WITH CLOCKS WE MEASURE SPEED
AND NUMERICAL ORDER OF CHANGE IN SPACE
“Time - the time that we know through clocks and calendars - was invented”.
Albert Einstein
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a speed and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
When the change n+1 enters into existence, the change n does not exist any more. When the change n+2 enters existence, the change n+1 does not exist any more. Clocks measure a speed and numerical order of change that occurs in a space. We experience the change x before the change x+1 and the change x+2 after the change x+1 because we experience a stream of change in a linear concept of the inner time that is based in neuronal activity of the brain.
Research done in 2003 introduces idea that part of the brain is creating time: “The brain is the “local” creator of time, space, and space-time as our special maps of the reality we “observe” and participate in” (1).
Research done in 2005 shows that consequent experience of changes in a “past-present-future” perspective is a result of neuronal dynamics in certain areas of the brain (2).
With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of change in space. Time is not a part of space in which change occurs. The fundamental arena in which changes occur is the space.
A growing number of modern researchers are challenging the view that space-time is the fundamental arena of the universe. They point out that the mathematical model of space-time does not correspond to the physical reality, and propose a “timeless space” as the arena instead. One recent paper on the subject is: “A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity:Since quantum theory is inherently blind to the existence of such state-space geometries, the analysis here suggests that attempts to formulate unified theories of physics within a conventional quantum-theoretic framework are misguided, and that a successful quantum theory of gravity should unify the causal non-Euclidean geometry of space time with the atemporal fractal geometry of state space (3).
Another recent paper says: “We illustrate our proposal using a toy model where we show how the Lorentzian signature and Nordstroem gravity (a diffeomorphisms invariant scalar gravity theory) can emerge from a timeless non-dynamical space” (4).
Julian Barbour says in The Nature of Time: “I will not claim that time can be definitely banished from physics; the universe might be infinite, and black holes present some problems for the time picture. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that time as such plays no role in the universe”(5).
What is meant here is that the time obtained by clocks is information about change in the universe. Time definitely does not play any role in the universe. Time is a scientific tool for measuring speed and numerical order of change.
Ernst Mach said: “It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things”. Mach is right. Clocks are man-made inventions and time is an abstraction of the mind.
In physics numerical order of change is represented by a straight infinite line composed of real numbers. Since the real numbers are a continuum also changes are a continuum. Transformation of the change n into n+1, n+1 into n+2 is an unbroken continuous process. Number zero represents the present moment in which we measure changes. Changes that have happened are represented by the real numbers to the left from zero and changes that will happen are represented by real numbers to the right from zero.
_-____________________________0____________________________+__
As we experience changes through linear concept of inner time we are not aware that changes run in the timeless space only and not in time. With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of changes running in space.
changes occurring in the space - perception – processing of the inner time - experience
In today physics stream of change is understood as a function of time although there is no experimental data for such interpretation.
C = f (t)
Experimental data confirm that changes run in space only and with clocks we measure their speed and numerical order. Smallest unit of numerical order is “Planck time” and largest is “one year”.
We perceive changes that occur in the universe through our eyes. Then the information about the changes is processed by the brain into the inner time, and finally becomes our experience. Between the perception and the experience there is processing through the inner time that creates a distortion of perception. However, once we become aware of the inner time, we can experience changes directly as they occur. This direct experience gives a scientist an objective view of the timeless nature of the physical world.
This direct experience is essential for the further development of physics. The direct experience can be achieved by observing a pendulum. For the first few minutes you will experience the pendulum moving in space and time. After closing your eyes to envisage an image of the pendulum moving in your mind's eye, you become aware of the inner time in which you experience pendulum motion. You experience the change directly as it occurs in space.
An observer is a constituent part of a scientific experiment. In the indirect (temporal) experience the observer is captured within the inner time. He experiences timeless space through inner time as a present moment. In the direct (atemporal) experience the observer is fully aware of the inner time and experiences changes directly as they occur in a timeless space. He experiences timeless space directly as a fundamental physical reality in which changes occur.
INDIRECT TEMPORAL EXPERIENCE
change – perception - processing through the inner time - temporal experience of the observer
DIRECT ATEMPORAL EXPERIENCE
change - perception (eyes) - atemporal experience of the observer
With discovery of inner time, a new interpretation of relativity emerges. The universe is a timeless phenomenon where changes exist “before” and “after” only in a sense of a numerical order. Experimental physics confirms that changes occur in the present moment in the timeless space only and not in space-time that is only a mathematical model. In a faster inertial system that moves in the timeless space the speed of change is slower than in a slower inertial system. With stronger gravity the speed of change is slower than with weaker gravity. The so-called “time-dilatation” means that the speed of change slows down, including the speed of clocks.
Recent research indicates that some change happens in zero time. Timeless quantum communication is a real phenomenon: “We show how continuous-variable systems can allow the direct communication of messages with an acceptable degree of privacy. This is possible by combining a suitable phase-space encoding of the plain message with real-time checks of the quantum communication channel. The resulting protocol works properly when a small amount of noise affects the quantum channel. If this noise is non-tolerable, the protocol stops leaving a limited amount of information to a potential eavesdropper” (6). What is meant here is that information does not move through space-time, but through the timeless space, an immediate medium for identifiable quanta.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment similarly reminds us that physical space is a timeless environment. There is no discernible signal in the form of a photon travelling between A and B. The time of information transfer between A and B is essentially zero. We might infer that A and B are extended entities. The timeless space represents an immediate communication medium between the quanta A and B (7).
The timeless physical space as an “immediate information medium” resolves the causality problem of the Fermi two-atom system: “Let A and B be two atoms or, more generally, a ‘source’ and a ‘detector’ separated by some distance R. At t=0 A is in an excited state, B in its ground state, and no photons are present. A theorem is proved that in contrast to Einstein causality and finite signal velocity, the excitation probability of B is non-zero immediately after t=0. Implications are discussed”(8). The excitation probability of B is non-zero because the space in which atoms exist is an “immediate medium of excitation”.
It can be said that certain physical phenomena are timeless, since no measurable time elapses for them to happen. For example in the article entitled Attosecond Ionization and Tunneling Delay Time Measurements in Helium by Eckle et al, a conclusion is drawn that "an electron can tunnel through the potential barrier of a He atom in practically no time" (9).
In similar vein, a recent arxiv paper depicts a system of diagrams to represent various elements of a quantum circuit, in a form which makes no reference to time (10).
Quantum gravity describes space as granular. Space is made out of quanta of space volume of Planck (11).
What is meant here is that the quantum space is an immediate medium for information (I) and energy (E) transfer. At Planck size (IE), transfers are immediate; at photon size, they move at the light speed; at larger scales they move at the speed lower than the light speed.
Gravity is not an energy transfer from an object A to an object B, gravity is a result of dynamics between mass and quantum space. Existence of certain mass in a given volume of space changes the quantum structure of space and this generates gravity. In the General Theory of Relativity structural change of quantum space is described by curvature of space. Quantum space itself is timeless. Gravity is immediate.
Understanding of time here confirms a vision of Einstein and Gödel who considered the universe to be a timeless phenomenon (12). “Back in time” and “forward in time” exists only as a numerical order of changes. In this sense numerical order and speed of changes are physical quantities that we measure with clocks.
Hypothetical “travelling in time” in spaceships is out of question; one can travel in space only. With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of motion of a spaceship in space.
In today’s physics the conviction still prevails that time is a part of space and so a fundamental physical reality in which change occurs. Most physicists are still experiencing changes through the linear inner time. They “project” the inner time into the physical reality and so their experience is temporal. Temporal experience is an obstacle for deeper understanding of immediate quantum phenomena for which clock change is zero. Physicists who know only the temporal experience are convinced that no change can happen in time zero.
