How to explain motion if time does not exist

In what way is time intrinsic to matter? Can you explain why you think it is? Or the converse: in what way is matter intrinsic to time?

Entropy is an abstraction because energy is an abstraction. We can determine changes or differences in energy; we can't "measure energy" by itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you saying? You realize measurements are derived from knowledge of changes or differences?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you saying?

Ok, now I have two questions for you: can you measure energy (rather than changes or differences in energy)? And secondly, in what way is time intrinsic to matter?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@arfa brane

Measurement is observation of changes or differences so changes or differences in energy are directly used to measure it. If time wasn't an intrinsic property of matter it wouldn't be possible even hypothetically to measure matter.​

 

Is that why I said:

And is it why you've said that changes or differences in energy are "directly used" to measure it? You mean of course that we "directly" measure the changes or differences, not the energy itself?

Not so. Measurement itself imples that time exists, but it doesn't imply that matter exists. Measurement is extrinsic, not intrinsic. Time is an intrinsic property of measurement then. Do you think measurement is also an intrinsic property of matter?

 

I disagree

you are using the nature of matters movement to argue that time is a intrinsic property , that not true

if we follow from what you have suggested , that would mean that time could and can influence changes or differences , time can't

give me an example where time is introduced into any physical situation of change or difference , and influenced this movement , alone

 

There can be no movement unless it occurs in time. There can be no change of any sort unless it occurs over time. Space and time cannot be separated, period.

 

This is just a word game measurement is precisely observation of changes or differences.

To put it succinctly time is fundamentally change itself so time/measurement is an intrinsic property of matter, it would help to know what you mean by extrinsic however. Perhaps you're confusing units which are assigned to measurements for measurements themselves, the units are abstractions just like axiomatic mathematical constructs are.

 

time is irrelevant to any movement

time is the resultant consequence of movement

space and time is seperated by times irrelevence to any movement

 

and thats ALL measurement is

nothing more

 

what do you mean by this statement ?

 

So change is an intrinsic property of matter, and since time is fundamentally change, time is also an intrinsic property of matter, you think?

You're saying that time changes because matter changes?

So that means that observation can't be made unless something changes, so since an amount of energy isn't a change in energy, you can't measure energy "directly"?

Is observation an intrinsic or an extrinsic property of matter?

 

river

Non-sense. Movement is defined by displacement in space over time. Spacetime is the 4 dimensional framework within which movement or change takes place. Without time no movement can occur.

Time is a component of the measurement of movement. Time exists whether or not movement occurs but not vice versa. Movement does not create time, it only occurs within time/space. It's all relative(study your Relativity).

Not according to men much better informed and more intelligent than you seem to be. Both Space and time are the definers of what the Universe is, we exist in spacetime as does all movement or change. Einstein knew what he was talking about, you don't.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

movement is " defined " by displacement in space over time sure

but the displacement has nothing to do with time , in and of itself

understand my point ?

 

Time, and space, can be considered intrinsic. If we have two identical events in time, either the difference in their times is an intrinsic difference between the two or both events are intrinsically the same event. The exact same event happening at two different times would violate causation. Each event would entail the same space and objects, which would cause differences in the second event, having the first in its causation chain.

This is easier to understand of space. If location is not an intrinsic difference of the objects then a single object must exist in two places at once.

Conversely, the only argument for a strictly extrinsic time and space is that we can subjectively think of each as empty and independent of objects or events.

 

My rhetorical question was not what happens to time in the absolute, but in the context of the photon world of timelessness, as it impinges upon the real world.

 

All of this rebuttal is based upon a mangling of my comments, to suit yourself. As I continue to remind you of my actual comments, you continue to reinvent them and launch spurious arguments. But they are not my comments, they are yours. So you are arguing with yourself, not me.

I will reiterate, and attempt to clarify what you have blurred:

(1) The OP asks:

IF there is no such thing as time, how to describe and explain motion?

