# Time Explained

A deture in another thread helps one understand time.
Many think of time as sort of an invisible river flowing, but that is wrong.

Time does not exist as an observable. It is just a convenient parameter to describe motions and chemical change etc. in equations. I.e. the motions in a clock and the fall of say a rock can both be expressed, one in terms of the other, without any reference to time. (Just solve their standard function of time equations both for time and set the two expressions for time equal to get a direct description of one motion in terms of the other with no reference to time.)

Only the changes (motions and chemical processes) are real - time is not. It is just a convenient parameter that helps keep equations describing one change´s relation to another´s be less complex. For example, how many cycles of quartz crystal vibrations happen when a candle burns from start to finish etc. Again: Time does not exist. ...

If you think time does exist, tell me at least one characteristic of it. Its mass, density, color, shape, how and when it was made etc. - It has no characteristic as it does not exist. A clock does not "measure time" - it has some form of motion (or chemical change) that can be related to other changes occurring. For example X oscillations of the crystal or pendulum of a clock per each mm of candle burned.
See several posts that the above provoked too at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-iteration)&p=3061844&viewfull=1#post3061844

But we all have a "sense of time".
Yes. And we all think we make conscious choices, etc. but as Bess (of Porgy & Bess) said: "That ain´t necessarily so." There is lots of evidence now that choices, decisions, and even problem solving (not done by manipulation of algebraic symbols) is done unconsciously and later consciousness learns the results and falsely assumes the result was consciously achieved.

Yes. And we all think we make conscious choices, etc. but as Bess (of Porgy & Bess) said: "That ain´t necessarily so." There is lots of evidence now that choices, decisions, and even problem solving (not done by manipulation of algebraic symbols) is done unconsciously and later consciousness learns the results and falsely assumes the result was consciously achieved.

That's strange. Reminds of a quote from Planck.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

Beat it, quack.
Farsight I hardly think you're in any position to be calling people that, regardless of the level of quackery in said person. You claimed your work is worth at least 4 Nobel Prizes. You claimed your work would one day be taught by people like Ben and/or myself, mathematical physicists.

Instead every journal you submitted your work to rejected it. You then eventually had to self publish, which accomplished nothing. You paid to take out adverts in physics magazines to advertise your book. Your work cannot provide a single quantitative model for any phenomenon, despite you regularly criticising string theory for (in your eyes) that problem. The sole bit of mathematics you've ever provided, despite me asking you for years, was someone else doing such horrifically blatent and terrible numerology you were laughed at, particularly as you praised it as wonderful or amazing (or whatever word you used).

By every single measure by which 'quack-ness' might be measured you are far and away one of the largest quacks on this forum. Sylwester might spam email more than 1000 academics with his work. Pincho Paxton might claim to have a universe simulator. But you have spent not insignificant amounts of money to vanity publish (and never was a description more apt) work rejected by every person with a physics education, both acting as journal reviewers or forum posters. Numerous forums independently levelled similar criticism at your work, illustrating how it isn't some made up set of complaints, the flaws and lack of substance in your work was obvious to all. But you didn't take the hint. Then you didn't take the hint from journals.

Until such time as you can provide a single working quantitative model of any phenomenon in the real world that you have derived yourself from your own set of physical postulates your calling of someone else a quack creates so much hypocrisy that it is visible from orbit.

Since we have a forum for 'alternative theories' and 'pseudoscience' this should have been started there. I'm not sure which one since 'alternative theories' implies Farsight has something even remotely resembling a viable construct, plus the only mathematics he's ever given was numerology, which is pseudoscience so I'll send it there. If Farsight wished to complain that it should be in 'alternative theories' perhaps he could make the case he has something resembling a theory (ie a quantitative formalised framework capable of making precise predictions which have been found consistent with experimental data) and not just rambling uninformed opinion.

The original poster has removed his openning posts so the moderators over there may wish to just close the thread.

Ah, here comes our local friendly "moderator". The guy who permits abuse from the likes of Tach, and attempts to close down physics discussions with abuse of his own.

Ah, here comes our local friendly "moderator". The guy who permits abuse from the likes of Tach, and attempts to close down physics discussions with abuse of his own.

How is that gonna help? Anyway, he's been permitting you too.

No offence.

If enough people complain about a "moderator" who permits abuse and adds his own whilst attempting to close down interesting discussions, maybe this forum will become a better place. You know, with more activity and more in the way of sincere knowledgeable physics discussions based on robust references. The alternative is a physics graveyard kept that way by a string theorist. See Woit's blog along with Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics re string theory. Woit and Smolin assert that string theory predicts nothing and is unscientific. As an aside, Lee Smolin has written a new book called Time Reborn. I ought to read it I suppose.

The scientific community has been one camp pitted against the other for as long as the popular media has been around as far as I can tell, and I go back to the dark ages, lol. I think that as a practical matter, the real professional work that is going on among physicists and mathematicians is fueled by the almost ideological divide within the grand scheme of scientific activity.

If the camps are schools of though representing different directions that are yet to be fully explored, and are thus unresolved and unreconciled opinions, then the continued advancement of science must benefit from the opposing views, one fueling the other.