Once a physicist is aware of the inner time he experiences changes directly as they occur in space. This atemporal experience confirms that time is not a part of physical world; with clocks we do not measure time, we measure speed and numerical order of changes that occur in the space. Atemporal experience will ensure development of new scientific models that will be closer to the real nature of the universe.
So, how long do you think it will take until amrit is perma-banned?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 05:25 PM)
So, how long do you think it will take until amrit is perma-banned?
until someone will prove that my statements are wrong!
do we have any experimental evidence that with clocks we measure time ?
or
we have all evidences that with clocks we measure speed and numerical order of events
so tell me where is "time"
inside of your mind......so confirm recent neuro-brain research
yours amrit
until someone will prove that my statements are wrong!
do we have any experimental evidence that with clocks we measure time ?
or
we have all evidences that with clocks we measure speed and numerical order of events
so tell me where is "time"
inside of your mind......so confirm recent neuro-brain research
yours amrit
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 23 2009, 01:31 PM)
until someone will prove that my statements are wrong!
Your statements cannot be proven wrong because they have so little substance that they are meaningless.
Your statements cannot be proven wrong because they have so little substance that they are meaningless.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 05:57 PM)
Your statements cannot be proven wrong because they have so little substance that they are meaningless.
not at all..............read attentively my post
not at all..............read attentively my post
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 23 2009, 02:00 PM)
not at all..............read attentively my post
I tried. I stopped at the point where I realized that it was complete bullsh*t. Cheerio!
I tried. I stopped at the point where I realized that it was complete bullsh*t. Cheerio!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 06:04 PM)
I tried. I stopped at the point where I realized that it was complete bullsh*t. Cheerio!
bulshit ok
so tell me where im wrong ?
bulshit ok
so tell me where im wrong ?
We have...
We all have...
Hundreds of times.
Why are you still here?
No one is interested in your theory. No one thinks you have even a shred of validity. Yet every time you come back and say "Prove me wrong". It's been done and done and done and you just won't stop.... so people now just randomly insult you with the hope that someday you will get the message.
We all have...
Hundreds of times.
Why are you still here?
No one is interested in your theory. No one thinks you have even a shred of validity. Yet every time you come back and say "Prove me wrong". It's been done and done and done and you just won't stop.... so people now just randomly insult you with the hope that someday you will get the message.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 24 2009, 06:23 AM)
We have...
We all have...
Hundreds of times.
Why are you still here?
No one is interested in your theory. No one thinks you have even a shred of validity. Yet every time you come back and say "Prove me wrong". It's been done and done and done and you just won't stop.... so people now just randomly insult you with the hope that someday you will get the message.
I'm still here because there is no arguments against my idea of time. If you do not like it for me is irrelevant.
The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments...ure.........pdf
We all have...
Hundreds of times.
Why are you still here?
No one is interested in your theory. No one thinks you have even a shred of validity. Yet every time you come back and say "Prove me wrong". It's been done and done and done and you just won't stop.... so people now just randomly insult you with the hope that someday you will get the message.
I'm still here because there is no arguments against my idea of time. If you do not like it for me is irrelevant.
The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments...ure.........pdf
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 24 2009, 06:53 AM)
Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
Change is a measurement of position. Some conditions exhibit a constant rate of change that can be used as a standard to measure other rates of change. These conditional rates of change exist regardless of our perception of them. The fact that we recognize these relationships does not relegate them to mere abstractions of our minds.
QUOTE (Capracus+Aug 24 2009, 10:15 AM)
Change is a measurement of position. Some conditions exhibit a constant rate of change that can be used as a standard to measure other rates of change. These conditional rates of change exist regardless of our perception of them. The fact that we recognize these relationships does not relegate them to mere abstractions of our minds.
yes, all physical change we compare with clocks run, this is how we measure them
but clocks and change run in space only and not in time
this is great insight to recognize there is no time in the material universe
some are aware of that as for example Prof. Rovelli, Prof. Kiefer, Dr. Barbour, MS Fiscaletti, myself.............
for example frequency, it is measured with clock
velocity also
never ever we measure with clock time
this is pure conviction that should be drooped.....and for this I'm blamed much here, but me very persistent, not because of ego/trip, because of my insight that clock do not run in time, clock run in space only
yes, all physical change we compare with clocks run, this is how we measure them
but clocks and change run in space only and not in time
this is great insight to recognize there is no time in the material universe
some are aware of that as for example Prof. Rovelli, Prof. Kiefer, Dr. Barbour, MS Fiscaletti, myself.............
for example frequency, it is measured with clock
velocity also
never ever we measure with clock time
this is pure conviction that should be drooped.....and for this I'm blamed much here, but me very persistent, not because of ego/trip, because of my insight that clock do not run in time, clock run in space only
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 24 2009, 09:08 AM)
yes, all physical change we compare with clocks run, this is how we measure them
but clocks and change run in space only and not in time
this is great insight to recognize there is no time in the material universe
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
When will you get it?
but clocks and change run in space only and not in time
this is great insight to recognize there is no time in the material universe
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
When will you get it?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 01:10 PM)
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
When will you get it?
bul...sh...it is idea that clocks run in time.............how you can stand behind such an apriory preposition for which there is no experimental evidence
you suppose that clock run in space-time
where time is forth dimension
how you can measure a dimension with a clock that does not move along it !!!!!!!!!!
U
L
L
S
H
I
T
When will you get it?
bul...sh...it is idea that clocks run in time.............how you can stand behind such an apriory preposition for which there is no experimental evidence
you suppose that clock run in space-time
where time is forth dimension
how you can measure a dimension with a clock that does not move along it !!!!!!!!!!
amrit:
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 24 2009, 03:23 PM)
amrit:
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
most of physicists today is convinced that space-time is a fundamental arena in which material change run................
I'm shoving clearly that fundamental arena is space that is timeless.
When this will be accepted in physics my job will be done
but still a lot have to be done
I propose here a possibility that members vote:
1. space-time is fundamental arena of the universe
2. timeless space is fundamental arena of the universe
I'm convinced 99% of members will write that 1. is real and 2 is wrong.
So can you arrange that questionnaire here..........Let's be sincere
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
most of physicists today is convinced that space-time is a fundamental arena in which material change run................
I'm shoving clearly that fundamental arena is space that is timeless.
When this will be accepted in physics my job will be done
but still a lot have to be done
I propose here a possibility that members vote:
1. space-time is fundamental arena of the universe
2. timeless space is fundamental arena of the universe
I'm convinced 99% of members will write that 1. is real and 2 is wrong.
So can you arrange that questionnaire here..........Let's be sincere
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 24 2009, 03:23 PM)
amrit:
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
read that
Jonathan Halliwell: Decoherent histories analysis of models without time
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-...ipt=sci_arttext
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
read that
Jonathan Halliwell: Decoherent histories analysis of models without time
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-...ipt=sci_arttext
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 12:05 PM)
read that
Jonathan Halliwell: Decoherent histories analysis of models without time
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-...ipt=sci_arttext
you say:
amrit:
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
PS
time is not "side effect" of the universe at all as you say
time exists only as "inner time"
universe itself is timeless
Jonathan Halliwell: Decoherent histories analysis of models without time
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-...ipt=sci_arttext
you say:
amrit:
You make a mountain out of a molehill with your ongoing arm-waving about time. I'm pretty sure that physics understands that time is a "symptom or side-effect" of our universe. Your fixation with clocks is unnecessary if you would just realize that they are nothing but a device that allows our linear perceptions to "mark" the passage of events.