(2) This is impossible. Reality exists (as we conventionally mean "exist") only in the domain of time. We are asked to consider a reality that is impossible, one that does not exist.

(3) One such reality could be imagined as the reality of a photon, or "at" the event horizon of the universe, or of a black hole, or of a quantum string (as some physicists speculate).

(4) These apparently timeless realities somehow coincide within the framework of spacetime, or at least they leave traces of such coincidence. Assuming, without deciding, that these realities constitute another world devoid of our spacetime and in which the laws of physics do not apply, then they may be used as templates for consideration of a timeless world that impinges on our world.

(5) In this manner, at the presumed interface between disparate realities, we may construct a model in which the motion present in our world might manifest itself, in the reverse of the mechanism by which these objects exhibit the properties of a singularity to us.

(6) Such a model would allow for the motion in our world to be explained or described in a coincident timeless world, thereby giving a basis from which to answer the OP:

IF there is no such thing as time, how to describe and explain motion?

(7) The model assumes that time collapses, or vanishes, upon approach to the model horizon.

(8) "At" this model horizon time ceases to exist. Ignoring all other explanations or consequences, we now have a model vantage point to imagine how a hypothetical observer at the model horizon, looking back at reality, might perceive, explain and describe the motion of the universe:

(a) As velocity.
(b) As trajectory.
(c) As spectra.

(9) This notion, of standing outside of time and describing or explaining motion, is not mine, but the one suggested by the superposition of the person of Brian Greene, as hypothetical observer, onto a graphical model of all of spacetime, integrated over time, from his Nova version of Fabric of the Cosmos. Here he is cutting slices of time, with a device that merges the properties of a laser pointer, a light saber, and a cosmic screwdriver:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We shall see below.

Very much true, and not anything that I have rebutted.

This is a faulty depiction of both the photon and the event horizon. The photon's time would hypothetically continue to "tick" normally, local to the photon, regardless of how length contracted its path was and the consequential speed that it could cover such a path. The "photon's time" doesn't change, only the space of its path does.

An observer falling into an event horizon would observe normal local time even though a remote observer would see the appearance of that local observer's time coming to a stop.

The "timelessness" is an artifact of a remote observer. It is not real locally.


Everything that follows that seems to be only a conflation of the static representation of time with the remote observation, implying the motion to be real in the representation only because you assume the reality of the "timelessness" observed by a remote observer.

It's not the end of the world. It just means that you need to differentiate the local and remote observations.

 

river

Understand what you are saying, yes. That does not change the fact that what you are saying is non-sense. There cannot be a displacement in space without a displacement in time as well. Time has EVERYTHING to do with motion or change in spacetime. Without time there is no possible change, be it in position, in properties or in condition. This is at the very heart of Relativity/spacetime and just because you cannot or will not understand that reality changes(over time)nothing.

Can a race be run before the starter starts timing it? Does the distance the runners cover occur over time? Does it even make sense to say that the distance was covered in no time? During the countdown to the start does time pass even though no motion has yet occurred? When the race has been run does time stop? What you have stated about time is just non-sense.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The existence of time for conscious observers I think depends on the existence of memory.
Without memory and the ability to store information and recall it, we would not be able to place events in any order.

People with certain kinds of damage to their brain can lose the ability to order their memories properly. The ordering of memories is the important part, not the storage of information itself. Obviously it's advantageous for conscious observers to be able to do this, and clearly people who lose this ability are at a disadvantage--their survival now depends on help from other people.

In the context of observers being made of matter, what happens to the question I asked about whether observation is intrinsic or extrinsic to matter? Is memory an intrinsic or extrinsic property of brains made of matter? Memory appears to depend on the maintenance of structure, of interconnections between neurons.

Can particles like electrons "remember" events? I think the answer to that question depends on whether such particles can store information. But, even people who can no longer order (remember) events can still observe them. Observation is not the same as memory, without memory there is no ordering of events and no sense of time.