Cosmology needs radical transformation

[niebieskieucho]

The definition of time, astoundingly complicated apparently. Five words, " The orderly occurrence of events. ". Motion is an event, a wave is an event, beta decay is an event. We keep having these threads on a thing that we invented so that we could have a scale to measure between observed events. We keep trying to turn time into something it is not.

 

You have applied at least to synonyms of time. What is occurrence? What is event? I am not sure as to “orderly”. As you can see it's impossible to avoid synonyms of time. That's the problem.

[Mike C]

I'm sorry, I've already rectified my answer couple of storeys higher.

 

What you have done is to 'complicate' the meaning of time.

 

There is no complicated meaning for time. It is:

Uniform UNwavering Motion or Change'.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

What is aether?

[Mike C]

Hello All

 

What is aether?

 

Pluto

Aether used in context with the BB terminogy for the carrier of the light waves would be the 'expanding space'.

 

But its use in the earlier years as a carrier of the light waves, was assumed to be a component of substance occupying space.

 

The latter statement explains exactly what it really is, because the carrier is the EM fields that surround the 'charged' particles that do occupy space and extend to 'infinity.

 

Mike C

[Little Bang]

I will agree with Mike somewhat, the aether is made up of all the magnetic fields in the universe. Electromagnetic has to do with the disturbance of that field.

[jedaisoul]

“Now” doesn't say much. Can you measure “now” of something?

 

This is an interesting question. There is a suggestion that there is a smallest unit of time, the planktime (I think that is correct). That would seem sensible, because incremental change must take some time? If the moment "now" was infinitely small, how would change have time to take place?

 

Alternatively, it could be suggested that this argument is similar to the "proof" that a hare could not overtake a tortoise because, by the time the hare reaches the point that the tortoise was, the tortoise has always moved on!

 

Basically, the answer is, I don't know which is correct.

[niebieskieucho]

What you have done is to 'complicate' the meaning of time.

 

No. It was about time connexion with energy in specific conditions. Definition remains the same.

 

 

There is no complicated meaning for time. It is:

Uniform UNwavering Motion or Change'.

 

Mike C

 

I maintain what I earlier said. Is it complicated?

Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything

Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter.

Your description is wrong because time spontaneously does not exists. Time/motion cannot move itself.

[niebieskieucho]

This is an interesting question. There is a suggestion that there is a smallest unit of time, the planktime (I think that is correct). That would seem sensible, because incremental change must take some time? If the moment "now" was infinitely small, how would change have time to take place?

 

Alternatively, it could be suggested that this argument is similar to the "proof" that a hare could not overtake a tortoise because, by the time the hare reaches the point that the tortoise was, the tortoise has always moved on!

 

Basically, the answer is, I don't know which is correct.

 

I maintain that time = motion. Matter is owner of motion. We could speak of course about motion of energy, whatever it is (particularly in primordial space, before birth of matter), because even energy must be in motion. The difference, in my opinion, consists on different kinds of motion. Matter has first of all spinning kind of motion. This motion acts like a perfect glue, holding all forms of matter together. Energy with its oscillating motion (it seems to me the most probable one in homogeneous space), has the “weakest” connection with time - no visible changes of motion that neutralizes itself.

[Little Bang]

The word now is used by a consciousness to make the statement that an event occurred now. The problem with that is an event never happens now. When we become aware of an event it is already in our past. No matter how fast our clock the event is always in our past.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi all,

 

Time is the sequence of events. It is callibrated by motion. As Little Bang clearly illustrated, our experience of the world shows that it proceeds irrevocably from past towards the hypothetical present moment in a continuous, irresistable, immutable, un-quantised flow. It forms an ongoing sequential map of past events. It is one of the axes of phenomenal existence, not a material entity that can be manipulated, just as space is in my view.

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Time can measure A to B.

 

But! time can also measure the time a void takes to form where no motion is present. We can measure the possible time for light to go across the void.

 

Time is a word that cannot be changed.

 

We record time from EMR and if this EMR is affected than the communication time is affected not time itself.

[niebieskieucho]

The word now is used by a consciousness to make the statement that an event occurred now. The problem with that is an event never happens now. When we become aware of an event it is already in our past. No matter how fast our clock the event is always in our past.

 

In order an event could turn into PAST, there must appear the event converting NOW into PAST, otherwise PAST couldn't be delivered. No matter our possibilities of capturing it red handed.

[niebieskieucho]

Hi all,

 

Time is the sequence of events. It is callibrated by motion.

 

Sequence of events is caused by properties of matter only. Time, T<m1> , is matter's attribute. T<m1> cannot be calibrated.