You're sure you have some grand insight here ... but you don't. It is just your apparent obsession with terminology (as best as I can understand) that is your primary dysfunction.
PS
time is not "side effect" of the universe at all as you say
time exists only as "inner time"
universe itself is timeless
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 10:24 AM)
time is not "side effect" of the universe at all as you say
time exists only as "inner time"
universe itself is timeless
Proof?
time exists only as "inner time"
universe itself is timeless
Proof?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 02:25 PM)
Proof?
with clocks we do not measure time, no experiment prove that
all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
and space itself is timeless.........
time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
space-time is math model only
with clocks we do not measure time, no experiment prove that
all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
and space itself is timeless.........
time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
space-time is math model only
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 10:27 AM)
with clocks we do not measure time, no experiment prove that
all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
and space itself is timeless.........
time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
space-time is math model only
You're like a small child, screaming to get what he wants. You shout the same thing over and over, demanding that people listen to you. My answer to you is: Grow up.
all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
and space itself is timeless.........
time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
space-time is math model only
You're like a small child, screaming to get what he wants. You shout the same thing over and over, demanding that people listen to you. My answer to you is: Grow up.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 02:46 PM)
You're like a small child, screaming to get what he wants. You shout the same thing over and over, demanding that people listen to you. My answer to you is: Grow up.
you are avoiding my questions:
-who has ever measured time directly in the whole history of science ?
-who has ever seen time with eyes or electronic device?
all what I say is correct:
1.with clocks we do not measure time, no experiment prove that
2.all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
3.space itself is timeless.........
4. time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
5. space-time is math model only
you grow up your mind and be more aware of its functioning
time is part of the mind
are you aware of that ?
comment my statements one by one: 1,2,3,4,5
nobody here ever comment my statements, all are blaming me....where is here dignity and sincerity
you are avoiding my questions:
-who has ever measured time directly in the whole history of science ?
-who has ever seen time with eyes or electronic device?
all what I say is correct:
1.with clocks we do not measure time, no experiment prove that
2.all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
3.space itself is timeless.........
4. time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
5. space-time is math model only
you grow up your mind and be more aware of its functioning
time is part of the mind
are you aware of that ?
comment my statements one by one: 1,2,3,4,5
nobody here ever comment my statements, all are blaming me....where is here dignity and sincerity
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 11:57 AM)
1.with clocks we do not measure time, no experiment prove that
Bad English. Your definition of time is ill-defined.
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
3.space itself is timeless.........
So you say. Evidence would suggest otherwise.
You are stating your conclusion, not evidence. So far, this idea seems ridiculous.
You are stating your conclusion, not evidence. So far, this idea seems ridiculous.
5. space-time is math model only
This is a completely vague statement. It is not clear what your definition of space-time is, let alone what you are actually trying to say. Does 1+1=2? That's a math model that holds true in reality.
-time is tick of clock
-arrow of time is numerical order of change
-universe is timeless
-past and future are of the mind
Reality for us is the perception of sequential of events. Some events occur in a regular predictive order, such as the action of manufactured clocks, and the action natural clocks, such as the rotation of the Earth, the orbit of the Moon, and Earth's orbit around the Sun. This small set of representations of time have a great influence on the behavior of just about everything around us. If you were to include the entire set of ordered relationships in existence, then a timeless universe would be the stuff of imagination.
According to my research time can remain in physics as a run of clocks.
Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.
In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.
yours amrit
Bad English. Your definition of time is ill-defined.
QUOTE
2.all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2.all experimental data prove that with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space |
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
3.space itself is timeless.........
So you say. Evidence would suggest otherwise.
QUOTE
4. time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality
You are stating your conclusion, not evidence. So far, this idea seems ridiculous.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. time as a part of space does not exist in physical reality |
You are stating your conclusion, not evidence. So far, this idea seems ridiculous.
5. space-time is math model only
This is a completely vague statement. It is not clear what your definition of space-time is, let alone what you are actually trying to say. Does 1+1=2? That's a math model that holds true in reality.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 04:16 PM)
Bad English. Your definition of time is ill-defined.
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
So you say. Evidence would suggest otherwise.
You are stating your conclusion, not evidence. So far, this idea seems ridiculous.
This is a completely vague statement. It is not clear what your definition of space-time is, let alone what you are actually trying to say. Does 1+1=2? That's a math model that holds true in reality.
you say:
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
no there is no evidence time is granular, there is also no evidence time is not granular
there is no evidence that time exists at all..........tell me one
velocity is not illusion
velocity we measure with clock
I see now you do not understand the point at all
velocity we measure with clock not time, you are not aware, you think that velocity change in time.....no velocity change in space only, we measure rate of velocity with clocks
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
So you say. Evidence would suggest otherwise.
You are stating your conclusion, not evidence. So far, this idea seems ridiculous.
This is a completely vague statement. It is not clear what your definition of space-time is, let alone what you are actually trying to say. Does 1+1=2? That's a math model that holds true in reality.
you say:
There is no evidence that time is granular. You are suggesting a universe that resembles stop-motion cinema, where velocity is an illusion.
no there is no evidence time is granular, there is also no evidence time is not granular
there is no evidence that time exists at all..........tell me one
velocity is not illusion
velocity we measure with clock
I see now you do not understand the point at all
velocity we measure with clock not time, you are not aware, you think that velocity change in time.....no velocity change in space only, we measure rate of velocity with clocks
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 12:55 PM)
no there is no evidence time is granular, there is also no evidence time is not granular
there is no evidence that time exists at all..........tell me one
velocity is not illusion
velocity we measure with clock
This is so ridiculously stupid. If time was granular, how would we have momentum? Time is the same as any other dimension: height, width and depth. The only difference is that we are stuck moving in one direction through time.
there is no evidence that time exists at all..........tell me one
velocity is not illusion
velocity we measure with clock
This is so ridiculously stupid. If time was granular, how would we have momentum? Time is the same as any other dimension: height, width and depth. The only difference is that we are stuck moving in one direction through time.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 05:06 PM)
This is so ridiculously stupid. If time was granular, how would we have momentum? Time is the same as any other dimension: height, width and depth. The only difference is that we are stuck moving in one direction through time.
time is dimension of the mind
we move in space only, do you walk in time, me no, I walk only in space
and with clock I measure velocity of my walk
v = D/t
d is distance
t is second
clock "tick" in space only not in time.......got it ?????????'
time is dimension of the mind
we move in space only, do you walk in time, me no, I walk only in space
and with clock I measure velocity of my walk
v = D/t
d is distance
t is second
clock "tick" in space only not in time.......got it ?????????'
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 01:10 PM)
we move in space only, do you walk in time, me no, I walk only in space
and with clock I measure velocity of my walk
v = D/t
d is distance
t is second
clock "tick" in space only not in time.......got it ?????????'
Do you repeatedly bash your head against concrete? Motion depends on time. A 3-dimenional world with no time dimension would be a motionless one. A change in position requires a change in time.
You are clinically insane.
and with clock I measure velocity of my walk
v = D/t
d is distance
t is second
clock "tick" in space only not in time.......got it ?????????'
Do you repeatedly bash your head against concrete? Motion depends on time. A 3-dimenional world with no time dimension would be a motionless one. A change in position requires a change in time.
You are clinically insane.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 05:13 PM)
Do you repeatedly bash your head against concrete? Motion depends on time. A 3-dimenional world with no time dimension would be a motionless one. A change in position requires a change in time.
You are clinically insane.
dear friend
it is hard subject time
I know your strugle.
THe fact is: space is timeless.
J. J. Halliwell, Decoherent histories analysis of models without time, Brazilian. Journal. Of Physics. vol.35 no.2a Săo Paulo June 2005 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-...ipt=sci_arttext
see also
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117
stay good
PS
A change in position requires a change in time.
not at all
a change of position in space we measure with clocks...........
