Time Exists , but has No Efficacy

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by river, Nov 1, 2020.

  1. river

    Messages:
    15,667

    True

    To your first statement ; in your last statement , highlighted ;

    Yes

    Second ; Yes

    Wrong ; only subjectively .

    Temporal measurement is based on the Physical Movements of Physical Things ; as is duration .

    Duration is Not Measured movement . But observed movement .

    Time is always there , its just a Consequence of Physical Things Existence , Physical Properties , Interactions , Movements . Time on its own just has no efficacy on any of the above .
     
    Morpheus22 and Ethernos 1997 like this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Plenty of reputable evidence in the sciences and on the net with regards to the reality of time, and its inexorable connection with space.
    This sort of stuff by river is nothing more then attempted trolling and flaming of science with meaningless chimpanzee like chatter.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    Highlighted

    So without space there is no time ?

    Yet without time , space exists .
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    could u please share the link??
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    The Cosmological Time though , is Based on the Speed of Light .

    So from All Galaxies , Looking at Other Galaxies , And no matter the form of measurement used , by Any Being in any Galaxy , the Speed of Light is the Same .

    Agreed here pad .
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2020
  9. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Time Exists , but has No Efficacy

    A bit like this thread really.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    Explain . (You know ) So we don't have to guess .
     
  11. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    This thread exists, but it delivers nothing of value, effectiveness or efficacy. Perhaps if you were not so close to the problem the explanation would have been unnecessary.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    It delivers alot more efficacy than you realise .

    My " Closeness " to this problem has nothing to do with Wanting YOUR Thinking ; Your Perspective .
     
  13. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    If it were efficacious then that would easily realised. Since its efficacy is not apparent it is, ipso facto, non-efficacious.

    I didn't say it did. Your closesness to the problem was a diplomatic way of noting that you are the problem, or rather YOUR thinking is the problem.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    From post#9

    By Hipparchia

    The efficaciousness is easily realised . You just responded .
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2020
  15. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    That may make sense to you. It sounds like a troubled digestive system to me.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    How so ? What is troubling ?

    Go back to post#9 .
     
  17. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    There is no apparent sense in what you said. Post #9 doesn't help in the slightest.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    Why ? What's missing ? Why does it not make sense to you ?
     
  19. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    For Pete's sake man. What a dumb question. There isn't a hint of meaning, of sense, of intent, of anything. It's just a jumble of words strung together with no rhyme or reason. It makes no sense to me because it is nonsense.

    The only excuse I can see for you is that you have invested those words with a wealth of background significance peculiar to you, so that when you say A, and I read it as A, you think it means ABHJEDIFHRHT. Well, it doesn't. Go take a creative writing course at a community college and then try again.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    Back to the OP ; does time in and of its self have efficacy on anything ? NO
     
  21. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,141
    Is distance an observable? I would say yes, that's what it is. You don't have to accurately measure a distance to assert, via observation, the distance is 'real'.

    Now, you might argue that the distance exists because a whole lot of quantum states have collapsed to a classical state, Or Something.
    We assume, for perhaps no other reason than convenience, that distance and by association time, are completely passive components in dynamics: a pendulum needs space to 'operate' in, but doesn't operate on the space. No, I say, a swinging pendulum does not "operate" on distance, but leaves it unchanged.

    Imagine a world where, to go anywhere you have to account for distance changing because as you move, the distance changes because of some operator. As in QM, observation means changing a state, amirite?
    What kind of theory would explain this observation, in the above hypothetical world: even approximating the distance from A to B constitutes measurement, right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2020
  22. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    Absolutely True

    Highlighted

    Agreed

    Interesting
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    15,667
    That would be pure chaos . Extend that out into the Universe .
     

Share This Page