Some Comments On Time

[Doctordick]

The following is an exact quote of something I wrote on a forum almost eight years ago! It clarifies exactly what has stood between me and publication since 1970. "Even today, the simple statement that "clocks to not measure time" is sufficient to convince anyone in the physics community that one is a complete crackpot (that's yours truly if anyone is interested :D )."

 

 

Doctordick

 

Jun2-05, 10:42 PM

I think everyone here should be a little more careful with their thoughts.

 

To begin with, the concept of time has been around long before the invention of clocks and the concept itself never required the existence of accurate clocks. The most fundamental characteristic of time is that it divides our universe (the reality within which all experiments conceivable are performed) into two distinctly different realms: the past and the future! It is an experimental fact supported by observations extending back to before written history that nothing can be done to change the past and that we do not know exactly what the future will turn out to be. The power and dependability of this single idea (that the past and the future are fundamentally different realms) is the central reason for the very existence of the concept of time. To forget this fact is to overlook a very important phenomena fundamental to our very existence.

 

In the beginning, the concept of time was really a subtle reference to what was known. To refer to a specific moment in the past (usually by naming a significant event, someone's birth, a sunrise or perhaps a war) was to provide a reference to the division between past and future from the perspective of experiencing that event. Time was essentially delineated by a succession of such events. Even prior to the invention of writing, I am sure it was evident to our ancestors that the motion of the sun (among other repetitive events) provided a convenient commonly understood event as a easy reference event. It is my position that this is the real source of the idea behind clocks, devices which could track and label the present. That is, to provide specific references to the collection of interesting boundaries between associated states of past and the future (personal experience itself).

 

Until Newton came along, I think the concept of time was in good alignment with the needs of mankind; however, I think Newton's great success was the source of a perspective which was fundamentally erroneous. In essence, Newton showed that the future mechanical motion of many objects could be predicted from the past motion via some very simple mathematical relations, time (as a numerical parameter) became a very important scientific concept. This, in itself, was not at all in violation of the concept of time which I have here presented.

 

So long as clocks are seen as mechanical devices designed to provide a convenient laboratory collection of reproducible repetitive events, then there is no real conflict with the earlier concept concept of time, the division between past and future from the perspective of the events being examined in the laboratory.

 

Newton made an error when he presumed that these laboratory clocks provided a valid universal collection of well understood events: i.e. that everybody's clock could be set to agree and thus provide a universal division between between past and future. The power of Newton's achievements, the ability of his ideas to analytically predict the behavior of many events, insured the development of clocks of ever finer precision. In fact, this precision became so important that the scientific society actually moved to the position that "clocks define time"; totally losing sight of the fact that the central issue of time was the division of the past (that which cannot be changed) from the future (that which science is trying to predict).

 

The scientific community had become so sure that the future was a direct calculate-able consequence of the past (the mechanical machine paradigm) that they forgot the underlying purpose of the concept: i.e., to separate reality into those two distinctly different realms, the past and the future. They did not feel that these realms were different in any interesting way and thus did not worry about the universal fact that the past is what we cannot change and the future is what we do not know. Absolutely no scientific interest was dedicated to that issue at all.

 

When Einstein realized Newton's error, (that everybody's clock could not be set to agree) he also realized that it was that fact which had created the problems displayed by the success of Maxwell's equation. His relativity was a brilliant solution; however, his classical education had so tied to the idea that the universe was mechanical machine where the future was a calculate-able consequence of the past that he continued to regard the past and the future as entirely equivalent ("God does not play dice"). He continued to conceive of time as a fundamental parameter of that boundary between past and future even when he himself proved that it was not (the twin paradox is actually a simple statement that they won't agree with each other's personal time parameter).

 

Even today, the simple statement that "clocks to not measure time" is sufficient to convince anyone in the physics community that one is a complete crackpot (that's yours truly if anyone is interested :D ). No one will even consider the consequences of that suggestion and they will go to any lengths conceivable to avoid even thinking about the issue. The mechanism they use is misdirection of attention! Only magicians understand how easily people can be misled. Misdirection of attention is the very soul of magic; with it magicians can hide the truth for decades even when we know they are trying to fool us (how much worse is it when we trust them implicitly). In science, attention is focused on new ideas, not on the old concepts which are presumed to be clear and consistent; how else could Newton's error have stood for three hundred years? The current error in perspective will probably stand for another thousand years in spite of the fact that this very simple change resolves the problems between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Someday, they will invent an atomic clock which displays the correct time by definition (see the current definition of time) which is small enough and cheap enough that most everyone can wear one on their wrist. Maybe then, when none of those clocks agree, it might dawn on someone with scientific authority that those clocks do not agree on the measure time (the division between past and future). I really wish I could get someone to discuss the issue with me (preferably someone who understands mathematics).