You are clinically insane.
dear friend
it is hard subject time
I know your strugle.
THe fact is: space is timeless.
J. J. Halliwell, Decoherent histories analysis of models without time, Brazilian. Journal. Of Physics. vol.35 no.2a Săo Paulo June 2005 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-...ipt=sci_arttext
see also
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117
stay good
PS
A change in position requires a change in time.
not at all
a change of position in space we measure with clocks...........
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 01:30 PM)
fact is: space is timeless
false.
false.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 05:40 PM)
false.
ok
tell me where is space is time ?
ok
tell me where is space is time ?
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 25 2009, 02:09 PM)
ok
tell me where is space is time ?
Do you actually think that time is an object with a location? You ask questions like a retarded child.
tell me where is space is time ?
Do you actually think that time is an object with a location? You ask questions like a retarded child.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 25 2009, 06:13 PM)
Do you actually think that time is an object with a location? You ask questions like a retarded child.
My proposal here is that in physics we have to stop thinking in terms of time, because there is no experimental evidence of space-time as a physical reality. Space-time is merely a mathematical model.
Space is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space.
Symbol “t” in equations means exactly “clocks tick” not more and not less.
t = clock tick
Concept of timeless quantum space and time t as a “clock tick” is a basis for theory that will connect GR and QM.
Yours amrit
My proposal here is that in physics we have to stop thinking in terms of time, because there is no experimental evidence of space-time as a physical reality. Space-time is merely a mathematical model.
Space is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space.
Symbol “t” in equations means exactly “clocks tick” not more and not less.
t = clock tick
Concept of timeless quantum space and time t as a “clock tick” is a basis for theory that will connect GR and QM.
Yours amrit
from now on i will be here rearly, see my work on
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/489
chers, amrit
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/489
chers, amrit
1 + 1 can not be 1. 1+1 is 2
Space is one physical entity time si another physical entity.
To try to make one of them is wrong.
Actually we can not talk about space as in universe we observe only distances.
Space is a mind model, in the universe fundamental physical reality in which physical change run is gravity field.
I suggest here that physics develops models of physical world on two basic physical facts
1. fundamental arena of the universe is gravity field i.e quantum space. Gravity field itself is timeless. Time is not part of gravity field.
2. time is tick of clocks that exist in gravity field
We measure speed of clocks is slower in stranger gravity field. This is isight of the Relativity Theory.
We have to forget space/time being fundamental arena of the universe. This is wrong idea prevents connection between GR and GM.
I'm not against time, I do not say that there is no time. For me time is tick of clocks. With clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical change that run in timeless gravity field i.e quantum space.
Space is one physical entity time si another physical entity.
To try to make one of them is wrong.
Actually we can not talk about space as in universe we observe only distances.
Space is a mind model, in the universe fundamental physical reality in which physical change run is gravity field.
I suggest here that physics develops models of physical world on two basic physical facts
1. fundamental arena of the universe is gravity field i.e quantum space. Gravity field itself is timeless. Time is not part of gravity field.
2. time is tick of clocks that exist in gravity field
We measure speed of clocks is slower in stranger gravity field. This is isight of the Relativity Theory.
We have to forget space/time being fundamental arena of the universe. This is wrong idea prevents connection between GR and GM.
I'm not against time, I do not say that there is no time. For me time is tick of clocks. With clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical change that run in timeless gravity field i.e quantum space.
we all agree on two facts
1. universe and nature including human being change
2. we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical and biological change with clocks
out of that follows
-time is tick of clock
-arrow of time is numerical order of change
-universe is timeless
-past and future are of the mind
1. universe and nature including human being change
2. we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical and biological change with clocks
out of that follows
-time is tick of clock
-arrow of time is numerical order of change
-universe is timeless
-past and future are of the mind
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 28 2009, 03:53 PM)
we all agree on two facts
1. universe and nature including human being change
2. we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical and biological change with clocks
out of that follows
-time is tick of clock
-arrow of time is numerical order of change
-universe is timeless
-past and future are of the mind
What you are missing is that clocks use frequency to operate.
Reality is what remains when you stop believing in it.
If everyone dissapeared would the moon still be there tommorrow?
I believe so, that means the future does not depend on us to exist.
1. universe and nature including human being change
2. we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical and biological change with clocks
out of that follows
-time is tick of clock
-arrow of time is numerical order of change
-universe is timeless
-past and future are of the mind
What you are missing is that clocks use frequency to operate.
Reality is what remains when you stop believing in it.
If everyone dissapeared would the moon still be there tommorrow?
I believe so, that means the future does not depend on us to exist.
With introduction of Minkovsky space-time math model into physics has happened that ma thematic has overruled physics. Physics is not any more natural science, physics has become mathematical science.
Theoretical physics is developing models of the world we do not know how much they correspond to the physical world itself.
Some physicists discuss of introduction of *chrons* as a basic quanta of space-time. There is absolutely no evidence of such a particle.
We are on crucial point of physics development where we have to exam-in again fundamental physical terms we deal with them.
Space-time definitely should not be a part of physics vocabulary any more.
yours amrit
Theoretical physics is developing models of the world we do not know how much they correspond to the physical world itself.
Some physicists discuss of introduction of *chrons* as a basic quanta of space-time. There is absolutely no evidence of such a particle.
We are on crucial point of physics development where we have to exam-in again fundamental physical terms we deal with them.
Space-time definitely should not be a part of physics vocabulary any more.
yours amrit
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 28 2009, 03:53 PM)
-time is tick of clock
-arrow of time is numerical order of change
-universe is timeless
-past and future are of the mind
Reality for us is the perception of sequential of events. Some events occur in a regular predictive order, such as the action of manufactured clocks, and the action natural clocks, such as the rotation of the Earth, the orbit of the Moon, and Earth's orbit around the Sun. This small set of representations of time have a great influence on the behavior of just about everything around us. If you were to include the entire set of ordered relationships in existence, then a timeless universe would be the stuff of imagination.
To prove uniform gravitational acceleration Galileo rolled a bronze sphere down a smooth incline plane. Galileo had no accurate time piece with which he could record the time over which the sphere rolled a particular distance. So he used a water clock, he opened the pipe of the water clock at the beginning of the roll and stopped the flow of water from the pipe at the end of the roll. The mass of the water collected was then the relative amount of time over which the sphere rolled. So time is the rate of one physical event as opposed to the rate of another physical event. There is nothing abstract or philosophical about time, it is just the comparative rate of two physical events.
What is invented is: which physical event did man choose to compare all other physical events, and how many times do you subdivide the event. Apparently the event chosen was the rate at which the Earth spins once on its axis. In English it is called a Day. The Day was divided into 24 equal parts (hours), then 60 parts (minutes), then again into 60 parts (seconds), after that we use decimal portions of a second. I suppose we could have used decimal portions of a day, so in that sense time units are arbitrary, but the rotation of the Earth is not, it is a physical event.
Amrit, time is a simple concept. If you can’t conceive of simple things as being simple then you cannot move on to greater concepts. What if Galileo had spent his life pondering the meaning of time? If you have a great mind; then use it.
What is invented is: which physical event did man choose to compare all other physical events, and how many times do you subdivide the event. Apparently the event chosen was the rate at which the Earth spins once on its axis. In English it is called a Day. The Day was divided into 24 equal parts (hours), then 60 parts (minutes), then again into 60 parts (seconds), after that we use decimal portions of a second. I suppose we could have used decimal portions of a day, so in that sense time units are arbitrary, but the rotation of the Earth is not, it is a physical event.
