Nothing ever exists... ? - Page 4

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Changing units doesn't change the fact that you're measuring something. Yes, distance exists. And so does time. No matter what unit you assign to it, call it 100 abra per dabra. No matter what route you take. You cover some distance within some time. Speed itself is distance/time, implying that time is there.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

huh?

You said time makes motion possible..I asked you how is time making motion possible. Just because you measure a change in position over time, doesn't mean time is making it POSSIBLE. Unless acted upon by a net force, objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects in motion tend to stay in motion. That's the very first law of motion. Time is not making motion possible, whatever that means.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

FT! Ft! FT!

There is no such requirement for motion. You are making it up.

We are the ones keeping time using different devices It could be a mechanical device that relies on a repetitive oscillatory process or an electronic device that relies on a vibrating tuning fork or a quartz device that relies on a vibrating/oscillating quartz crystal or an atomic device that relies on vibration of electrons in a Cesium atom. No matter what device we use, we are the ones that made up the device and we are the ones keeping time. We are doing it to track events so events make sense to us, that's all. Without us, time is useless to the universe.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Motion itself is just a change in location or position. You have to study mechanics to understand the relationship between motion and forces and energy. How much did the object move and how much time it took to move is just curiosity. That curiosity is not what is making the object move. That curiosity is only explaining certain mechanics behind the motion.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Two words: math and telescopes and probes. OK, that's three words.

What they did was observe cosmic background radiation and calculate the cooling time of the universe. Also, they took into account the expansion of the universe and calculated the age of the universe extrapolating time backwards. Later they merged different theories. That gave them an approximate timeline, give or take a few million years.

And then they hit singularity, so they said, what time, what space, fk off!

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

"Motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same instant, it's just absurd."

The word Instant itself is defined as a precise moment in time.

You are pretty much saying "motion without time is like having a thing in two places at the same time", which is saying the same thing twice in different words. That's a tautology!

Entropy is related to the "direction" of time and not time itself.

Why do you think they say that the laws of physics are time invariant? Because the laws themselves hold up just fine even if you reverse time. The only reason the physical processes are not reversible to you (or me or others) is because they don't make sense when viewed or perceived in reverse. That's all.

At the risk of repetition, it's all about making sense to the human mind. Hence the concept of time which "moves" forward.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Well, don't get stuck in semantics. How do you differentiate between two configurations in space without the time component?

On one hand you are defining motion as change in position of an object over time, and on the other hand you are asking me to define motion as change in position of an object without involving time, while also telling me not to get stuck in semantics. Do you even see the irony behind your statements?

Describe motion without using time for me, will you?

Talk to a photon.

Direction of time will imply there is something as time.

No, it only implies that thermodynamic processes always proceed in a direction that increases the disorder of the system.

Because the processes are irreversible. If time is just a concept and not a reality, why can't we just jump around?

a. Because we don't live in the subatomic world. We have "bulk". if I was mass-less like a photon, yes.

b. Because, I didn't make up the rule for heat to flow from hotter object to a cooler object

I won't even take the risk of repeating myself. 😆

Right, so no more motion related statements for the nth time? 😊

I can discuss about the nature of time, but if you deny the existence of time itself, that's not something I can work with.

The onus is on you to prove the existence of time as an absolute entity and not in terms of other processes whose definitions were already laid out by us humans in terms of time.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Well, don't get stuck in semantics. How do you differentiate between two configurations in space without the time component? Describe motion without using time for me, will you?

Direction of time will imply there is something as time.

Because the processes are irreversible. If time is just a concept and not a reality, why can't we just jump around?

I won't even take the risk of repeating myself. 😆 I can discuss about the nature of time, but if you deny the existence of time itself, that's not something I can work with.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

[

now, if you got that, maybe we can move on to a more evolved discussion... possible?😆