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

It is false to say that the most fundamental characteristic of time is that it DIVIDES...it does no such thing. ALL TIME IS DIVISIBLE ! Time does not divide, time is what is divided...fundamental difference.

 

Your statement misses the fundamental characteristic of time, that TIME IS A MEASURE OF MOTION AND OF BEING MOVED. The past and future and present are not divided by time, they are in time and hence they divide time. Think about the concepts odd and even as relates to number line. Do we say that number line divides odd from even ? No, we say that odd and even are in number line and that they divide number, the same way we say the past and future are in time and that they divide time. This is true because both number line and time are continuous and infinite. Concerning clocks, time is both a measure of motion and of rest, that is, time is nothing more than a number. To be in number means there is a number and it is measured by the number it is, say 13. Likewise, to be in time means there is a thing in motion (or rest) THAT WILL BE MEASURED BY TIME, and time is what is measured as a number, not what measures (such as a clock). Edit: From Einstein, time is the number 0.0 when the motion is speed of light, thus whatever moves at the speed of light is outside or time (think photon), as would be anything that exists forever within a moment.

 

Concerning past and future [edit], it is not time that divides the two, but the PRESENT as a moment in time that divides past from future [edit]. It is the PRESENT that links past and future as a limit of time, for the present is simultaneously the end of one (past) and the begin of another (future). Edit: At the PRESENT, time is simultaneously intermediate to both past and present (present to future), and for this reason each time is different because each past and future moment is different. There is no time within a moment (at the now). TIME IS WHAT IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN ANY TWO MOMENTS (past-to-present; present-to-future; past-to-present; past long ago to more recent past; etc.).[edit] We say we know time when we know the measure of motion as number, what we know is the measure of motion of a thing between two moments. Both past and present can be KNOWN with some probability of uncertainty, and in many cases the future moment can be known with lower degree of uncertainty than the past, or higher. For example, I KNOW with a very low degree of uncertainty that you will not agree with this post...I KNOW the future. In fact, I KNOW this future event with higher degree of certainty than I know how you came to your past understanding that time divides. Your original post is in the past and I do not KNOW it...what that means is that I do not have a clear mental grasp of how you tied together the facts of reality to reach the false conclusion that time divides past from future. [edit..deleted question]

 

Einstein was correct, a clock can be used to measure time because time is nothing more than a number that is the measure of motion of a thing. Likewise we can use movement of the planets, the movement of the sun can be measured by a stick...no clock needed.

 

[edit]I do agree with your comment that the past is what cannot be undone, which then logically means that the future is what has yet to be undone...both past and future (e.g., what cannot be undone and what has yet to be done) can be known or unknown with various degrees of uncertainty. Recall from my previous post of which you agreed, we EXPLAIN what cannot be undone (past) but we PREDICT what has yet to be undone, and your fundamental equation has nothing at all to do with prediction of future reality. Edit: comment deleted.

 

... (the twin paradox is actually a simple statement that they won't agree with each other's personal time parameter)...

No, this is not correct. The twin paradox is nothing more than the outcome of the phenomenon called time dilation, which results from motion. Time dilation has been confirmed experimentally, thus the twin paradox is a valid phenomenon.

 

he (Einstein) continued to regard the past and the future as entirely equivalent

No, you miss an important point, you do not include what Einstein said about the present. What Einstein said was that any attempt to distinguish the past and future AND present is an illusion because all three occur simultaneously (all three concepts are required to understand what Einstein was saying about relativity of simultaneous events). This can be understood when you adopt the definition of time as I presented above (which I suggest is the one adopted by Einstein), namely: (1) that it is the PRESENT that divides time into the past and future; (2) that TIME is SIMULTANEOUSLY INTERMEDIATE TO BOTH THE PAST AND THE FUTURE when it is divided by the PRESENT, (3) that time is the measure of motion (OR REST) of a thing that is intermediate between two moments.

 

Note to readers: I have made numerous edits the past weeks, only use the most recent one (2/14) for discussion.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

Does anyone disagree with my critique of the OP concept of time presented by DD ? I welcome dialog on this most important aspect of his presentation.

[Deepwater6]

I do not have critiques but I do have some comments on your conceptions of time. Many people do not fully understand time. I incude myself in this group. Many people have know idea what they don't know about time, but then again ignorance can be bliss. I do a lot of reading and learn as much as I can about time, but the more I find out about time the more it brings to light how much I don't know. It is to me the ultimate mental crossword puzzle.

 

Both you seem to have a better grasp on the subject than me. With that in mind lets just call the following comments personal thoughts on the subject.

 

Rade

You state that time is "continuous and infinte" and "is measure of motion and of being moved."

I have spent many hours thinking of when or if time will ever end. I have come to the conclusion that for all intents and purposes time will end when the last bit of energy gets exhausted. There will be nothing to measure when the last BH evaporates or the last brown drawf fades out.

 

However this is time as we know it for our universe. I believe time on a higher level is infinite in both directions. This time existed in the lead up the BB singularity and it will continue to flow without anything to stop it far past the point when all energy has been expended.

 

When it comes to the grandfather paradox I don't believe nature would place you into an infinite number of scenarios to make it all work out. Hence I don't believe time travel to the past is possble. Time dilation has been proven so it's obviously possibly. With time travel to the future I'm on the fence and need to give some additional thoughts.

 

I think this subject is among one of the most under-studied concept of our species. It's confusing, mind blowing, and fantastic. All the more reason we should throw more resources into understaning it.

 

I recommend a previous post on this subject. I believe the title was "What is the time" there were some great ideas put forward in that thread. I have also been reading a great book by Adam Frank titled "About Time". He describes how time had to be continuously reshaped by us to fit our changing existence. He describes the dramatic time events which affected and influenced everything. From the importance of church tower bells, The first factory whistle, and things that gave us "free time" such as the washing machine that freed up people who would spend hours washing their duds by hand. I highly recommend it.

[Guest MacPhee]

The above posts are very interesting. But they all seem to boil down to this question: What is "Time"?

 

I would answer thus: "Time" is only an abstract noun included in the English language. The noun is useful for English-language speakers. It enables us understand ideas such as "What time is it, is it dinner-time yet?"

 

But just because our language has a particular noun, doesn't make the noun a real physical "thing".

 

"Beauty" for example, is also an English noun. Does that mean it's an actual "thing"? Shall we discuss its subdivisions? Perhaps divide it into units.

 

Like in the famous proposition: a "millihelen" is a unit of beauty, sufficient to launch one ship.

[Aethelwulf]

There's no such thing as time, only motion and change. We think time exists because it is biologically written into our genes. We can even regulate this ''sense'' of time in fruit flies. Time is subjective, we imprint the experience on the world around us, as if it is a part of objective reality.

[Moontanman]

There's no such thing as time, only motion and change. We think time exists because it is biologically written into our genes. We can even regulate this ''sense'' of time in fruit flies. Time is subjective, we imprint the experience on the world around us, as if it is a part of objective reality.

 

 

I am going to have to go with Aethelwulf on this, I'm not sure that time is any thing at all. First of all there is no objective time in the universe, time as it measured by the observer is fluid from one place to another, gravity fields and speed makes time somewhat less than a constant, the only constant is change relative to the local conditions... if there is no change then there can be no time or at least no measurement of time..

[Aethelwulf]

 

No, you miss an important point, you do not include what Einstein said about the present. What Einstein said was that any attempt to distinguish the past and future AND present is an illusion because all three occur simultaneously (all three concepts are required to understand what Einstein was saying about relativity of simultaneous events).

 

 

They are illusions because all there is is the present time. No event happens in the past, nor does an event ever happen in the future, there is only the present experience of time no matter what frame of reference you are in.

[Rade]

I appreciate the comments to my post.

 

To those that say time is not a thing, I agree, to the extent that one would say the number 13 is not a thing. If we have 13 moving objects (say bees that fly), the things are the objects that move, not the number 13. 13 does not move, bees move. Same with time, if we have a single bee move from one moment to another and that motion is measured to be 13 time units, the 13 of time measurement is not a thing itself, to the extent we agree THIS number [13] you now see is not a thing.

 

To those that say 'all there is is the present time', I do not agree. There is no time within any moment, present, past, or future. Again, TIME is what is intermediate between moments. From Einstein we learn that it is an illusion to try to separate PRESENT from PAST from FUTURE moments. However, because moments are WITHIN time, each moment can be associated with a number associated with the motion of say a train arriving at the station (and my motion = standing at rest). Thus, the train arrives at the same moment I look at my watch and see the number 13:03 pm...the relative motion of both train and observer can have a number of time associated with any PRESENT MOMENT, but there cannot be a PRESENT TIME (which implies that time itself is within the present)...importance difference in my view.