Amrit, time is a simple concept. If you can’t conceive of simple things as being simple then you cannot move on to greater concepts. What if Galileo had spent his life pondering the meaning of time? If you have a great mind; then use it.
According to my research time can remain in physics as a run of clocks.
Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.
In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.
yours amrit
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 30 2009, 03:16 AM)
According to the voices in my head, time can remain in physics as a run of clocks.
Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.
In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.
yours amrit
There, fixed it for you.
Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.
In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.
yours amrit
There, fixed it for you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 30 2009, 02:49 PM)
There, fixed it for you.
what say voices in yur head about time ?????
tell us.........................
what say voices in yur head about time ?????
tell us.........................
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 3 2009, 04:49 AM)
what say voices in yur head about time ?????
tell us.........................
They say:
"Grammar is an important tool for communication, it would be best if you use it."
tell us.........................
They say:
"Grammar is an important tool for communication, it would be best if you use it."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 3 2009, 03:23 PM)
They say:
"Grammar is an important tool for communication, it would be best if you use it."
you do not have an idea that you do not have an idea
you are completely unaware of your words......wake up..........
"Grammar is an important tool for communication, it would be best if you use it."
you do not have an idea that you do not have an idea
you are completely unaware of your words......wake up..........
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 5 2009, 10:57 AM)
you do not have an idea that you do not have an idea
you are completely unaware of your words......wake up..........
Why is every post of yours a massive communications fail? You apparently lack the ability to communicate basic ideas using the English language.
you are completely unaware of your words......wake up..........
Why is every post of yours a massive communications fail? You apparently lack the ability to communicate basic ideas using the English language.
The only things he does manage to communicate are a massive ego and a minuscule intelligence.
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 30 2009, 07:16 AM)
According to my research time can remain in physics as a run of clocks.
Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.
In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.
yours amrit
You do understand that if you got 100 of the most accurate clocks possible and sychronized them then put 99 in various orbits for a few years, then put them all together again, they would have different readings, right?
It has been tested, not with that many but it has been tested.
Symbol t in physical equations is representing tick of clock in timeless gravity field i.e. quantum space.
In this way all will be elegant and easy but not to easy.
yours amrit
You do understand that if you got 100 of the most accurate clocks possible and sychronized them then put 99 in various orbits for a few years, then put them all together again, they would have different readings, right?
It has been tested, not with that many but it has been tested.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 5 2009, 12:50 PM)
You do understand that if you got 100 of the most accurate clocks possible and sychronized them then put 99 in various orbits for a few years, then put them all together again, they would have different readings, right?
It has been tested, not with that many but it has been tested.
amrit's claims are so impossibly vague that there is no possible to way to prove or disprove them. It's like if I claimed that all protons are blue and all neutrons are red.
It has been tested, not with that many but it has been tested.
amrit's claims are so impossibly vague that there is no possible to way to prove or disprove them. It's like if I claimed that all protons are blue and all neutrons are red.
you are helpless...............t
Sigh.. no.. he has help.
Your likely going for the term hopeless.
Which is ironic in any case since you are hopeless at spelling hopeless or making any kind of sense.
Your likely going for the term hopeless.
Which is ironic in any case since you are hopeless at spelling hopeless or making any kind of sense.
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 23 2009, 05:21 PM)
WITH CLOCKS WE MEASURE SPEED
AND NUMERICAL ORDER OF CHANGE IN SPACE
“Time - the time that we know through clocks and calendars - was invented”.
Albert Einstein
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a speed and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
When the change n+1 enters into existence, the change n does not exist any more. When the change n+2 enters existence, the change n+1 does not exist any more. Clocks measure a speed and numerical order of change that occurs in a space. We experience the change x before the change x+1 and the change x+2 after the change x+1 because we experience a stream of change in a linear concept of the inner time that is based in neuronal activity of the brain.
Research done in 2003 introduces idea that part of the brain is creating time: “The brain is the “local” creator of time, space, and space-time as our special maps of the reality we “observe” and participate in” (1).
Research done in 2005 shows that consequent experience of changes in a “past-present-future” perspective is a result of neuronal dynamics in certain areas of the brain (2).
With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of change in space. Time is not a part of space in which change occurs. The fundamental arena in which changes occur is the space.
A growing number of modern researchers are challenging the view that space-time is the fundamental arena of the universe. They point out that the mathematical model of space-time does not correspond to the physical reality, and propose a “timeless space” as the arena instead. One recent paper on the subject is: “A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity:Since quantum theory is inherently blind to the existence of such state-space geometries, the analysis here suggests that attempts to formulate unified theories of physics within a conventional quantum-theoretic framework are misguided, and that a successful quantum theory of gravity should unify the causal non-Euclidean geometry of space time with the atemporal fractal geometry of state space (3).
Another recent paper says: “We illustrate our proposal using a toy model where we show how the Lorentzian signature and Nordstroem gravity (a diffeomorphisms invariant scalar gravity theory) can emerge from a timeless non-dynamical space” (4).
Julian Barbour says in The Nature of Time: “I will not claim that time can be definitely banished from physics; the universe might be infinite, and black holes present some problems for the time picture. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that time as such plays no role in the universe”(5).
What is meant here is that the time obtained by clocks is information about change in the universe. Time definitely does not play any role in the universe. Time is a scientific tool for measuring speed and numerical order of change.
Ernst Mach said: “It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things”. Mach is right. Clocks are man-made inventions and time is an abstraction of the mind.
In physics numerical order of change is represented by a straight infinite line composed of real numbers. Since the real numbers are a continuum also changes are a continuum. Transformation of the change n into n+1, n+1 into n+2 is an unbroken continuous process. Number zero represents the present moment in which we measure changes. Changes that have happened are represented by the real numbers to the left from zero and changes that will happen are represented by real numbers to the right from zero.
_-____________________________0____________________________+__
As we experience changes through linear concept of inner time we are not aware that changes run in the timeless space only and not in time. With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of changes running in space.
changes occurring in the space - perception – processing of the inner time - experience
In today physics stream of change is understood as a function of time although there is no experimental data for such interpretation.
C = f (t)
Experimental data confirm that changes run in space only and with clocks we measure their speed and numerical order. Smallest unit of numerical order is “Planck time” and largest is “one year”.
We perceive changes that occur in the universe through our eyes. Then the information about the changes is processed by the brain into the inner time, and finally becomes our experience. Between the perception and the experience there is processing through the inner time that creates a distortion of perception. However, once we become aware of the inner time, we can experience changes directly as they occur. This direct experience gives a scientist an objective view of the timeless nature of the physical world.
This direct experience is essential for the further development of physics. The direct experience can be achieved by observing a pendulum. For the first few minutes you will experience the pendulum moving in space and time. After closing your eyes to envisage an image of the pendulum moving in your mind's eye, you become aware of the inner time in which you experience pendulum motion. You experience the change directly as it occurs in space.
An observer is a constituent part of a scientific experiment. In the indirect (temporal) experience the observer is captured within the inner time. He experiences timeless space through inner time as a present moment. In the direct (atemporal) experience the observer is fully aware of the inner time and experiences changes directly as they occur in a timeless space. He experiences timeless space directly as a fundamental physical reality in which changes occur.
INDIRECT TEMPORAL EXPERIENCE
change – perception - processing through the inner time - temporal experience of the observer
DIRECT ATEMPORAL EXPERIENCE
change - perception (eyes) - atemporal experience of the observer
With discovery of inner time, a new interpretation of relativity emerges. The universe is a timeless phenomenon where changes exist “before” and “after” only in a sense of a numerical order. Experimental physics confirms that changes occur in the present moment in the timeless space only and not in space-time that is only a mathematical model. In a faster inertial system that moves in the timeless space the speed of change is slower than in a slower inertial system. With stronger gravity the speed of change is slower than with weaker gravity. The so-called “time-dilatation” means that the speed of change slows down, including the speed of clocks.
Recent research indicates that some change happens in zero time. Timeless quantum communication is a real phenomenon: “We show how continuous-variable systems can allow the direct communication of messages with an acceptable degree of privacy. This is possible by combining a suitable phase-space encoding of the plain message with real-time checks of the quantum communication channel. The resulting protocol works properly when a small amount of noise affects the quantum channel. If this noise is non-tolerable, the protocol stops leaving a limited amount of information to a potential eavesdropper” (6). What is meant here is that information does not move through space-time, but through the timeless space, an immediate medium for identifiable quanta.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment similarly reminds us that physical space is a timeless environment. There is no discernible signal in the form of a photon travelling between A and B. The time of information transfer between A and B is essentially zero. We might infer that A and B are extended entities. The timeless space represents an immediate communication medium between the quanta A and B (7).
The timeless physical space as an “immediate information medium” resolves the causality problem of the Fermi two-atom system: “Let A and B be two atoms or, more generally, a ‘source’ and a ‘detector’ separated by some distance R. At t=0 A is in an excited state, B in its ground state, and no photons are present. A theorem is proved that in contrast to Einstein causality and finite signal velocity, the excitation probability of B is non-zero immediately after t=0. Implications are discussed”(8). The excitation probability of B is non-zero because the space in which atoms exist is an “immediate medium of excitation”.
It can be said that certain physical phenomena are timeless, since no measurable time elapses for them to happen. For example in the article entitled Attosecond Ionization and Tunneling Delay Time Measurements in Helium by Eckle et al, a conclusion is drawn that "an electron can tunnel through the potential barrier of a He atom in practically no time" (9).
In similar vein, a recent arxiv paper depicts a system of diagrams to represent various elements of a quantum circuit, in a form which makes no reference to time (10).
Quantum gravity describes space as granular. Space is made out of quanta of space volume of Planck (11).
What is meant here is that the quantum space is an immediate medium for information (I) and energy (E) transfer. At Planck size (IE), transfers are immediate; at photon size, they move at the light speed; at larger scales they move at the speed lower than the light speed.
Gravity is not an energy transfer from an object A to an object B, gravity is a result of dynamics between mass and quantum space. Existence of certain mass in a given volume of space changes the quantum structure of space and this generates gravity. In the General Theory of Relativity structural change of quantum space is described by curvature of space. Quantum space itself is timeless. Gravity is immediate.
Understanding of time here confirms a vision of Einstein and Gödel who considered the universe to be a timeless phenomenon (12). “Back in time” and “forward in time” exists only as a numerical order of changes. In this sense numerical order and speed of changes are physical quantities that we measure with clocks.
Hypothetical “travelling in time” in spaceships is out of question; one can travel in space only. With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of motion of a spaceship in space.
In today’s physics the conviction still prevails that time is a part of space and so a fundamental physical reality in which change occurs. Most physicists are still experiencing changes through the linear inner time. They “project” the inner time into the physical reality and so their experience is temporal. Temporal experience is an obstacle for deeper understanding of immediate quantum phenomena for which clock change is zero. Physicists who know only the temporal experience are convinced that no change can happen in time zero.
Once a physicist is aware of the inner time he experiences changes directly as they occur in space. This atemporal experience confirms that time is not a part of physical world; with clocks we do not measure time, we measure speed and numerical order of changes that occur in the space. Atemporal experience will ensure development of new scientific models that will be closer to the real nature of the universe.
this is one of your best posts
“Time - the time that we know through clocks and calendars - was invented”.
Albert Einstein
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
so it appears that today's scientists are leaning my way
AND NUMERICAL ORDER OF CHANGE IN SPACE
“Time - the time that we know through clocks and calendars - was invented”.
Albert Einstein
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a speed and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
When the change n+1 enters into existence, the change n does not exist any more. When the change n+2 enters existence, the change n+1 does not exist any more. Clocks measure a speed and numerical order of change that occurs in a space. We experience the change x before the change x+1 and the change x+2 after the change x+1 because we experience a stream of change in a linear concept of the inner time that is based in neuronal activity of the brain.
Research done in 2003 introduces idea that part of the brain is creating time: “The brain is the “local” creator of time, space, and space-time as our special maps of the reality we “observe” and participate in” (1).
Research done in 2005 shows that consequent experience of changes in a “past-present-future” perspective is a result of neuronal dynamics in certain areas of the brain (2).
With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of change in space. Time is not a part of space in which change occurs. The fundamental arena in which changes occur is the space.
A growing number of modern researchers are challenging the view that space-time is the fundamental arena of the universe. They point out that the mathematical model of space-time does not correspond to the physical reality, and propose a “timeless space” as the arena instead. One recent paper on the subject is: “A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity:Since quantum theory is inherently blind to the existence of such state-space geometries, the analysis here suggests that attempts to formulate unified theories of physics within a conventional quantum-theoretic framework are misguided, and that a successful quantum theory of gravity should unify the causal non-Euclidean geometry of space time with the atemporal fractal geometry of state space (3).
Another recent paper says: “We illustrate our proposal using a toy model where we show how the Lorentzian signature and Nordstroem gravity (a diffeomorphisms invariant scalar gravity theory) can emerge from a timeless non-dynamical space” (4).
Julian Barbour says in The Nature of Time: “I will not claim that time can be definitely banished from physics; the universe might be infinite, and black holes present some problems for the time picture. Nevertheless, I think it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that time as such plays no role in the universe”(5).
What is meant here is that the time obtained by clocks is information about change in the universe. Time definitely does not play any role in the universe. Time is a scientific tool for measuring speed and numerical order of change.
Ernst Mach said: “It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things”. Mach is right. Clocks are man-made inventions and time is an abstraction of the mind.
In physics numerical order of change is represented by a straight infinite line composed of real numbers. Since the real numbers are a continuum also changes are a continuum. Transformation of the change n into n+1, n+1 into n+2 is an unbroken continuous process. Number zero represents the present moment in which we measure changes. Changes that have happened are represented by the real numbers to the left from zero and changes that will happen are represented by real numbers to the right from zero.
_-____________________________0____________________________+__
As we experience changes through linear concept of inner time we are not aware that changes run in the timeless space only and not in time. With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of changes running in space.
changes occurring in the space - perception – processing of the inner time - experience
In today physics stream of change is understood as a function of time although there is no experimental data for such interpretation.
C = f (t)
Experimental data confirm that changes run in space only and with clocks we measure their speed and numerical order. Smallest unit of numerical order is “Planck time” and largest is “one year”.
We perceive changes that occur in the universe through our eyes. Then the information about the changes is processed by the brain into the inner time, and finally becomes our experience. Between the perception and the experience there is processing through the inner time that creates a distortion of perception. However, once we become aware of the inner time, we can experience changes directly as they occur. This direct experience gives a scientist an objective view of the timeless nature of the physical world.
This direct experience is essential for the further development of physics. The direct experience can be achieved by observing a pendulum. For the first few minutes you will experience the pendulum moving in space and time. After closing your eyes to envisage an image of the pendulum moving in your mind's eye, you become aware of the inner time in which you experience pendulum motion. You experience the change directly as it occurs in space.
An observer is a constituent part of a scientific experiment. In the indirect (temporal) experience the observer is captured within the inner time. He experiences timeless space through inner time as a present moment. In the direct (atemporal) experience the observer is fully aware of the inner time and experiences changes directly as they occur in a timeless space. He experiences timeless space directly as a fundamental physical reality in which changes occur.
