Why Time does not Exist

  • 89 Replies
  • 28730 Views
*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Why Time does not Exist
« on: January 05, 2008, 07:16:52 PM »
Why Time does not Exist

The concept of time is probably the most misconstrued and misused concept in science. Most scientists as well as the public think that
“time” actually exists, just like the physical dimensions of length. Some have gone so far as to even give these “particles of time” the name
“chronons.” Many of the so-called reputable journals even publish articles by these ignorant practitioners of voodoo science.

You should have heard the gasps from a presentation on time to a group of scientists when I told them that time did not exist. It was like I
had blasphemed their sacred religion. Let me try to explain the concept of time so that you can go forth and spread the factual truth to those
with open minds:

The concept of “time” is actually quite primitive with early man recognizing that their were repeated cycles of natural events which could
be used to measure the duration of other events. From the recognizing that the four seasons were such a repetitive cycle, to that of a cycle of
day/night, which we later came to understand was one revolution of the Earth about its axis. Then came the falling of sand in an hourglass
to the repetitious swing of a pendulum, and currently to the oscillation of a quartz crystal.

From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second
which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural
event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.

But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. Nowhere. All we have done is to define the duration of a physical event.
Einstein really screwed up most everyone’s perspective with his erroneous use of time and reference (the subject of my next editorial).
After his Theories of Relativity, everyone thought they could go and measure time like one would measure the length of a box with a
yardstick. I’m not saying that the concept of time does not have a purpose in the measuring of a single event by comparing it to the number
of repetitive cycles of a naturally occurring event (i.e. the time it takes me to run a 40 yard dash to the number of quartz oscillations in my
stopwatch).

Then how can time work in Einstein’s formulas. It works in the same way that gravity does. Neither gravity (or its “gravitons”) nor time
(or its “chronons”) exist as discrete entities. Gravity is nothing but the reactive force from Space to its displacement by matter. Likewise
Space and its density cause what we see in the relative variations of the duration of these repetitive naturally occurring events. The more
dense that Space is, the slower time is. This is why time slows down as gravity increases.

If one really needed a true concept of time, the best that I could give would be the linear duration of the lifecycle of the universe. This
would be the only true time absolute that is not affected by the density of Space, as all time in this universe would have the same starting
and ending point. Any subdivision would therefore be allowable. The problem is that we being the ignorant mortals that we are do not
know the duration of the universe’s lifecycle (someday with better technology and theory we can do so based upon the expansion and
contraction rates).

Therefore the best definition of time using its current understanding would be: “Time as a physical entity does not exist but we have
utilized this concept to make relative comparisons of event durations to that of repetitive and reproducible naturally occurring
cycles or subdivisions thereof.” But I would like to take time beyond that to my practical definition of time.

What is the only true constant in this universe besides its lifecycle? The speed of light of course. Time can be easily defined as, “The
duration that it takes a photon to travel a preset distance divided by the speed of light.” The smaller that we can define the distance
that a photon travels, the smaller the unit of time that we can measure. With this definition, there is virtually no limit to how infinitesimally
small of a unit that we can measure. Also we are not limited by using repetitious natural event for our measurement.

In summary, time as a physical entity does not exist, rather it is a means for comparing the duration of an event to the duration of another
which is considered the reference standard. Optimally, this reference standard should be the duration that it takes light to travel a preset
distance, as this would finally make sense out of our reference standards as we would have the same definition for distance and time: t=d/c
and d=c/t.*

James P. Siepmann

*Though NIST currently uses the standard of d=c/t for the meter, it has alas failed to make the next logical step of using the same concept
for time (t=d/c). Maybe someday they will listen…


I saw it and thought it'd be a fun copy/paste.

?

Jesus Jones jr

  • 12
  • +0/-0
  • I will be a good boy! LOL
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2008, 07:24:56 PM »
Why Time does not Exist

The concept of time is probably the most misconstrued and misused concept in science. Most scientists as well as the public think that
“time” actually exists, just like the physical dimensions of length. Some have gone so far as to even give these “particles of time” the name
“chronons.” Many of the so-called reputable journals even publish articles by these ignorant practitioners of voodoo science.

You should have heard the gasps from a presentation on time to a group of scientists when I told them that time did not exist. It was like I
had blasphemed their sacred religion. Let me try to explain the concept of time so that you can go forth and spread the factual truth to those
with open minds:

The concept of “time” is actually quite primitive with early man recognizing that their were repeated cycles of natural events which could
be used to measure the duration of other events. From the recognizing that the four seasons were such a repetitive cycle, to that of a cycle of
day/night, which we later came to understand was one revolution of the Earth about its axis. Then came the falling of sand in an hourglass
to the repetitious swing of a pendulum, and currently to the oscillation of a quartz crystal.