 

To those that say that 'time as measured by observer is fluid', I agree. The key point for me is that time is what is measured by any observer, not what measures. We know from Einstein the relativity of simultaneous events, that is, why time is fluid.

 

Edit: To those that say "I don't believe time travel to the past is possible", I both agree and not. For matter entities, travel to past is not possible. But we know from Feynman that antimatter can be viewed to travel to the past and meet all mathematical requirements of quantum theory. Thus motion of antimatter to the past can be measured by time.

 

To those that say 'there is no such thing as time, only motion and change', I both agree and not. I agree time is not a 'thing', it is a number. I do not agree that it is possible to have motion and change and not allow the logical possibility that the motion and change cannot be measured by time as a number, not a thing. Edit: At speed of light time becomes a number that = 0.0, we learn this from Einstein.

 

===

 

But, does anyone agree with the OP comment of Doctordick that time DIVIDES past from present, or my reply to him that time is what is DIVIDED by past and future and present moments? This comment of DD was the motivation for my reply. These are two fundamentally different views presented...I look for someone to convince me that Doctordick is correct and I error.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Rade

[blamski]

i would have to say that time is that which is divided, for the simple fact that time is either the continuous structure described by newton, or the intellectual structure described by kant. if either of these were untrue then notions of past and future would be meaningless. past and present describe 'blocks' of time that have either happened or are yet to happen. a particular instant in time, that which we call the present, divides either a continuum or a structure into the past and the future. how big this thing called the present is is another question entirely, and something that i believe we all interpret, or sense, in our own way at any given instance.

[Rade]

...how big this thing called the present is is another question entirely, and something that i believe we all interpret, or sense, in our own way at any given instance

Thank you for comments, I agree with most of your comments. Concerning the above comment, I would suggest that the present is neither a thing nor big-small, but is a moment (which is not a thing, but associated with motion of a thing), and that has a duration (long or short, not big or small) that we theorize to be the number we call Planck time (a different concept of time of Newton or Kant, perhaps we call it Tau). In this way the present Tau duration is outside the possibility of human measurement...thus the reason we can never mentally grasp the duration (Tau) of the PRESENT or now. If you do like to use Tau to express this Planck duration for the present or now, suggest another concept.

[Aethelwulf]

I appreciate the comments to my post.

 

To those that say time is not a thing, I agree, to the extent that one would say the number 13 is not a thing. If we have 13 moving objects (say bees that fly), the things are the objects that move, not the number 13. 13 does not move, bees move. Same with time, if we have a single bee move from one moment to another and that motion is measured to be 13 time units, the 13 of time measurement is not a thing itself, to the extent we agree THIS number [13] you now see is not a thing.

 

To those that say 'all there is is the present time', I do not agree. There is no time within any moment, present, past, or future. Again, TIME is what is intermediate between moments. From Einstein we learn that it is an illusion to try to separate PRESENT from PAST from FUTURE moments. However, because moments are WITHIN time, each moment can be associated with a number associated with the motion of say a train arriving at the station (and my motion = standing at rest). Thus, the train arrives at the same moment I look at my watch and see the number 13:03 pm...the relative motion of both train and observer can have a number of time associated with any PRESENT MOMENT, but there cannot be a PRESENT TIME (which implies that time itself is within the present)...importance difference in my view.

 

===

 

But, does anyone agree with the OP comment of Doctordick that time DIVIDES past from present, or my reply to him that time is what is DIVIDED by past and future and present moments? This comment of DD was the motivation for my reply. These are two fundamentally different views presented...I look for someone to convince me that Doctordick is correct and I error.

 

 

Hi Rade

 

Keeping in mind, I don't actually believe time exists, but if there was to be an interpretation, I stated only a realistic model of it can entertain there being only a present moment in existence. You said then, yourself, that ''there is no time in any moment,'' true. But assuming time exists in some form, there would only be a present moment at any time. Lee Smolin once said

 

''All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.''

 

Anything can exist timelessly - it just requires there being that time is not a real artifact of the world. I agree with him though, if time existed, it would only be a true statement that anything which is real, exists within the present sphere of time.

 

And certainly no, time does not divide. What divides time is called the psychological arrow of time. It is the mind which creates the illusion of a division in time.

[Guest MacPhee]

There's no such thing as time, only motion and change. We think time exists because it is biologically written into our genes. We can even regulate this ''sense'' of time in fruit flies. Time is subjective, we imprint the experience on the world around us, as if it is a part of objective reality.

