Comments for TIME PHYSICS BLOG http://timephysics.com/blog PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF TIME Wed, 01 Oct 2014 15:17:59 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on What is time by Billy Wolf http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-4165 Billy Wolf Wed, 01 Oct 2014 15:17:59 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-4165 I have come to believe that time is a field not unlike the Higgs field. We share the same dimension ( Photons and myself) The photon is experiencing no time (moving at the speed of light) yet I am. It would appear the main factor in this is speed. At the speed of light the field does not have an effect on the photon....... but for me at my speed, it does. Not unlike the Higgs Boson. This is in perfect alignment with The Great one Albert himself Its just a field and not a dimension........... I'm not a physics major just a guy that loves to dream. Please prove me wrong........ :o) Thank you for your time!! I have come to believe that time is a field not unlike the Higgs field.
We share the same dimension ( Photons and myself) The photon is experiencing no time (moving at the speed of light) yet I am. It would appear the main factor in this is speed. At the speed of light the field does not have an effect on the photon……. but for me at my speed, it does. Not unlike the Higgs Boson.

This is in perfect alignment with The Great one Albert himself
Its just a field and not a dimension………..

I’m not a physics major just a guy that loves to dream.
Please prove me wrong…….. :o )
Thank you for your time!!

]]>
Comment on What is time by Matt Marsden http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-4100 Matt Marsden Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:07:03 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-4100 Re: "What IS time" Let's be clear and logical here. Whether it is In fact valid or not,"What IS time" is a leading question. It implies "time" is something that is proven to exist (as more than just a useful idea), and that therefore "it" "is" something. If this assumption is incorrect, and this is not noticed, then all attempts to answer it will be vague, conflicting, self referential, speculation or conjecture )(this can be confirmed or not by cross checking other posts in this thread). If the assumption is correct, and time "is" something that has been proven to exist, then we should find out who has the proof and ask them "what is time?". But, because the question is being asked openly and randomly, this indicates that the question may be based on an assumption whose foundation is just assumed. Therefore, I suggest a better, less question might be 'What do we actually observe?' to this i would say we seem to observe 1- That matter exists, and, 2- that matter is moving and interacting. From there, I think a sensible question to ask what I call "the key question of time", I.e... "If matter JUST exists, moves, changes and interacts... Would this be enough to mislead us into "wrongly assuming", that there is a 'past', 'future' and thing called 'time'? (And thus expecting answers to questions we actually have no foundation for?) Re this, it is critical to consider, that some of that moving changing matter makes up our minds and brains, and some of that matter... Just existing here and 'now', we may call 'memories of THE past'. but in fact whatever formation that matter in our minds is in, or how bits of it are changing, it in fact seems only to be here, moving and changing, and seems only to prove matter is here now moving and changing to varying degrees. So , i would suggest, that in fact we may see things around us come together, and all apart, but no where do we actually see any thing come out of a 'future' or go into a 'past'.... and our 'memories' in no way actually prove there is actually a 'past', or another thing called "time". in that case, logically, we are left with precisely what we actually see.. a universe full of constantly changing matter giving us the misunderstanding there may be a thing called time. so, imo - (having written a very detailed book on the subject) - 'A Brief History of TIMELESSNESS' 'time' IS a useful "idea", and system of understanding and comparing examples of motion, (similar to "money" being a useful idea and system), but ,IMO, not something that actually IS a genuine phenomena. (Similar to money... We should not confuse the usefulness of an idea or concept, and the number of people who are familiar with the concept, and use it, as bring scientific proof that the "thing" itself actually exists. Anyone scientifically contesting this would need to cite a scientific experiment, as per the scientific method, giving a reasonable proof there is a "past", and/or a "future", and why they think that extra to energy or momentum, things also need a thing called "time" to be able to exist and move. Many of the people and works I researched cite specifically Einstein's Relativity as "proving" time and space are merged, and thus time must exist. But in the seminal paper of special relativity ("ON THE ELECTRO DYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", section 1 "the definition of simultaneity") , the paper only "assumes" there is a thing called time, and that a motorised pointer on a numbered dial (a "watch hand") in some way confirms the existence of an invisible 4th "dimension" ( measurable quantity or extent). ( https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies ) Relativity does suggest, and it is confirmed, that any moving oscillator will be oscillating more slowly than expected, but this observation does not prove in any way that there is also an existing phenomena called "time", that exists, and is dilated, where objects are moving. Logically, and scientifically, unless anyone can experimentally show otherwise, it thus seems that matter just exists and is moving and changing, not heading in to a "future", not leaving a "past record of all events" behind it, and therefore the answer to the question... "What is time?" 'May' be , "Time, is a useful idea and system for understanding and comparing examples of motion, but NOT something that exists, though most people assume otherwise because they assume without any proof that there 'is' a 'past' and possibly a 'future', and assume without actually checking, that Einstein's Special Relativity, proves the existence of 'time', as opposed to just showing how relatively moving things are changing more slowly than expected". Anyone interested in understanding the "theory of time" in more detail, please take a look at one of my powerpoint talks... Matt Marsden (auth 'A Brief History of Timelessness') http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I09XHMQ Timelessness.co.uk A couple of Videos... YouTube: Timeless answers to Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO. http://youtu.be/ii3gxxn2reA " Time travel cant happen without 'the PAST' " (complete with LEGO intro :) http://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM Re: “What IS time”

