I always have a big problem with definitions of time that include words such as 'rate' and 'pass' because they include 'time' in them. Pass (Passes) Become later by the passage of a given amount of time Rate A magnitude or frequency relative to a time unit All are therefore circular, and basically say 'time is time'. Any discussion following from that (the title of this thread is Time Explained) is flawed at the source, imo.

Correct. As I said in earlier post :"clocks do not mesure time" as time does not exist with any properties than could be mesured. See more in my reply to Lakon below: Yes and no. Yes if tacitly assumed is that time is actually something; but no if time, t, is correctly described as I have in prior post, as just a convenient parameter in many equations. I proved that is the case by telling how "t", that parameter, can be totally eliminated from any and all equations pairs (Or in earlier posts, with more math difficulties from all equations that now exist.)* Real motions or chemical changes can be related direcly to each other, with no need of the paramter, we call "time." I gave the example of "swings of a pendulum" (with common equation using parameter, t) and candle burning down rate (Also with common equation using parameter t). I.e. just solve both these "t-parameter" equations for "t" and equate the two different equations giving "t". Then you have one equation, with no reference to "t" in it which tell how may pendulum swings happen per mm of candle burn down. Time is only a convent paramete that often keeps physical description equations more simple, but not always even that. For example no one (not insane) describes how fuel efficient their car is by giving one equation telling the time rate of fuel use (i.e. gallons per minute) and another equation giving the time it requires to travel a mile forward.(i.e. t =1/ speed in miles per minute). They give the gallons per mile of travel directly, with no reference to time. I.e. they give the mpg data, but if some insane person did give you these two separate "t-parameter" equations, you could elimate parameter "t" from them as I explained to get the direct (no referrence to time) mpg data. Again: Time is not an observable that can be measured - it has no real existence. It is ONLY a convenient (some times) parameter in equations. *, By reducing "n time containing equations" to n-1 equations without any referrence to time parameter, t.

Which is exactly why I coin the phrase, "time simply passes" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I like that perspective on time in equations. In effect, isn't that what spacetime math has solved? Every variable has the speed of light as a common denominator, and time is derived from the distance light travels through the medium of space. If the energy density of the given space is variable, then the rate that light traverses that space will vary. The difference between the distance light travels in an energy density measurement, and in a spacetime measurement equals the curvature. Now one just has to decide if they want to use spacetime whose mechanism is geometry and math, or if they want to use matter and energy as wave phenomena where energy density would govern, as in the "gravity's mechanism" hypothesis. (views=762)

Time Experienced( lag rates of cognition ) Lage rates of cognition or as Fuller further attempts to clarify, if humans existed at speeds-of-radiation, there would be no experience of time. Physical time = frequency of somethingness--- crossings/points ---interspersed with intervals of seeming nothingness aka spaces of time between points/crossings of time. Time = change = motion = passing = arriving-departing = inter-transformations as reality ergo degrees of consciousness. r6

No change is real, some thing one can observe. For example an ice cube melting, but time can not be observed and thus certainly can not be measured by any clock, including the ice cube melting clock.

Time-After-Time..( A Lyric To a Musical Score? ) http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/after/after.html Fuller}.."The phenomenon lag is simply due to the limited mechanism of the brain. We have to wait for the afterimage in order to realize. The norm of Einstein is absolute speed instead of at rest. "At rest" was what we called instantaneous in our innocence of yesterday. We evolute toward ever lesser brain comprehension lags__ergo, toward ever diminishing error; ergo, ever diminishing misunderstandings; ergo, ever diminishing fear, and its brain-lagging painful errors of objectivity; wherefore we approach eternal instantaneity of absolute and total comprehension. The eternal instantaneity of no lag at all. However, we have now learned from our generalizations of the great complexity of the interactions of principles as we are disembarrassed of our local, exclusively physical chemistry of information-sensing devices__that what is approached is eternal and instant awareness of absolute reality of all that ever existed. All the great metaphysical integrity of all the individuals, which is potential and inherent in the complex interactions of generalized principles, will always and only coexist eternally.".....

I occasionally look at your posts just out of curiosity or because of the interesting heading. Without wishing to sound offensive I have to tell you that in all cases, I am completely underwhelmed and disappointed, and that it all sounds like total gibberish.

TIme > Frequency > Intreval > Angles > Lines of Relationship Time = frequency = intervals = Angles = 2 or more, Lines-relationship = motion Frequency = VVVVVVV Interval = V or * * Motion = integral set of 3 or more, lines of apprehension. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! R6

After looking at his post 69, I agree, but think you should be "offensive." Perhaps then he will go away? He (rr6) should read my post 62 before posting more nonsense.

His posts are completely decoupled from reality. He will eventually fade away if everyone ignores him. Any discussion with him is pointless.

By Billy T Finally , finally , someone understands , the essence of time ( referring to your last statement ) , which means that time is irrelevant river

'Offensive' doesn't work. You have to keep and bear in mind that there a trolls posting in psuedoscience, etc, with such nonsense, designed to denigrate anyone who might have a serious enquiry concerning any aspect of established science. There is a lot of that going on here right now.

The troll to which you are inferring, did not want to hear the truth, or anything refuting his claim and did not have any enquiry at all. He was [1] Stating what he saw as fact...[2] Would not watch any explanatory videos explaining the concept, [3] would not accept or listen to any invalidation of his ideas, and [4] Kept on repeating ad nauseum the same old confusion relating to obsolute time, absolute clocks, and absolute Earth orbits, without any regards or thoughts to Frames of References.

Yes, of course time is irrelevant. That's why your electricity provider doesn't care if you don't pay the bill on ... time. It's also the reason you don't have to worry about them sending you a disconnection notice, in fact you can just ignore the date on it.

Hehehe. Funny. :lol: But, while amusing, not exactly sticking to the actual 'time' concept as used in physics as a 'dimension'. Your examples merely allude to association of predetermined 'events' and 'calendar dates' which are already agreed by prior consent to involve the partition of the solar-system (Earth day cycle and orbit year cycle) observed characteristics which are then used as 'standards' for comparison of other day/date 'enumerations' from now' to 'future' comparative/cumulative 'counts' of said day/tear cycles. Like I observe, your reply was funny, but not really any answer to river's assertion in the spirit of the discussion OP. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, maybe you can figure out how one of the four dimensions is "irrelevant", as river asserts, apparently all you need to do is write an equation and eliminate a parameter. So you should be able to show that a Lorentz transform is independent of time, after eliminating it from any coordinate systems. Then you won't have to worry about whether the speed of light is constant since ct will equal zero for any "eliminated" t.

Time/Change/Motion/Frequency/Interval/Frame(s) of reference etc Time = change/motion/frequency/intervals/Frame(s) of reference and we do observe time via these listed above. We observe photons via electron changes in energy levels. We observe time via the changes of particles and or particles collectively as a substance or biological. The proton( hadron/baryon ) is the only particle that is not known to have a natuarlly occuring, specific rate of decay/termination ergo all other particles are designed to change/terminate naturally. Change of location is occuring with all protons, in that all protons are related to all other particles of Universe via gravity, at minimum, ergo change of location of any occupied space within Universe, is in constant change. We observe physical aspect of time via change, frequency and frames of reference. We then assign and abstract time to all of the above. Cosmic time has a beginning and ending termination point as related to specific set of eternally cyclcing circumstances called 'heat death of Universe'. O|O ergo left and right geodesics with one very large and very flat photon centered between the left and right geodesics. r6

Yes, that was what I wanted to see from you in reply to river. Your earlier glib (but funny!) example was not addressing the physics but only the semantics and human uses of 'time/date' etc. That was all I meant. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyhow, while I'm here, I will make my OWN observation/points re that 'dimension/concept': 1) There is the DURATION concept per se, without any 'parsing' of said duration concept into particular INTERVALS involved; 2) Then there is the TIME/TIMING concept as used in PHYSICS, to CHOOSE some STANDARD INTERVAL, of said duration concept in 1) above, via OBSERVATION of some IDENTIFIABLE/MEASURABLE MOTIONAL/STATE CHANGE (involving space intervals and/or internal intervals of the object/process observed); and 3) THEN said chosen 'standard interval' of 'duration' is LATER used to make COMPARISONS to some NEW action, body, process of interest and make COMPARATIVE assessments of physics/parameters etc which may be used to make a GRAPH of said parameters in a maths construct that puts the 'timing' INTERVALS of the STANDARD along one AXIS (hence arises the ABSTRACT/GRAPHING use of time as a 'dimension' ONLY in the mathematical construct, and NOT in the reality action in space context being MODELED by convenient abstractions like 'time dimension' ON A GRAPH only. Hence the on ly 'real' dimension physically is the space dimensions, and then time as an 'abstract graphing dimension' is used to display and analyze the REAL DIMENSIONAL parameter changes (of motion, state) in the SPACE dimensions ONLY. Our 'time/timing' so-called 'dimension' is therefore, IN MY OWN OBSERVATION, an abstract mathematical REPRESENTATION in a MODELING construct, and not a real dimension of 'time' in itself. That's my two bits contribution. Cheers and enjoy your discussions! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Complex > To > Simple Evolutionary Time top = us inside seeing quanta ergo discontinous experience/observations VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV bottom = outside contigous The above is texticonic is meant to be a 2-1 ratio representation of gravity--- bottom of the V's ergo closes packed set of external/convex set of nodal vertexial events ---and their relationship to what we observe as the inside/concave set of nodal vertexial existence. We exist inside looking out with our sensorial observations. We cannot get outside of Universe to look back in, except via mind/intelligence i.e. we conceptually place ourselves outside of a conceptually finite Universe, and look back in from outside, as if were a God holding the whole finite Universe in our hands. Time is what we experience via our sensorial observations/interferences occupied space We are inside the Universe's sphere of influence ergo we only observe the concave inside existence i.e. quasi-physical gravity ultra-micro set of close-packed set of nodal vertexial events on the convex surface of all of our expereinces/observations and because ultra-micro, remain invisible to us at our more medio-macro-scale of existence. top/convex = outside/convex VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV bottom/concave = us inside/concave experience/observations of contigous >arrow-of-time>. "we cannot return to the womb" Fuller. > > > arrow-of-time > > > = evolutionary time Evolution of two types; 2) complex > to > simple ergo cosmic wholeness is easier set of evolutionary events 1) simple > to > complex is more frustrating set of evolutionary events. The whole exists eternally and and its parts evolve synergetically. r6