Does time exist?

[sweetpea]

So when something manifests then ?

see above post#599

 

[river]

↑

Define duration

The time something exists or the period of action.But first something got to exist and move to be dynamic and it can't do them things with out the duration of time.

But how does duration of time manifest something , first ?

 

[DaveC426913]

↑
But how does duration manifest something ?

It doesn't. You keep getting cause and effect mixed up.

Duration is a property of an event.


A property of a ball is its colour. That does not mean the colour manifests the ball.

Something can't occur without it having a duration in which to occur.
That duration is defined by two time values: the start and the end. They cannot be the same.

 

[river]

It doesn't. You keep getting cause and effect mixed up.

Duration is a property of an event.


A property of a ball is its colour. That does not mean the colour manifests the ball.

Something can't occur without it having a duration in which to occur.
That duration is defined by two time values: the start and the end. They cannot be the same.

Duration is the movement of the event ; in between start and end .

The duration between objects is governed by the nature of the objects themselves .

 

[sweetpea]

↑
But how does duration of time manifest something , first ?

Been here before river..It's taken as a given that something exists so as to base the model on. Here, it's both the field and disturbances on that field that exist and it goes from there. I have to go now...

 

[DaveC426913]

Duration is the movement of the event ; in between start and end .

No. Duration occurs quite nicely without any movement.

I have durated here in my chair for several minutes without changing my xyz coordinates.

 

[river]

vNo. Duration occurs quite nicely without any movement.

I have durated here in my chair for several minutes without changing my xyz coordinates.

But you moved your fingers ; which changes your xyz position of your fingers .

 

[sweetpea]

But you moved your fingers.

Because his fingers already exist, so they can move.

 

[river]

Because his fingers already exist, so they can move.

Sooo......?

 

[paddoboy]

The book is by a plasma physicist , with a PHD. and worked for NASA .

And he is still a certified nut......

BUT OF COURSE YOU DON'T READ .

I read plenty river, but certainly not the crap you are into.......

 

[river]

And he is still a certified nut......

I read plenty river, but certainly not the crap you are into.......

So NASA hires nuts , insulting NASA are we now .

Yes of course pad wouldn't want to disturb your insecurity .

 

[paddoboy]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Brandenburg

John E. Brandenburg is a plasma physicist who went somewhat off the rails in 2012 and started proclaiming that he saw clear evidence of a thermonuclear war on Mars in the distant past. This off-beat idea attracted the attention of woo-peddlars and gave a mighty boost to sales of his books—both the non-fiction books and the science fiction books that he wrote using the nom de plumeVictor Norgarde.

In his 2015 book, Brandenburg declared himself a devout pentecostal christian.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Apologies Dave and sweetpea for sidetracking this somewhat....

 

[river]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Brandenburg

John E. Brandenburg is a plasma physicist who went somewhat off the rails in 2012 and started proclaiming that he saw clear evidence of a thermonuclear war on Mars in the distant past. This off-beat idea attracted the attention of woo-peddlars and gave a mighty boost to sales of his books—both the non-fiction books and the science fiction books that he wrote using the nom de plumeVictor Norgarde.

In his 2015 book, Brandenburg declared himself a devout pentecostal christian.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Apologies Dave and sweetpea for sidetracking this somewhat....

Proof is in the book , pad

 

[paddoboy]

Proof is in the book , pad

There is no proof river just claims by a nut to sell books.
And all that has been explained to you before you had your last holiday.

 

[river]

Anyway I reiterate ;

↑

Because his fingers already exist, so they can move.

Sooo......?

 

[hansda]

You didn't clarify; you provided a red herring.

Your assertion is that time has no role in change. Yet you have been unable to show any example of change that does not invoke the passage of time.
Thus, time plays a role in allowing change to occur.

No time means no change.

What is your idea of time? Do you think time is some sort of force or energy, which is moving the particles in the time axis.

My idea of time is the occurrence of past, present and future; which happens at every instant of time.

 

[exchemist]

What is your idea of time? Do you think time is some sort of force or energy, which is moving the particles in the time axis.

My idea of time is the occurrence of past, present and future; which happens at every instant of time.

I don't think that is in conflict with what Dave is saying. He merely makes the uncontroversial point that time is the label we give to our way of ordering changes and cause and effect in the world. If no change occurs in a system, there is no way to show that time is "passing" - indeed it is pretty meaningless to assert that it does so.

I have read that some physicists object to us speaking of time "passing", as if it "flows" like a river. If I recall correctly, they argue that time is just a coordinate, like a spatial one, which is useful to orient events so that cause and effect can be correctly assigned. Or something like that.

 

[hansda]

The particle exists, even if it moves or not. What does ''exist'' suggest to you?

Exist means which is present.

 

[hansda]

I don't think that is in conflict with what Dave is saying. He merely makes the uncontroversial point that time is the label we give to our way of ordering changes and cause and effect in the world. If no change occurs in a system, there is no way to show that time is "passing" - indeed it is pretty meaningless to assert that it does so.

Occurrence of past, present and future always happen to a particle. Due to this, the particle moves in the time axis. The particle also follows its property of inertia. External force is required to change its inertia as per Newton's First Law.

I have read that some physicists object to us speaking of time "passing", as if it "flows" like a river. If I recall correctly, they argue that time is just a coordinate, like a spatial one, which is useful to orient events so that cause and effect can be correctly assigned. Or something like that.

I also follow that time is a co-ordinate like spatial co-ordinates, which can be used as a reference.

 

[kx000]

Time is a thing