From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second
which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural
event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.

But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. Nowhere. All we have done is to define the duration of a physical event.
Einstein really screwed up most everyone’s perspective with his erroneous use of time and reference (the subject of my next editorial).
After his Theories of Relativity, everyone thought they could go and measure time like one would measure the length of a box with a
yardstick. I’m not saying that the concept of time does not have a purpose in the measuring of a single event by comparing it to the number
of repetitive cycles of a naturally occurring event (i.e. the time it takes me to run a 40 yard dash to the number of quartz oscillations in my
stopwatch).

Then how can time work in Einstein’s formulas. It works in the same way that gravity does. Neither gravity (or its “gravitons”) nor time
(or its “chronons”) exist as discrete entities. Gravity is nothing but the reactive force from Space to its displacement by matter. Likewise
Space and its density cause what we see in the relative variations of the duration of these repetitive naturally occurring events. The more
dense that Space is, the slower time is. This is why time slows down as gravity increases.

If one really needed a true concept of time, the best that I could give would be the linear duration of the lifecycle of the universe. This
would be the only true time absolute that is not affected by the density of Space, as all time in this universe would have the same starting
and ending point. Any subdivision would therefore be allowable. The problem is that we being the ignorant mortals that we are do not
know the duration of the universe’s lifecycle (someday with better technology and theory we can do so based upon the expansion and
contraction rates).

Therefore the best definition of time using its current understanding would be: “Time as a physical entity does not exist but we have
utilized this concept to make relative comparisons of event durations to that of repetitive and reproducible naturally occurring
cycles or subdivisions thereof.” But I would like to take time beyond that to my practical definition of time.

What is the only true constant in this universe besides its lifecycle? The speed of light of course. Time can be easily defined as, “The
duration that it takes a photon to travel a preset distance divided by the speed of light.” The smaller that we can define the distance
that a photon travels, the smaller the unit of time that we can measure. With this definition, there is virtually no limit to how infinitesimally
small of a unit that we can measure. Also we are not limited by using repetitious natural event for our measurement.

In summary, time as a physical entity does not exist, rather it is a means for comparing the duration of an event to the duration of another
which is considered the reference standard. Optimally, this reference standard should be the duration that it takes light to travel a preset
distance, as this would finally make sense out of our reference standards as we would have the same definition for distance and time: t=d/c
and d=c/t.*

James P. Siepmann

*Though NIST currently uses the standard of d=c/t for the meter, it has alas failed to make the next logical step of using the same concept
for time (t=d/c). Maybe someday they will listen…


I saw it and thought it'd be a fun copy/paste.

You need not explain that you copied and pasted this, it is evident that you are a stupid son-of-a-bitch. this is more your speed: what's black and white and read all over?

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2008, 08:02:18 PM »
You need not explain that you copied and pasted this, it is evident that you are a stupid son-of-a-bitch. this is more your speed: what's black and white and read all over?
Your dad as a prepubescent boy, locked in Tom Bishop's armoire. Next.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 08:04:09 PM by Agent_0042 »
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2008, 09:05:55 PM »
Since time does not exist, I'll never be late for work again.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2008, 09:28:38 PM »
Since time does not exist, I don't have to worry about WoW fees anymore.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2008, 09:40:40 PM »
The truncated version, which agrees with this entire thread:

Man created time to remain sane. Thus, it doesn't exist.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2008, 09:45:15 PM »
So, what am I seeing when I watch my watch revolve around it's centre?

Just mechanics?
Or something more?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2008, 09:52:15 PM »
So, what am I seeing when I watch my watch revolve around it's centre?

Just mechanics?
Or something more?

Man-made representations of his desire to keep order in total chaos.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2008, 09:56:04 PM »
to be honest, I see total chaos when I look around my room right now.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2008, 10:08:54 PM »
I agree.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • +0/-0
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2008, 10:15:17 PM »
If chaos works, then why have order?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2008, 10:15:55 PM »
try telling my family that
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2008, 10:16:53 PM »
Or, here's a better analogy:

Why get your hands dirty when you can use a knife and fork?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2008, 10:30:33 PM »
Or, here's a better analogy:

Why get your hands dirty when you can use a knife and fork?

Microbes debase you.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2008, 10:31:18 PM »
you debase me.