It may be close to reality, though too metaphysical for a science forum, to say that there is a duality born into the mind of men, meaning that their ideology is influenced by their genes to assure a universal consensus is always being sought, and never achieved until the final curtain; and in my so called model there is no final curtain, lol.

My layman view is that there is one true nature, both camps are pursuing its invariant laws, and the as yet unknowns make any camp's claim to a grasp of reality insincere.
(474)

It would be funny if someone was controlling this reality and kept moving the goal posts.

I am not saying thats what i think, i would just find it amusing if the universe was dynamic and unattainable to know, lol

I am an absurdist who thinks humans will never really answer anything, just what is in there minds, lol

I often wonder does a richard dawkins exist in the ants reality, and is he or she telling them, nothing greater exists on earth as we cannot see it or observe it. While us(humans), mostly ignore ants, they go round having no idea we exist. Just imagine being an ant, and there was an ant like dawkins spouting his stuff claiming nothing exists greater than us ants as we know nothing more than us. Earth belongs to us ants, we are the pinnacle of evolution, lol.

So on time, see what i just wrote. Will humans ever answer anything, do ants answer anything?

The scientific community has been one camp pitted against the other for as long as the popular media has been around as far as I can tell, and I go back to the dark ages, lol. I think that as a practical matter, the real professional work that is going on among physicists and mathematicians is fueled by the almost ideological divide within the grand scheme of scientific activity...
The "trouble with physics" runs a bit deeper than that, q. It isn't just one physics camp pitted against the other. It's a cuckoo-in-the-nest pseudoscience camp pitted against the science camp. The advancement of science does not benefit from this. Not in the least.

Broken record, Farsight.

The "trouble with physics" runs a bit deeper than that, q. It isn't just one physics camp pitted against the other. It's a cuckoo-in-the-nest pseudoscience camp pitted against the science camp. The advancement of science does not benefit from this. Not in the least.
Lol, I've read it; I have it on my shelf. I have notes jotted in the margins. I learned a lot from it, and I find String Theory wrong in what I think are important aspects, but not a wasted effort. Of course I find GR and QM wrong in some important aspects too, so go figure. I use parts of all three in my so called model.

The effort of advancing science cannot dismiss a path until it is fully explored and falsified or superseded by better theory. That is what I mean by science benefiting from the campy aspect of science. The controversy fuels the many pronged investigations until they are played out. It takes decades and centuries sometimes I think.

Ah, here comes our local friendly "moderator". The guy who permits abuse from the likes of Tach, and attempts to close down physics discussions with abuse of his own.

Since we have a forum for 'alternative theories' and 'pseudoscience' this should have been started there..

...or Cesspool, no?

Farsight said:
Ah, here comes our local friendly "moderator". The guy who permits abuse from the likes of Tach, and attempts to close down physics discussions with abuse of his own.

Wake up Tach. Note that I didn't start this thread. So it isn't mine. And Alphanumeric did say which is pseudoscience so I'll send it there. Which is why I reported not just his post but his action too. By the way, you are something of a laughing stock. Everybody thinks you're a troll and a dishonest devious quack. Whom Alphanumeric does not rein in, but sides with. Says something, don't you think?

Wake up Tach. Note that I didn't start this thread. So it isn't mine.

It is just the crackpottery that belongs to you.

It is the following content that I would like to see discussed:

... can we say that time simply passes, and the rate at which we measure it to pass depends on the energy density of the environment in which the clock is observed?

You can. But it's better to look at what a clock actually does, and then say that things move slower when the energy density is higher.

Those two statements represent what I think the content of this tread hinges on, not the opinions of the members about the people participating. They represent a piece of the censured discussion that seems to be a valid topic for P&M, and certainly should be followed up on even though the content flow has been interrupted by the threads location change, lol.

The appropriate topic is that the energy density of the environment governs the observed rate that time passes if you are looking at a clock.

The evidence supports the hypothesis that the observed rate that time is measured to be passing is affected by the energy density of the environment in which the clock we use to measure time is located. The evidence that I think supports that can be demonstrated by moving the clock to a lower energy density environment like the top of a mountain, and observe that it measures time to be passing more quickly. Then the clock can be accelerated and we observe that it measures time to be passing more slowing. These are observational facts.

Does anyone dispute that? Say why.

That is the topic to be addressed, and if I am wrong, I would like to learn something about why you can say that altitude and acceleration do not change the rate that a clock measures time.

The hypothetical part of question, i.e. that gravity and acceleration have an energy density component that changes as a massive object is approached or as an object is accelerated through space. Those events seem to point to the fact that there is an effect on the rate that matter functions as the energy density of the environment changes due to gravity and acceleration.
(views=688)

You can see where I coming from with that hypothesis. If you step out of the constraints of spacetime, and consider mass and gravity to be wave energy phenomena, then the wave energy density increases as we approach massive objects. That increase in wave energy density applies to the energy density in which the particles of mass are functioning, and they function slower, making clocks slow down as the gravitational wave energy density increases. Time doesn't slow down, it is the wave energy density increase that slows the clocks.
(view=715)

Last edited: