# What is "time"

Time IS this -

Time, like space is not absolute. Each FoR experiences the passage of time at one second/second in relation to his own mechanical and biological frame.
But each frame will see time passing at different rates in another frame, dependent on gravititational potential and/or speed relative to his/her own frame.
The same applies to space.
As Minkowsky after Einstein formulated SR said.....
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski:

That's what relativity is all about.

Time, like space is not absolute. Each FoR experiences the passage of time at one second/second in relation to his own mechanical and biological frame.
But each frame will see time passing at different rates in another frame, dependent on gravititational potential and/or speed relative to his/her own frame.
The same applies to space.
As Minkowsky after Einstein formulated SR said.....
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski:

That's what relativity is all about.
I do not really care whatever history says, I do not deny the interpretation of that matter, <notice I do not refer to just own mechanical or bio-logical frame>, experiences a different rate of decay over time depending on gravitational structure.
You sentence insinuates that time is based solely on the decay of matter, and this is not true.
Time is not matter, matter is not time.
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski:''

Edit -The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the logical axioms of the mind, and therein lies their strength. They are reality, Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to exist for ever, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality that allows matter to have a life expectancy.

You sentence insinuates that time is based solely on the decay of matter, and this is not true.
Time is not matter, matter is not time.

Mass/matter cannot travel at the speed of light according to special relativity. This would require infinite energy. At the speed of light, on the other hand, special relativity says that distance and time will become reduced to a point-instant, where change of time and distance (delta t, d) have no meaning.

From this I would conclude that you need mass/matter, for time to appear, because mass can't move at the speed of light, thereby allowing time and space to permanently depart from the singularity at C, so it can take on space-time properties.

Time did not exist until mass/matter appeared in the universe, and is dependent on it. In GR the mass-distance summation defines how space and time behave.

Mass/matter cannot travel at the speed of light according to special relativity. This would require infinite energy. At the speed of light, on the other hand, special relativity says that distance and time will become reduced to a point-instant, where change of time and distance (delta t, d) have no meaning.

From this I would conclude that you need mass/matter, for time to appear, because mass can't move at the speed of light, thereby allowing time and space to permanently depart from the singularity at C, so it can take on space-time properties.

Time did not exist until mass/matter appeared in the universe, and is dependent on it. In GR the mass-distance summation defines how space and time behave.

''Time did not exist until mass/matter appeared in the universe'', an incorrect assumption made by mankind.

The problem persists in science not seeing the bigger picture and still basing time by the Big bang and agreeing with the bible , technically agreeing that there is a god.
I disagree with the bible and disagree with science, a big bang can not have happened from nothing, before the big bang there was something that made something.
Even if there were a nothing there was almost certainly spacial dimensions which we can observe and do observe. A big bang can not expand into nothing or a solidity, the empty space proceeded the big bang and is time and space.
The Universe that by visual interpretation science perceives , is not even the Universe, but simply a fractional content of what we can observe that has not expanded yet.
The matter expanding is not the Universe, the empty space is the Universe and this is a science misconception, the universe is not expanding, the matter is expanding into the Universe, and for what that has already expanded out of our visual capacity, we simply can not see.

Newtons laws of motion say that any mass in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces. Again science misses the relevance to this.

Example- Imagine a Universe with 1000,000 times more Physical bodies in it than our visual Universe of now, and imagine that it was not expanding and in a steady state.

Now imagine a big bang at the center of this steady state, the ''blast '' radius , will force everything in a outwards direction from the big bang.

Then imagine millions of years later you evolve within the vicinity of the big bang, but you have limitations on distance you can see.

You would or could not know the original state, because all the other matter you can not see, it has left your visual range already before you existed.

Time exists in a void, without matter, time and space is darkness of the void, and matter, is timed in the void, and has a life expectancy based on energy loss and gain.

''Time did not exist until mass/matter appeared in the universe'', an incorrect assumption made by mankind.

The problem persists in science not seeing the bigger picture and still basing time by the Big bang and agreeing with the bible , technically agreeing that there is a god.

Words are cheap and easily written/typed, especially in forums such as this, which after all is the only outlet that nut bags have, since they fail from point one in ignoring the scientific methodology and peer review.