At least, you think you do, but you don't.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2008, 04:49:30 AM »
"The only reason for Time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" - Einstein

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2008, 03:15:04 PM »
"The only reason for Time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" - Einstein

AKA Chaos. Insanity. Mass panic. The end.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1147
  • +0/-0
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2008, 02:31:53 AM »
"The only reason for Time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" - Einstein

AKA Chaos. Insanity. Mass panic. Dogs and Cats, Living together.... Mass Histeria!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread ;D
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2008, 11:01:14 PM »
Indeed, time, as the entity that we have made it (i.e. seconds, minutes, hours), does not exist. Time, however, does exist. To be fair, feet, yards, meters, et cetera don't really exist either. They're just shit we made up to make life easier. Same with the "time" we created. Granted the latter is more complex since it's not really physical, per se, and we had to make it physical in order for it to make sense. Still, it's the same deal. I'm pretty sure I didn't need that long-ass post to tell me that, though.


~D-Draw

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2008, 05:19:30 AM »
Finally, people get it!! The whole time being a dimension thing bugged me since elementary school.
* divito the truthist breathes a sigh of relief.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2008, 11:41:03 AM »
Finally, people get it!! The whole time being a dimension thing bugged me since elementary school.
* divito the truthist breathes a sigh of relief.

My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2008, 12:13:03 PM »
Midnight = Rand
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2008, 12:17:45 PM »
Mcnally.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
  • +0/-0
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2008, 09:01:00 PM »
Back in the day (woooah... nostalgia), this was my pet argument. I even made a website:

http://www.freewebs.com/timedoesnotexist/

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • +0/-0
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2008, 02:00:27 PM »
Time exists, and is a dimension. Thus the time-space continuum. Time is how we measure the rate of change. Its just like inches to length.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • +0/-0
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2008, 02:53:00 PM »
Finally, people get it!! The whole time being a dimension thing bugged me since elementary school.
* divito the truthist breathes a sigh of relief.

Time is too a dimension.  How is it not a dimension?  I may be different from a space dimension -- you can't see it --  but it still has a dimension.  That much is elementary, really, but time as a concept is not. 

Time exists merely as a consequence of the events taking place in it.  Space is the same: it exists merely by the bodies and energies contained in it.  Einstein quantified this Aristotelean premise very well, as Germanicus said above. 

As far as human perception is concerned, time is made up of the recollection of memories in the present, the "now".  Time is a result of the way our minds process memories. 

Here's a little Heidegger for you:
Quote
Time is an unfurling whose stages stand in a relation of earlier and later to one another.  Each earlier and later can be determined in terms of a now which, however, is itself arbitrary.  What primarily the clock does in each case is not to indicate the how-long or how-much of time in its present flowing, but to determine the specific fixing of the now. 

(After that his shit gets really strange; he starts talking about pure Being and Dasein, which I think literally translates to "the-ness".  The the-ness of existence.  Jack Kerouac called this "IT! IT! IT! This is IT!")

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2008, 04:18:18 AM »
Time exists, and is a dimension. Thus the time-space continuum. Time is how we measure the rate of change. Its just like inches to length.
Note "we". "We" created time, as a concept, to bring order and meaning to every facet of our lives, when there really isn't any. Fatalistic, but pragmatic.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2008, 04:32:37 AM »
Time exists, and is a dimension. Thus the time-space continuum. Time is how we measure the rate of change. Its just like inches to length.

Sigh. It only exists because it has been defined and named. It is an arbitrary concept, just like other measurements.

Note "we". "We" created time, as a concept, to bring order and meaning to every facet of our lives, when there really isn't any. Fatalistic, but pragmatic.

Exactly.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2008, 06:07:33 AM »
More agreement? This is madness!
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Smarmikus

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Why Time does not Exist
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2008, 07:29:29 AM »
Time is too a dimension.  How is it not a dimension?  I may be different from a space dimension -- you can't see it --  but it still has a dimension. 

I don't have any idea what you are talking about in the rest of that post, but this is okay. 

Indeed, time, as the entity that we have made it (i.e. seconds, minutes, hours), does not exist. Time, however, does exist. To be fair, feet, yards, meters, et cetera don't really exist either. They're just shit we made up to make life easier. Same with the "time" we created. Granted the latter is more complex since it's not really physical, per se, and we had to make it physical in order for it to make sense. Still, it's the same deal. I'm pretty sure I didn't need that long-ass post to tell me that, though.

And this guy has got it, too.  Time still happens even when we are not around, far out in space and long long ago.  Just because there are no clocks around and nobody to think about it doesn't mean time is not there.  We didn't create time but we did create a symbolic representation of time, both verbal (seconds, etc) and physical (the clock). 

So yes, WE made the symbolic representation of time just the same as we made this language we communicate with.  But the arrow of time is a part of physical reality.  Nothing would HAPPEN otherwise.  If you guys are going to start arguing that the English language does not exist either, I think you'll have to start another thread.