Nothing ever exists... ?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#41

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

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?

There is no irony there. I stated you require motion for time because motion is change in position over some time interval. This explanation requires time. You say time doesn't exist. So, forget that definition of motion, and describe motion for me. Where's the irony?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Talk to a photon.

Light has a velocity of c. Do you believe in c or is that also made up? That again has a time component.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

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

That direction itself is the arrow of time.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

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

If there is no time then why is there any delay? Even photon has a delay reaching here from Sun. Why is there any "delay"? Why do things happen in "order"?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

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

That's the simplest way to explain it, so no promises there.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

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.

You're getting it backwards. Other processes are defined in terms of time. Things like velocity. So, when you claim that time doesn't exist, the onus is on you to describe all those things without time. I would love to see the results.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

ok lemme try. Hopefully you'll get it now.

First off, the stuff you are talking about is newton physics...It might come as a huge shock to you but its wrong anyway. 😉 Let us know if you want to understand why.

GR wasn't given by Newton. Might comes as a huge shock to you. I am not sure that this is the best place to learn science.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

now lets talk time. See, time is like color... an artificial construct. Just because you see color does not mean its a physical reality. Reality is frequency/ waves/ particles... colors are how we perceive things. But that's just a function of our sensory mechanism, how our senses decode reality or frequencies. Foro a color blind person, there's no color, at least not the way other people perceive it...As for time, something similar is at work as color.

This is not relevant at all, color is perception of light of a given wavelength range. We all know this.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

also, time is brought in to explain change to kids. Its how the simple mind grasps things... You start ordering the sequence of changes because that's how your mind works. Then you make the wild jump to say time exists. But that's a construct in your mind. In reality, there's no change. Everything is there... past, present, future. Nothing is changing. Only your mind is perceiving change. In the local universe (local as in what your mind can perceive), you perceive change. But again, there's no such thing as time, certainly no absolute time.

You don't need us, or any living thing to perceive the world for change to happen. Universe isn't now what it was before. And that duration has been there, even before us. Things change. They have always changed. And they change over time. The 13 billion years that passed before we came along wasn't "perceived by our mind". We could all die and time would still go on.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

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

Discussion where time doesn't exist? 😆 It couldn't evolve, since there was no time.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

#43

" if there is no time then why is there any delay? Even photon has a delay reaching here from Sun. Why is there any "delay"?"

it appears as delay to our minds. To a photon, there is no delay. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you. Our minds don't work at the speed of light. It's just electro-chemical processes with their inherent speed limits.

"when you claim that time doesn't exist, the onus is on you to describe all those things without time. I would love to see the results."

Since when did proofs descend into descriptions? If the Quran or the Bible or the Gita describe God, it doesn't mean you believe that God exists, do you? Are you asking me to prove a negative?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#44

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Knowing FT, not a chance in hell, till at least the 150th page...

and then another thread...

Nah, I don't indulge in unscientific discussions anymore. Would rather spend that time learning actual stuff.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#45

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

it appears as delay to our minds. To a photon, there is no delay. That's exactly what I was trying to tell you. Our minds don't work at the speed of light. It's just electro-chemical processes with their inherent speed limits.

I don't understand why do you always bring the mind in the discussion.There is a delay in any frame of reference. Or are you saying that if humans were not there on Earth, it wouldn't take light 8 minutes to reach here?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Since when did proofs descend into descriptions? If the Quran or the Bible or the Gita describe God, it doesn't mean you believe that God exists, do you? Are you asking me to prove a negative?

You write everything except for what I ask. And you get stuck on words. Give me a mathematical proof, a derivation, a theory, or explain in simple English words. Whichever you prefer. But I still don't see you describing things like velocity without the use of time.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

#46

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

GR wasn't given by Newton. Might comes as a huge shock to you. I am not sure that this is the best place to learn science.

Why are you talking about GR? If anything, your "quip" should have said, "SR (special relativity) wasn't given by Newton". Einstein dealt with space-time in special relativity, not in general relativity. GR was all about gravitation.

Also, Birdie was right about you being all about Newtonian physics. This is what Newton's Principia says - "laws of motion require time to have some specific features. Simultaneity is an absolute concept and time brings an order to the events occurring in space. No matter when or where an event occurs, classical physics assumes that you can objectively say whether it happens before, after or simultaneously with any other event in the universe. In addition, Classical Time must also be continuous to define velocities and accelerations"

That's exactly what you were saying too all along. And so far, you mentioned nothing from Einstein's theories, other than one sentence where you asked me a question pertaining to a frame of reference.

BTW, since you are all about learning, what do you know about Wheeler-DeWitt equation? If you don't know, could you learn and explain what it states in a couple of sentences? I promise, it has to do with time, or lack thereof.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#47

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

That's up to you but if you think classical mechanics is the only science there is, then you do have a steep learning curve. For the record, quantum mechanics more accurately describes reality than classical mechanics.

They do have spacetime in QM though, and Lorentz Transformation can still be applied there.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

No no no. To a photon, there is no frame of reference because there is no frame where it is at rest. At light speed, time goes to 0.So does length. That has nothing to do with humans or our minds.

I am talking about inertial frame of things having a rest mass. Light will travel at c for them. And it will take "time" to cover a distance.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Which part of circular definitions are you not understanding? For the last time, you can't take a variable out of the equation and still describe the equation in its original form. If you can't understand that much, please don't engage me again in a discussion.

You again avoid the explanation. Of course you can't give it in the original form, since original form has time and you refute its existence. That's why I asked you to describe it in another terms, one which doesn't use time. Describe motion to me without using time. You still haven't done that. Forget the definition that involves time. Give me a new one, one which doesn't need time.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

#48

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

You again avoid the explanation. Of course you can't give it in the original form, since original form has time and you refute its existence. That's why I asked you to describe it in another terms, one which doesn't use time. Describe motion to me without using time. You still haven't done that. Forget the definition that involves time. Give me a new one, one which doesn't need time.

You are asking illogical questions. Just because we use a variable in an equation to balance it, doesn't make the variables real or physical.

Consider the mass - energy equivalence equation: E=mc² . Just because the c² is needed to balance the equation, doesn't make the c² a real / physical entity.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

#49

By the way, denying time of a real existence is not the same as denying the need for usage of time in equations or for that matter denying the need for time in understanding everyday events. Of course we need it. Doesn't make it real however.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#50

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Why are you talking about GR? If anything, your "quip" should have said, "SR (special relativity) wasn't given by Newton". Einstein dealt with space-time in special relativity, not in general relativity. GR was all about gravitation.

GR is a generalized version of SR itself.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Also, Birdie was right about you being all about Newtonian physics. This is what Newton's Principia says - "laws of motion require time to have some specific features. Simultaneity is an absolute concept and time brings an order to the events occurring in space. No matter when or where an event occurs, classical physics assumes that you can objectively say whether it happens before, after or simultaneously with any other event in the universe. In addition, Classical Time must also be continuous to define velocities and accelerations"
That's exactly what you were saying too all along. And so far, you mentioned nothing from Einstein's theories, other than one sentence where you asked me a question pertaining to a frame of reference.

Again there is no need to bring Newtonian physics in here. GR has the concept of spacetime. Unless you were able to work that out too from it?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

BTW, since you are all about learning, what do you know about Wheeler-DeWitt equation? If you don't know, could you learn and explain what it states in a couple of sentences? I promise, it has to do with time, or lack thereof.

I don't claim to understand the whole math, but I read a bit on it. Go on.

Quote

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7

Nothing ever exists... ? - Page 5

Related Topics

Explore Topics