two bodies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The purpose of science is to understand the universe, practical and useful things are just side effects.

 

I started a TIME EXPLAINED thread a while back, basically saying time, like heat, is a "derived effect" of motion:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59521

 

Farsight

Please stop spamming the forums!

 

As I understand it, Time is the timing among infinitely many superpositions, that exist between total symmetry (no superposition is distinct) and total broken symmetries (each superposition is collapsed into a unique universe).

Both superpositions and unique universes are the result of the association between locality and non-locality.

For more information, please look at:

1) Locality and Non-locality logical foundations:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf


2) Time/Space relations:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf


3) Awareness:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TAP.pdf

 

ShadmiDoron

Please stop spamming the forums!

 

DH,

My stuff is deeply connected to this thread.


Please show us that it doesn't !

 

No thanks. Your stuff is complete gibberish. "Nothing" and "something". Please. You, as the proponent of a new concept, need to show that it this concept is meaningful and is tied to reality.

 

No, it is "nothing" or "something", and, is far as I can see, it is beyond your personal abilities to grasp it.

I see that you also know what reality is:

So, please explain us what do you mean by "tied to reality"?

 

Motion.Without motion time does not pass

 

Yes, there has probably been quite a bit of motion during the nearly six (6) years since this thread was last active.

Welcome, bfc, sorry to be a prat.

 

If you have something to say on this subject, please start a new thread. This one was started over 10 years ago!