Let’s be clear and logical here. Whether it is In fact valid or not,”What IS time” is a leading question.

It implies “time” is something that is proven to exist (as more than just a useful idea), and that therefore “it” “is” something.

If this assumption is incorrect, and this is not noticed, then all attempts to answer it will be vague, conflicting, self referential, speculation or conjecture )(this can be confirmed or not by cross checking other posts in this thread).

If the assumption is correct, and time “is” something that has been proven to exist, then we should find out who has the proof and ask them “what is time?”. But, because the question is being asked openly and randomly, this indicates that the question may be based on an assumption whose foundation is just assumed.

Therefore, I suggest a better, less question might be

‘What do we actually observe?’

to this i would say we seem to observe

1- That matter exists, and,
2- that matter is moving and interacting.

From there, I think a sensible question to ask what I call “the key question of time”, I.e…

“If matter JUST exists, moves, changes and interacts… Would this be enough to mislead us into “wrongly assuming”, that there is a ‘past’, ‘future’ and thing called ‘time’?

(And thus expecting answers to questions we actually have no foundation for?)

Re this, it is critical to consider, that some of that moving changing matter makes up our minds and brains, and some of that matter… Just existing here and ‘now’, we may call ‘memories of THE past’.

but in fact whatever formation that matter in our minds is in, or how bits of it are changing, it in fact seems only to be here, moving and changing, and seems only to prove matter is here now moving and changing to varying degrees.

So , i would suggest, that in fact we may see things around us come together, and all apart, but no where do we actually see any thing come out of a ‘future’ or go into a ‘past’…. and our ‘memories’ in no way actually prove there is actually a ‘past’, or another thing called “time”.

in that case, logically, we are left with precisely what we actually see..

a universe full of constantly changing matter giving us the misunderstanding there may be a thing called time.

so, imo – (having written a very detailed book on the subject) –
‘A Brief History of TIMELESSNESS’

‘time’ IS a useful “idea”, and system of understanding and comparing examples of motion, (similar to “money” being a useful idea and system), but ,IMO, not something that actually IS a genuine phenomena.

(Similar to money… We should not confuse the usefulness of an idea or concept, and the number of people who are familiar with the concept, and use it, as bring scientific proof that the “thing” itself actually exists.

Anyone scientifically contesting this would need to cite a scientific experiment, as per the scientific method, giving a reasonable proof there is a “past”, and/or a “future”, and why they think that extra to energy or momentum, things also need a thing called “time” to be able to exist and move.

Many of the people and works I researched cite specifically Einstein’s Relativity as “proving” time and space are merged, and thus time must exist.

But in the seminal paper of special relativity (“ON THE ELECTRO DYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES”, section 1 “the definition of simultaneity”) , the paper only “assumes” there is a thing called time, and that a motorised pointer on a numbered dial (a “watch hand”) in some way confirms the existence of an invisible 4th “dimension” ( measurable quantity or extent).

( https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies )

Relativity does suggest, and it is confirmed, that any moving oscillator will be oscillating more slowly than expected, but this observation does not prove in any way that there is also an existing phenomena called “time”, that exists, and is dilated, where objects are moving.

Logically, and scientifically, unless anyone can experimentally show otherwise, it thus seems that matter just exists and is moving and changing, not heading in to a “future”, not leaving a “past record of all events” behind it, and therefore the answer to the question…

“What is time?”

‘May’ be ,

“Time, is a useful idea and system for understanding and comparing examples of motion, but NOT something that exists, though most people assume otherwise because they assume without any proof that there ‘is’ a ‘past’ and possibly a ‘future’, and assume without actually checking, that Einstein’s Special Relativity, proves the existence of ‘time’, as opposed to just showing how relatively moving things are changing more slowly than expected”.

Anyone interested in understanding the “theory of time” in more detail, please take a look at one of my powerpoint talks…

Matt Marsden

(auth ‘A Brief History of Timelessness’)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I09XHMQ
Timelessness.co.uk

A couple of Videos…

YouTube: Timeless answers to Brian Cox’s Science of Dr WHO.
http://youtu.be/ii3gxxn2reA

” Time travel cant happen without ‘the PAST’ ”
(complete with LEGO intro :)
http://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM

]]>
Comment on What is time by David Smyth http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3463 David Smyth Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:36:11 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3463 My view of time http://davidcs17.com/time.html <a href="http://davidcs17.com/time.html" rel="nofollow">http://davidcs17.com/time.html</a> My view of time http://davidcs17.com/time.html http://davidcs17.com/time.html

]]>
Comment on What is time by S M Masudul Haque http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3377 S M Masudul Haque Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:53:11 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3377 Time is the feeling starts with an incident that is surrounded by the interdependent dimensions of relative distance, relative space, relative motion and relative position. Infact there is no universal time. Time is the feeling starts with an incident that is surrounded by the interdependent dimensions of relative distance, relative space, relative motion and relative position. Infact there is no universal time.

]]>
Comment on What is time by Billy Smith http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3271 Billy Smith Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:05:27 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3271 I am interested in the ideas expressed in this series of articles, can someone tell who the author is and where I can find more of their work? Also more information on gravity creation. I have looked for " M. H. Khan" but have not had much luck. Thank you. I am interested in the ideas expressed in this series of articles, can someone tell who the author is and where I can find more of their work?
Also more information on gravity creation. I have looked for ” M. H. Khan” but have not had much luck. Thank you.

]]>
Comment on What is time by Gary Ehlenberger http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3255 Gary Ehlenberger Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:24:37 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3255 BlockUniverse. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf BlockUniverse.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

]]>
Comment on What is time by Roger B http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3233 Roger B Wed, 03 Jul 2013 02:35:08 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3233 Everybody try's to measure time. Time is. Therefore Time is not measurable, only perception of time. Everybody try’s to measure time.
Time is.
Therefore Time is not measurable, only perception of time.

]]>
Comment on What is time by David Gillis http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3223 David Gillis Mon, 20 May 2013 02:25:08 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3223 I am not a scientist but I might not be stupid either. Einstein had it right to a point but the cause is not completely accurate. On your blog you stated that our time does not correlate with the rest of the universe, I completely agree. This would also explain why the light frequencies shift to the red. As time slows down, a short wavelength would appear to stretch; this would also explain why Einstein (I believe) said the closer one approaches the speed of light, mass is affected. I believe this is due to time dilation. The speed of light is relative to the observer, I also believe this is due to time dilation. I (personally) understand time as a concept and not an object. Time as we know it is a measurement and began long before we even understood what we were measuring. Time is in fact nothing but speed and our concept of time is nothing more than the measurement from one event to another. The future has not been written yet and our past does not exist any longer. A book that was written 100 years ago is still in the present because the book is still here, but the thoughts that were in the mind of the person who wrote the book are gone never to return. The book can transmit those thoughts to you but they are not the same thoughts but rather a new concept to the person who reads the book; therefore, the event of writing the book does not exist in our time. I am sure I did not explain that in the best way but like I said I am not a scientist. I have thought out the process of time and the speed of light and with every event of time, it explains why Einstein, who was ten thousand times smarter than I am, missed the actual cause but had the effect of traveling the speed of light correct. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope one day I can prove my theory, but that would take a satellite and about 40 to 60 years. I think your information was presented in an excellent manner and I look forward to reading more. I am not a scientist but I might not be stupid either. Einstein had it right to a point but the cause is not completely accurate. On your blog you stated that our time does not correlate with the rest of the universe, I completely agree. This would also explain why the light frequencies shift to the red. As time slows down, a short wavelength would appear to stretch; this would also explain why Einstein (I believe) said the closer one approaches the speed of light, mass is affected. I believe this is due to time dilation.
The speed of light is relative to the observer, I also believe this is due to time dilation. I (personally) understand time as a concept and not an object. Time as we know it is a measurement and began long before we even understood what we were measuring. Time is in fact nothing but speed and our concept of time is nothing more than the measurement from one event to another. The future has not been written yet and our past does not exist any longer. A book that was written 100 years ago is still in the present because the book is still here, but the thoughts that were in the mind of the person who wrote the book are gone never to return. The book can transmit those thoughts to you but they are not the same thoughts but rather a new concept to the person who reads the book; therefore, the event of writing the book does not exist in our time.
I am sure I did not explain that in the best way but like I said I am not a scientist. I have thought out the process of time and the speed of light and with every event of time, it explains why Einstein, who was ten thousand times smarter than I am, missed the actual cause but had the effect of traveling the speed of light correct. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope one day I can prove my theory, but that would take a satellite and about 40 to 60 years.
I think your information was presented in an excellent manner and I look forward to reading more.