From my own perspective though, I see it rather sad how anyone can go through life, under such drastic reality defying delusions, and stubbornly and obtusely stupidly, taking such unsupported beliefs to the grave with them.

You would think that alarm bells would start to ring, when such arrogance sees them banned from forums such as this elsewhere, and their nonsensical take on science and the Universe around them, confined continually to pseudoscience and the cesspool.

No time no universe? I think the time is energy

Words are cheap and easily written/typed, especially in forums such as this, which after all is the only outlet that nut bags have, since they fail from point one in ignoring the scientific methodology and peer review.

From my own perspective though, I see it rather sad how anyone can go through life, under such drastic reality defying delusions, and stubbornly and obtusely stupidly, taking such unsupported beliefs to the grave with them.

You would think that alarm bells would start to ring, when such arrogance sees them banned from forums such as this elsewhere, and their nonsensical take on science and the Universe around them, confined continually to pseudoscience and the cesspool.

Can you not do a single post without the word banned in it?

The truth is the truth, this is not delusional thinking, it is the rational logic that is the truth , it is also an axiom, to deny this would be insane.

I have clearly shown enough scientific knowledge to show the truth, and to show you the reality of time and what it means.
I do not even know why the conversation is continuing, what is time, it has been answered.

Can you not do a single post without the word banned in it?

My thoughts are with any innocents and newbies that come here and may possibly be swayed by your drivel. Letting them in on your atrocious record at forums such as this, and how all of your threads are generally shifted to pseudo or cesspool, is helping them.

The truth is the truth, this is not delusional thinking, it is the rational logic that is the truth , it is also an axiom, to deny this would be insane.

Yep, the truth certainly is the truth, just as nonsense is nonsense, driven by delusions of grandeur and "tall poppy syndrome"
Your qualities fit the latter.
I have clearly shown enough scientific knowledge to show the truth, and to show you the reality of time and what it means.
I do not even know why the conversation is continuing, what is time, it has been answered.

I have not seen any scientific knowledge from you. I have seen plenty of your threads shifted to pseudo or the cesspool.
Time is that which evolved from the BB, along with space.....
Time is which separates all of us by 13.83 billion years from the BB....
Time is that which stops everything from happening together......
If we had no time, we would have no space, no gravity, no matter, no energy.
Without time there would be nothing, in the true sense of the word.

I do not even know why the conversation is continuing, what is time, it has been answered.

Yes, the reality of time was certainly decided by the 14th, and then resurrected again by you 24th probably to gain some more attention.
Many aspects of time have been put and many links and references given by many professionals, who all personally agreed to the reality of time, while agreeing that in reality we do not know much about it and the actual answer remains undefined and uncertain.

My thoughts are with any innocents and newbies that come here and may possibly be swayed by your drivel. Letting them in on your atrocious record at forums such as this, and how all of your threads are generally shifted to pseudo or cesspool, is helping them.

Yep, the truth certainly is the truth, just as nonsense is nonsense, driven by delusions of grandeur and "tall poppy syndrome"
Your qualities fit the latter.

I have not seen any scientific knowledge from you. I have seen plenty of your threads shifted to pseudo or the cesspool.
Time is that which evolved from the BB, along with space.....
Time is which separates all of us by 13.83 billion years from the BB....
Time is that which stops everything from happening together......
If we had no time, we would have no space, no gravity, no matter, no energy.
Without time there would be nothing, in the true sense of the word.

You sir are really delusional, the big bang was within time, a big bang can not start from nothing, unless of cause you wish to agree with the bible, which I do not.
Anyone with half a brain knows that you can not have an absolute nothing and make something. 13.83 billion years is meaningless, what you really mean to say is that we have recorded time since the big bang, a period of time within time.
'If we had no time, we would have no space, no gravity, no matter, no energy.''
You seriously are deluded, space exists whether there is matter in it or not, what you really mean is that without matter, there would be no way to count the time in the space. You are practically saying that in the 3 dimensional space between your eyes and an object there is no time, time is still there but uncountable, you are really clueless to reality.
Science is under a lot of misconception, I am 100% being honest and telling you, not asking, I am telling you, that you are wrong, science is wrong, and by the logical axiom truth's to reality I am indeed correct.
Space existed before the big bang, an axiom truth, the big bang developed in time and space, and is not time and space, and to think anything else is barking mad.