INDIRECT TEMPORAL EXPERIENCE
change – perception - processing through the inner time - temporal experience of the observer
DIRECT ATEMPORAL EXPERIENCE
change - perception (eyes) - atemporal experience of the observer
With discovery of inner time, a new interpretation of relativity emerges. The universe is a timeless phenomenon where changes exist “before” and “after” only in a sense of a numerical order. Experimental physics confirms that changes occur in the present moment in the timeless space only and not in space-time that is only a mathematical model. In a faster inertial system that moves in the timeless space the speed of change is slower than in a slower inertial system. With stronger gravity the speed of change is slower than with weaker gravity. The so-called “time-dilatation” means that the speed of change slows down, including the speed of clocks.
Recent research indicates that some change happens in zero time. Timeless quantum communication is a real phenomenon: “We show how continuous-variable systems can allow the direct communication of messages with an acceptable degree of privacy. This is possible by combining a suitable phase-space encoding of the plain message with real-time checks of the quantum communication channel. The resulting protocol works properly when a small amount of noise affects the quantum channel. If this noise is non-tolerable, the protocol stops leaving a limited amount of information to a potential eavesdropper” (6). What is meant here is that information does not move through space-time, but through the timeless space, an immediate medium for identifiable quanta.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment similarly reminds us that physical space is a timeless environment. There is no discernible signal in the form of a photon travelling between A and B. The time of information transfer between A and B is essentially zero. We might infer that A and B are extended entities. The timeless space represents an immediate communication medium between the quanta A and B (7).
The timeless physical space as an “immediate information medium” resolves the causality problem of the Fermi two-atom system: “Let A and B be two atoms or, more generally, a ‘source’ and a ‘detector’ separated by some distance R. At t=0 A is in an excited state, B in its ground state, and no photons are present. A theorem is proved that in contrast to Einstein causality and finite signal velocity, the excitation probability of B is non-zero immediately after t=0. Implications are discussed”(8). The excitation probability of B is non-zero because the space in which atoms exist is an “immediate medium of excitation”.
It can be said that certain physical phenomena are timeless, since no measurable time elapses for them to happen. For example in the article entitled Attosecond Ionization and Tunneling Delay Time Measurements in Helium by Eckle et al, a conclusion is drawn that "an electron can tunnel through the potential barrier of a He atom in practically no time" (9).
In similar vein, a recent arxiv paper depicts a system of diagrams to represent various elements of a quantum circuit, in a form which makes no reference to time (10).
Quantum gravity describes space as granular. Space is made out of quanta of space volume of Planck (11).
What is meant here is that the quantum space is an immediate medium for information (I) and energy (E) transfer. At Planck size (IE), transfers are immediate; at photon size, they move at the light speed; at larger scales they move at the speed lower than the light speed.
Gravity is not an energy transfer from an object A to an object B, gravity is a result of dynamics between mass and quantum space. Existence of certain mass in a given volume of space changes the quantum structure of space and this generates gravity. In the General Theory of Relativity structural change of quantum space is described by curvature of space. Quantum space itself is timeless. Gravity is immediate.
Understanding of time here confirms a vision of Einstein and Gödel who considered the universe to be a timeless phenomenon (12). “Back in time” and “forward in time” exists only as a numerical order of changes. In this sense numerical order and speed of changes are physical quantities that we measure with clocks.
Hypothetical “travelling in time” in spaceships is out of question; one can travel in space only. With clocks we measure speed and numerical order of motion of a spaceship in space.
In today’s physics the conviction still prevails that time is a part of space and so a fundamental physical reality in which change occurs. Most physicists are still experiencing changes through the linear inner time. They “project” the inner time into the physical reality and so their experience is temporal. Temporal experience is an obstacle for deeper understanding of immediate quantum phenomena for which clock change is zero. Physicists who know only the temporal experience are convinced that no change can happen in time zero.
Once a physicist is aware of the inner time he experiences changes directly as they occur in space. This atemporal experience confirms that time is not a part of physical world; with clocks we do not measure time, we measure speed and numerical order of changes that occur in the space. Atemporal experience will ensure development of new scientific models that will be closer to the real nature of the universe.
this is one of your best posts“Time - the time that we know through clocks and calendars - was invented”.
Albert Einstein
http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
so it appears that today's scientists are leaning my way
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 26 2009, 06:08 AM)
My proposal here is that in physics we have to stop thinking in terms of time, because there is no experimental evidence of space-time as a physical reality. Space-time is merely a mathematical model.
Space is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space.
Symbol “t” in equations means exactly “clocks tick” not more and not less.
t = clock tick
Concept of timeless quantum space and time t as a “clock tick” is a basis for theory that will connect GR and QM.
Yours amrit
amrit appears tho be the only scientist on this forum
Space is timeless and with clocks we measure frequency, velocity and numerical order of physical events in space.
Symbol “t” in equations means exactly “clocks tick” not more and not less.
t = clock tick
Concept of timeless quantum space and time t as a “clock tick” is a basis for theory that will connect GR and QM.
Yours amrit
amrit appears tho be the only scientist on this forum
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Sep 5 2009, 03:44 PM)
amrit appears tho be the only scientist on this forum
HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Wow, are you a sockpuppet, or just really really stupid?
HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Wow, are you a sockpuppet, or just really really stupid?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 5 2009, 03:12 PM)
HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Wow, are you a sockpuppet, or just really really stupid?
The latter.
Wow, are you a sockpuppet, or just really really stupid?
The latter.
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 5 2009, 05:58 PM)
you are helpless...............t
But do you recognize what I said as being true?
The GPS takes it into account. Each of the satellites has an extremely precise clock. But as soon as you put them in orbit the rate they track time changes. If you bring one down and compare it to a clock on Earth, you will find not as much time has passed on the Sattellite.
But do you recognize what I said as being true?
The GPS takes it into account. Each of the satellites has an extremely precise clock. But as soon as you put them in orbit the rate they track time changes. If you bring one down and compare it to a clock on Earth, you will find not as much time has passed on the Sattellite.
Amrit, I like your posts. I am a semi-regular on Babin's forum called the General Science Journal. I have also published four papers on his site concerning the prospect that light, as it is observed, is instantaneous. If my theory does prove to be correct, the concept of space/time as it is recognized must be reevaluated. If light is instantaneous, then the concept of time must be purely man-made. I do believe that your concept of time has legitimacy from my point of view. Would you consider reading my papers on GSJ and give me your opinion? Since the publication of these papers on instantaneous light theory, another person has come forward and also published a series of papers essentially supporting my theory. I suggest that you also read his papers. His name is Sunil Thakur.
As I understand it, from the POV of light it is instantaneous. Do you recognize that radio waves are a form of light?
And that from our POV light is not instaneous?
And that that fact is taken into account with the GPS?
And that from our POV light is not instaneous?
And that that fact is taken into account with the GPS?
You're shouting down a well, you know. The poor thing is absolute in his dementia, and no proof will ever suffice unless it is preceded and followed by blows from a club. In this case, the nun's ruler wasn't enough. 
No doubt that is why he cannot reason to begin with...
No doubt that is why he cannot reason to begin with...
Well, technically, radio waves are one form of electromagnetic radiation, as is light. To say that light is radio waves is incorrect.
See there! Why do you think you have two negative comments already?
Never mind! Don't bother to answer, because it will be nonsensical....
Never mind! Don't bother to answer, because it will be nonsensical....
Wasn't Einstein's theory of relativity nonsensical? Or at least non commonsensical? Do you have any objections to critiquing information that is difficult to understand, or goes against common sense?
QUOTE (GogoJF+Sep 7 2009, 07:21 PM)
Wasn't Einstein's theory of relativity nonsensical? Or at least non commonsensical? Do you have any objections to critiquing information that is difficult to understand, or goes against common sense?
Relativity isn't nonsensical. It makes perfect sense given the phenomenon that it was created to explain.
Per your earlier post, all EM radiation is "light." To denote the visible spectrum, call it "visible light."
Your assertion that light is instantaneous contradicts observed facts. Therefore: false.
Relativity isn't nonsensical. It makes perfect sense given the phenomenon that it was created to explain.
Per your earlier post, all EM radiation is "light." To denote the visible spectrum, call it "visible light."
Your assertion that light is instantaneous contradicts observed facts. Therefore: false.
@the whatever: GogoJF
A critique of information requires that there be some (information) first. Amrit is famous for being nonsensical in the face of facts that a schoolchild should have mastered.
Are you going to join the throng of zombies, or is it too late to ask?
I find Einstein's work quite within the realm of "common sense" as it should have evolved in the past century or so of having his work available for study. Are you starting from the Newtonian point of view, or do you have some wonderful new theory that will simplify everything for the uneducated?
Amrit is an obstinate fool with no business pretending to literacy, yet you come from nowhere to support him. BS from you and blather from him and those like him is not rational in the face of what we know. If you have maths to support his maundering and bitching, please provide it: We are all ears.
You certainly fit the profile for a crank, but you may have the floor to attempt to change my opinion. For about five minutes...
A critique of information requires that there be some (information) first. Amrit is famous for being nonsensical in the face of facts that a schoolchild should have mastered.
Are you going to join the throng of zombies, or is it too late to ask?
I find Einstein's work quite within the realm of "common sense" as it should have evolved in the past century or so of having his work available for study. Are you starting from the Newtonian point of view, or do you have some wonderful new theory that will simplify everything for the uneducated?
Amrit is an obstinate fool with no business pretending to literacy, yet you come from nowhere to support him. BS from you and blather from him and those like him is not rational in the face of what we know. If you have maths to support his maundering and bitching, please provide it: We are all ears.
You certainly fit the profile for a crank, but you may have the floor to attempt to change my opinion. For about five minutes...
Well, to make a long story short, I first started publishing about a year ago in General Science Journal. Since then, I have argued on the forum for instant light, and I have not received much feedback. They generally say that I have written good material, and I have convinced them, to a certain extent, of the possibility of instant light.
But, mostly I do not receive comment pro or con. It seems that nobody has a comment on what I have to say. They basically ignore me. A couple of weeks ago author Sunil Thakur published a series of 8 short papers, basically saying the same thing- that light is instantaneous. Since then nobody wants to talk about the subject.
I don't mind being insulted by you. Its better than being ignored. At least I feel that I exist, and that I have a voice.
[Moderator: Please note, appearing in GSJ is a negative endorsement of your value to humanity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Science_Journal ]
But, mostly I do not receive comment pro or con. It seems that nobody has a comment on what I have to say. They basically ignore me. A couple of weeks ago author Sunil Thakur published a series of 8 short papers, basically saying the same thing- that light is instantaneous. Since then nobody wants to talk about the subject.
I don't mind being insulted by you. Its better than being ignored. At least I feel that I exist, and that I have a voice.
[Moderator: Please note, appearing in GSJ is a negative endorsement of your value to humanity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Science_Journal ]
For an instant.
*plonk*
*plonk*
QUOTE (GogoJF+Sep 7 2009, 11:21 PM)
Wasn't Einstein's theory of relativity nonsensical? Or at least non commonsensical? Do you have any objections to critiquing information that is difficult to understand, or goes against common sense?
Most accurate descriptions of reality go against common sense.
The main point is one day there was an eclipse. Einsteins non-sensical theory said that a certain star would appear to be at a spot where common sense said it would not be. So of course people checked. He was right.
Take managers and CEO's.
Who is more likely to be right, someone who first checks their facts or someone who makes up their mind first?
Who is more likely to be right, someone who goes from being wrong to being right?
In both those cases the person who is more likely to be right comes off as indesicive and wishy washy and doesn't get promoted as much. And also generally is that way because they don't have as much self-confidence. or should I say over confident.
So who gets promoted the person most sure of themselves, which is usually the one that is wrong more often. And the smarter they are the better they can convince people that they were actually right all along.
uncommon good sense is rare.
Most accurate descriptions of reality go against common sense.
The main point is one day there was an eclipse. Einsteins non-sensical theory said that a certain star would appear to be at a spot where common sense said it would not be. So of course people checked. He was right.
Take managers and CEO's.
Who is more likely to be right, someone who first checks their facts or someone who makes up their mind first?
Who is more likely to be right, someone who goes from being wrong to being right?
In both those cases the person who is more likely to be right comes off as indesicive and wishy washy and doesn't get promoted as much. And also generally is that way because they don't have as much self-confidence. or should I say over confident.
So who gets promoted the person most sure of themselves, which is usually the one that is wrong more often. And the smarter they are the better they can convince people that they were actually right all along.
uncommon good sense is rare.
QUOTE (GogoJF+Sep 7 2009, 06:52 PM)
Well, to make a long story short, I first started publishing about a year ago in General Science Journal. Since then, I have argued on the forum for instant light, and I have not received much feedback. They generally say that I have written good material, and I have convinced them, to a certain extent, of the possibility of instant light.
But, mostly I do not receive comment pro or con. It seems that nobody has a comment on what I have to say. They basically ignore me. A couple of weeks ago author Sunil Thakur published a series of 8 short papers, basically saying the same thing- that light is instantaneous. Since then nobody wants to talk about the subject.
I don't mind being insulted by you. Its better than being ignored. At least I feel that I exist, and that I have a voice.
That's because you're an idiot.
And calling posting on a forum 'publishing' is even more idiotic.
Not an adequate reason to post.
But, mostly I do not receive comment pro or con. It seems that nobody has a comment on what I have to say. They basically ignore me. A couple of weeks ago author Sunil Thakur published a series of 8 short papers, basically saying the same thing- that light is instantaneous. Since then nobody wants to talk about the subject.
I don't mind being insulted by you. Its better than being ignored. At least I feel that I exist, and that I have a voice.
That's because you're an idiot.
And calling posting on a forum 'publishing' is even more idiotic.
QUOTE
At least I feel that I exist,
Not an adequate reason to post.
Dostoevsky was an idiot, I guess your trying to compliment me.
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for appearing in GSJ and touting that as an accomplishment.]
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for appearing in GSJ and touting that as an accomplishment.]
QUOTE (GogoJF+Sep 7 2009, 11:52 PM)
Well, to make a long story short, I first started publishing about a year ago in General Science Journal. Since then, I have argued on the forum for instant light, and I have not received much feedback.
Here is some feedback on your idea.
But a GPS reciever. If it works then light is not instaneous.
GPS works based on the time differences it takes for light to reach your reciever from four different satellites.
The system would not work with instant light.
Here is some feedback on your idea.
But a GPS reciever. If it works then light is not instaneous.
GPS works based on the time differences it takes for light to reach your reciever from four different satellites.
The system would not work with instant light.
QUOTE (GogoJF+Sep 7 2009, 10:07 PM)
I have also published four papers on his site concerning the prospect that light, as it is observed, is instantaneous. If my theory does prove to be correct, the concept of space/time as it is recognized must be reevaluated.
Your theory has already been disproven in many experiments. For example, the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments done using the retroflectors left on the Moon during the Apollo missions, demonstrate that a laser pulse emitted from the Earth takes about 2.5 seconds to travel to the Moon and be reflected back to its source. How does the theory of instantaneous light explain such a noticeable time lag?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.