]]>
Comment on What is time by Simon Morley http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3186 Simon Morley Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:16:53 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3186 Hello again. To pick up form previous...The understanding of time is a semantic problem (not physics/math /cosmology etc) - i.e. understand the word first. Time has two core usages. It's an abstract noun (a measurement of change) and it's a mass noun referring to change. Once you understand that the underlying root of time is change, and the cause of change is energy differential, then the link between time and energy differential is made. But time is just an abstract measurement of, essentially, the outcome of realised energy differential. Einstein didn't differentiate these two core usages of time (he was probably unaware of them). So used "time" in too liberal a manner. (Consider how many grand scientific theories there are that use time as a factor, and yet, apparently, no one can succinctly say exactly what time is - institutionalised lapse of academic rigour). One usage is specific, one is general, but indefinite. That's why he couldn't reconcile Quantum and General theory. The "Time" usage used in General theory is a fudge. www.thisistime.co.uk explains all... Hello again. To pick up form previous…The understanding of time is a semantic problem (not physics/math /cosmology etc) – i.e. understand the word first. Time has two core usages. It’s an abstract noun (a measurement of change) and it’s a mass noun referring to change.
Once you understand that the underlying root of time is change, and the cause of change is energy differential, then the link between time and energy differential is made. But time is just an abstract measurement of, essentially, the outcome of realised energy differential.

Einstein didn’t differentiate these two core usages of time (he was probably unaware of them). So used “time” in too liberal a manner. (Consider how many grand scientific theories there are that use time as a factor, and yet, apparently, no one can succinctly say exactly what time is – institutionalised lapse of academic rigour). One usage is specific, one is general, but indefinite. That’s why he couldn’t reconcile Quantum and General theory. The “Time” usage used in General theory is a fudge.
http://www.thisistime.co.uk explains all…

]]>
Comment on What is time by Jim van Ommen http://timephysics.com/blog/2009/06/10/what-is-time/comment-page-2/#comment-3137 Jim van Ommen Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:28:16 +0000 http://timephysics.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3137 Yes I realise, the response to the above by many is; Oh, that’s to do with faith, religious stuff and throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak, because they see science as something that is superior, based on clever thinking and proof. But what is proof ??? The definition of PROOF according to the Webster dictionary is: The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact…. and the word COGENCY means: Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing. I ask you; what is the significance of that which is “ appealing to the intellect of the human mind “ as compared with the wisdom of the One who created us and the universe out of nothing? What does the Bible say about the wisdom of the wise? What we need to realize is that the word proof is earthbound it has no application or validity in the spiritual realm of eternity. We literally need to trade that word in for the word faith if we want to earn our wings and have any enlightenment whatsoever. You could call it a kind of graduation to higher education, a metamorphosis where the butterfly emerges from its cocoon to spread it’s wings as it flies into another reality, into the live giving light, the Light of the World. Faith in our Creator God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who continues to show the way to those who humble themselves and pray and follow Him. Ultimate knowledge, truth and wisdom is out of our reach and can only begin to flow when we see ourselves for who we are and who we can be in Jesus Christ our Lord. Yes I realise, the response to the above by many is; Oh, that’s to do with faith, religious stuff and throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak, because they see science as something that is superior, based on clever thinking and proof. But what is proof ??? The definition of PROOF according to the Webster dictionary is: The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact…. and the word COGENCY means: Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing.
I ask you; what is the significance of that which is “ appealing to the intellect of the human mind “ as compared with the wisdom of the One who created us and the universe out of nothing? What does the Bible say about the wisdom of the wise?
What we need to realize is that the word proof is earthbound it has no application or validity in the spiritual realm of eternity. We literally need to trade that word in for the word faith if we want to earn our wings and have any enlightenment whatsoever. You could call it a kind of graduation to higher education, a metamorphosis where the butterfly emerges from its cocoon to spread it’s wings as it flies into another reality, into the live giving light, the Light of the World. Faith in our Creator God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who continues to show the way to those who humble themselves and pray and follow Him.
Ultimate knowledge, truth and wisdom is out of our reach and can only begin to flow when we see ourselves for who we are and who we can be in Jesus Christ our Lord.

]]>