You sir are really delusional, the big bang was within time, a big bang can not start from nothing, unless of cause you wish to agree with the bible, which I do not.

Here is an experiment to ponder. Picture a water wave tank with wave generators at each end. The two generators are out of phase by 180 degrees, so the crests of the left tank hit the troughs of the right tank. Because the waves will cancel there is stillness in the tank. The wave generators are adding energy to the tank due to the movement of the water, but in the middle the water appears still. Where does the energy go? There is hidden energy that appears as nothing going on in the middle of the tank.

We can prove there is an invisible energy in the stillness (middle wave diagram), if we place a wooden partition in the center of the tank. The waves will rise on both sides of the wood. In terms of the universe, time appears in the stillness when matter/mass, at less than the speed of light reference, becomes the partition in the stillness of time without space and space without time.

In terms of other things in nature, if you look at atomic orbitals, we still have electrons in motions moving at fraction of the speed of light with a moving charge giving off a magnetic field. Yet, we don't see a magnetic field that is the sum of all the electrons in motion. Most of the energy is hidden. We see only a tiny fraction.

...

You sir are really delusional, the big bang was within time,
Cite?

a big bang can not start from nothing,
Cite?

unless of cause you wish to agree with the bible, which I do not.
What difference does it make? You are still relying on nonsense instead of evidence.

Anyone with half a brain
Most folks would settle for someone with half an education.

knows that you can not have an absolute nothing and make something.
How does the Big Bang singularity figure into that wisdom?

13.83 billion years is meaningless,
Except of course to physicists who mean something when they use the age of the Universe in their technical discussions about evidence. Remember evidence? This is a site about evidence. Got any, BTW?

what you really mean to say is that we have recorded time since the big bang, a period of time within time.
Yes, your actual age is the length of time which has elapsed since birth, within the total 13 billion years that time has been elapsing altogether.

And your point is...?

'If we had no time, we would have no space, no gravity, no matter, no energy.''
Well I would clarify that. The absence of time (time standing still) is a boundary condition at which the laws of physics break down. So the statement is a pretty good way of indicating that, although I would cast it differently.
You seriously are deluded,
Based on what grade level last completed?

space exists whether there is matter in it or not,
Space is certainly relative, depending on the concentrations of baryonic matter. But the point is this: space and time are elements of a singular component called spacetime. Their mutual complementarity in the Lorentz rotation assures that, as one vanishes the other becomes infinite in extent. Thus time infinitely dilated was the condition that complemented the confinement of space to the vanishing point of the BB singularity. But even though that is a pop science level of analysis, you can't follow it, can you, because you didn't exactly make the grade back in the day. So why whine about stuff you never bothered to learn? Why the sudden interest, and why is it only an interest in promoting your uninformed beliefs?
what you really mean is that without matter, there would be no way to count the time in the space.
That's not even close.

You are practically saying that in the 3 dimensional space between your eyes and an object there is no time, time is still there but uncountable,
Nonsense.

you are really clueless to reality.
According to the expert who completed . . . 5th grade?

Science is under a lot of misconception,
...among people who never bothered to study it.

I am 100% being honest
If that were true then it would also be correct. Unfortunately you can't be honest while only pretending to understand material you never studied. Therefore the claim is both false and incorrect.
and telling you, not asking, I am telling you, that you are wrong,
Are you reliving some trauma at school? Did you quit after all the teachers repeated this to you over and over? Sounds like a basis for professional help.
science is wrong,
...said the fool as he was sent home with straight F's on his report card.
and by the logical axiom truth's to reality I am indeed correct.
OMG he never even made it to Geometry! Alas, poor Yorick.
Space existed before the big bang,
Cite?

an axiom truth,
Didn't even pass elementary grammar either, evidently. Tsk tsk. So much pathos. So much angst.

the big bang developed in time and space,
Cite?
and is not time and space,
Well you might be getting warm, if only you had applied yourself in school.

Now go back and explain Hubble's discovery leading to Big Bang theory.

and to think anything else is barking mad.
Then stop barking and start thinking! Remember: all of science starts with evidence. Now go get some.

Last edited:
You sir are really delusional, the big bang was within time, a big bang can not start from nothing, unless of cause you wish to agree with the bible, which I do not.
Anyone with half a brain knows that you can not have an absolute nothing and make something.