 

 

As Little Bang clearly illustrated, our experience of the world shows that it proceeds irrevocably from past towards the hypothetical present moment in a continuous, irresistable, immutable, un-quantised flow. It forms an ongoing sequential map of past events. It is one of the axes of phenomenal existence, not a material entity that can be manipulated, just as space is in my view.

 

Best

Hilton

 

Time <m1> doesn't do anything. All it happens it's matter's merit. All we can do is to observe changes of forms of matter (if possible), and of course to describe it by means of T<m2> e.g. On the basis of T<m3>. As time spontaneously doesn't exist, so, the adjectives you're mentioning above cannot be employed.

 

Sequence of events is caused by properties of matter only. Time, T<m1> , is matter's attribute. T<m1> cannot be calibrated.

ted. We can of course to adopt unit of time T<m3> to describe motion in terms of T<m2>

 

Time doesn't contain an ounce of mysticism, but does have its ambiguities. Whatever we talk about time there creeps a doubt, what its meaning is to be first. Taking the above into consideration, I'd like to apply the following denotations:

 

Tm1 - 1st meaning of time

Tm2 - 2nd meaning of time

Tm3 - 3rd meaning of time

 

to avoid confusion.

 

1) The first meaning of time would be first of all motion. No matter possibilities of measuring it.

 

2) The second meaning of time would be connected with its meaning closer rather to timing, i.e. its measuring, or impossibility of measuring, or time measured.

 

3) The third meaning of time would consist on its unit (hour, second, week, year)

[niebieskieucho]

Hello All

 

Time can measure A to B.

 

But! time can also measure the time a void takes to form where no motion is present. We can measure the possible time for light to go across the void.

 

Time is a word that cannot be changed.

 

We record time from EMR and if this EMR is affected than the communication time is affected not time itself.

 

I consider EMR as a form of matter. Time does not spontaneously exist. The word communication is synonym of time. As energy and matter is present everywhere, there in nothing motionless in the universe. There is no need to replace word time but we can understand it as motion - case T<m1>

[jedaisoul]

The word now is used by a consciousness to make the statement that an event occurred now. The problem with that is an event never happens now. When we become aware of an event it is already in our past. No matter how fast our clock the event is always in our past.

 

Yes, but our perception of an event takes place in the present (now), and it occurred at an earlier instance of now. Everything happends now, irrespective of how long it takes us to perceive it. This means that any ideas of time travel are purely sci-fi, and any model that includes time travel does not match reality (at least, not in that respect).

[Mike C]

No. It was about time connexion with energy in specific conditions. Definition remains the same.

 

I maintain what I earlier said. Is it complicated?

Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything

Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter.

Your description is wrong because time spontaneously does not exists. Time/motion cannot move itself.

 

All you did here is confirm what I said. You define it as motion that should include 'relative' between objects.

 

About time travel, well when you probe your memory, you are travelling 'back' in time.

To move 'forward' in time, you use mathemativs. Ha ha.

Matbe this is the 'prophets' that are mentioned in the bible.

Incidentally, I do not believe in the bible although this is not a topic for discussion here.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Time = motion

 

Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything

Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter.

 

If your “theory” were correct and time = motion then:

A pendulum repeating the same motion would in fact be repeating the same time over and over and there would be no history of events. This would be true for any harmonic system. We have a history of events because time is a dimension and tied to space.

 

How does this work when time = motion?:

If you put a radioactive element in a box and shake it up – maybe throw it against a wall – any motion short of relativistic speeds – the decay rate in the box will remain the same. Time in the box remains the same in the box even with all this motion (the decay rate shows us the time). So, how can motion = time if (as this thought experiment shows) time exists linearly without respect for its motion?

 

Motion can only be properly described in a time dimension, otherwise:

According to your equation (time = motion) a particle in a closed system moves from coordinate A to coordinate B. And, irregardless of how fast or slow the particle moves from A to B – the same amount of time will pass because in your description the measure of time IS the measure of motion. Also, a photon moving from A to B would take the same amount of time (or motion) as an electron. This is, of course, not true.

 

The only way to treat time is dimensionally. The only way to describe motion is with a time dimension. Perhaps you have heard F = ma (newton's second law of MOTION). F is force. m is mass. a is acceleration. Acceleration is velocity over TIME. So - you cannot describe motion without a time dimension.

 

You seem to be saying we can define time using motion which uses time to calculate motion (you've got to see the fundamental problem here)

 

Time is unidirectional. Motion is not. <--- That right there should make you understand the two are not the same.

 

Maybe you can describe a system or chain of events that demonstrates your point. Give an example. Describe it in detail. Then we can discuss what is happening in your system.

Try a pendulum - describe a pendulum using only motion and not time (or however you want to describe it where motion = time).

 

-modest