No Sir, it is you that are delusional, driven by your inane maniacal desire to show the world, "You are able to think for yourself"
The problem of course resides in the fact that you know SFA about the science of cosmology, and this inane maniacal thinking for yourself, is just a fairy tale.
It has been explained many times to you that the BB was the evolution of time and space. Before the BB there was no time nor space...there was absolutely nothing.
We are able to speculate though, based on what cosmology does already know.
Let me show you again......
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Now my dear friend, you have every right to dispute and deride the above, but you need to remember that it was at least hypothesised by an authoritive professional expert in cosmology.
If you do dispute it, if you do question the BB model of time starting along with space at the BB, if you do question the reality of light and the fact that all dark is, is the absence of EMR, then you have a course of action open to you.
As AId has told you, you need to gather whatever evidence you do have, submit a scientific paper, and undergo appropriate peer review.
Until you do that, what you propose, remains just a fairy tale, and will make no difference to the halls of academia and science. You can infest forums such as this as much as you like with those fairy tales, and genuine students of science will continue to show you are certainly wrong.
You can also continually ignore all those links and learned folk that show you are wrong beyond any shadow of doubt, but all that does is get you permanently banned from forums such as this.
This has happened to you elsewhere, and although this particular forum is more tolerant of inane thoughts then others, even here all your threads have been banished to pseudoscience and the cesspool.
In essence, and finally, you can stubbornly resist all efforts to educate yourself as much and as long as you like, but all you will eventually do is take these inane maniacal thoughts and fairy tales to the grave with you when your time comes.
Because in the greater scheme of things, such unscientific comments and nonsense that you spew, will never make any difference to human society and the world at large.
What a wasted life!

13.83 billion years is meaningless, what you really mean to say is that we have recorded time since the big bang, a period of time within time.

No, that's just some of the nonsensical inane rubbish that you will eventually take to the grave with you.
Let me at least have one more try to resurrect you from this inane rubbish and the wasted life that you will have ahead of you.
The BB was the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] There was no before the BB, because that was the beginning of time...t=0 at the BB.

Science is under a lot of misconception, I am 100% being honest and telling you, not asking, I am telling you, that you are wrong, science is wrong, and by the logical axiom truth's to reality I am indeed correct.

Such ranting and raving about you being 100% correct, and science being wrong is just re-enforcing the picture others have of you on this forum, and the same sort of picture that has had you banned from other forums, and your threads in this forum, banished to the wastelands.
Plus of course if you really and truly believe what you say above, then my friend, I would seriously start seeking medical attention.

Space existed before the big bang, an axiom truth, the big bang developed in time and space, and is not time and space, and to think anything else is barking mad.

No, that's not what the BB claims.
If you have another model, then gather your evidence and via the scientific method, undergo appropriate peer review.
Of course you are unable to do that, so my next suggestion is as I have already made...seek some medical attention.

I don't recall if the point was ever made in the 'what is time travel' thread, but I was thinking about it and there's a crucial difference between using relativistic time dialation to travel into the future and Farsights 'frozen turkey' analogy.

If I set up an experiment where myself, an astronaut on a really fast ship, and a frozen turkey are given identical pocket watches and sent on our respective ways, when next we meet seconds may have elapsed on the astronauts pocket watch where 20 years have elapsed on my pocket watch and the frozen turkey's, and that is the significant difference between the two scenarios.

^^
A Matter of Time
Dont know if the link has been linked before.

^^
A Matter of Time
Dont know if the link has been linked before.

Its a matter of shape , not time

I don't recall if the point was ever made in the 'what is time travel' thread, but I was thinking about it and there's a crucial difference between using relativistic time dialation to travel into the future and Farsights 'frozen turkey' analogy.

If I set up an experiment where myself, an astronaut on a really fast ship, and a frozen turkey are given identical pocket watches and sent on our respective ways, when next we meet seconds may have elapsed on the astronauts pocket watch where 20 years have elapsed on my pocket watch and the frozen turkey's, and that is the significant difference between the two scenarios.
Would you still eat the turkey, assuming an average stop watch was used?

Would you still eat the turkey, assuming an average stop watch was used?

Maybe, although it'd be horribly freezer burned after 20 years, but that's just the result of dehydration through the sublimation of ice anyway...