 

Yes, there are actual physical "things" such as fruit-flies. The flies are objective. They physically exist.

 

Whereas "Time" is only a subjective human-invented abstract word. Such abstract words can make our ideas go wrong. For example, even in your excellent post, you cite two words - "motion", and "change". Which implies you're thinking of two seperate concepts.

 

But is "motion" really any different from "change". I mean, an object in "motion" is just undergoing a "change" of position.

 

So looking at it rightly, isn't there only one concept - "change"?

[Aethelwulf]

Yes, I'd say there is only change.

[Aethelwulf]

It is interesting to note that Global Evolution per se also does not exist.

[sigurdV]

The following is an exact quote of something I wrote on a forum almost eight years ago! It clarifies exactly what has stood between me and publication since 1970. "Even today, the simple statement that "clocks to not measure time" is sufficient to convince anyone in the physics community that one is a complete crackpot (that's yours truly if anyone is interested :D )."

Jun2-05, 10:42 PM

I think everyone here should be a little more careful with their thoughts.

 

To begin with, the concept of time has been around long before the invention of clocks and the concept itself never required the existence of accurate clocks. The most fundamental characteristic of time is that it divides our universe (the reality within which all experiments conceivable are performed) into two distinctly different realms: the past and the future! It is an experimental fact supported by observations extending back to before written history that nothing can be done to change the past and that we do not know exactly what the future will turn out to be. The power and dependability of this single idea (that the past and the future are fundamentally different realms) is the central reason for the very existence of the concept of time. To forget this fact is to overlook a very important phenomena fundamental to our very existence.

 

Theres two opposing vews of time.

1 Static time: First described by Parmenides. All moments of time can be represented as a straight line where every point of the line can be considered a moment of time. This view is equvalent with the view of time in Physics. Also referred to ...mostly by Philosophers as : Blocktime.

2 Dynamic time: First described by Heracleitos is more difficult to envisage. H says we cant twice step into the same river. The point seems to be that time is change. Attention is given to the present moment, and the Blocktimers are asked to show WHERE the present is on the timeline!

 

The past and future are related to the concept of the present. Its a border. A point moving along the time axis.

It seems to me that DD will only accept the past and present parts of the time line, claiming that the future from the present moment is not determined! But all the past is. And he seems to think that the present moment also is determined but Im not sure I am interpreting him correctly.

 

What I want to point out is that we are looking at a model of our situation. Its the static model and by introducing a moving point to represent the present moment we have a model both parties can use...arguing what parts of the model refers to parts of the Reality.

 

Im not aware of an example of a dynamic model...if anyone is then please print it! What we have is our direct experience and I claim we experience continuity! Time AS continuity. We experience the counterpart of the moving point: the present moment. And we say: time is change. Because the present moment is always the next moment in time.

We are never in the position to experience the present! It is what we in the next present moment realise is the closest past.Actually I may be slightly contradicting myself: It could be said my words are or has conveyed a dynamic model

In the beginning, the concept of time was really a subtle reference to what was known. To refer to a specific moment in the past (usually by naming a significant event, someone's birth, a sunrise or perhaps a war) was to provide a reference to the division between past and future from the perspective of experiencing that event. Time was essentially delineated by a succession of such events. Even prior to the invention of writing, I am sure it was evident to our ancestors that the motion of the sun (among other repetitive events) provided a convenient commonly understood event as a easy reference event. It is my position that this is the real source of the idea behind clocks, devices which could track and label the present. That is, to provide specific references to the collection of interesting boundaries between associated states of past and the future (personal experience itself).

The idea of measuring time does not easily arise inside our personal experience, but we have an internal sense of time... you can learn to wake up at a ttime of your decision without an alarm clock! Seen from a thermodynamical perspective everything IS a clock! Everything is a thermodynamical system and their difference is how far from equilibrium they are. The difference between a clock and any other object is that the clock has a defined meaningful relation to whats outside it! Any system has an internal organisation "telling it what time it is" but the "clockrelation" isnt there.

 

 

Until Newton came along, I think the concept of time was in good alignment with the needs of mankind; however, I think Newton's great success was the source of a perspective which was fundamentally erroneous. In essence, Newton showed that the future mechanical motion of many objects could be predicted from the past motion via some very simple mathematical relations, time (as a numerical parameter) became a very important scientific concept. This, in itself, was not at all in violation of the concept of time which I have here presented.

 

Except for philosophical minds time presented no problem day and night took their turns in the wheel of existense.

(The circle and the number twelve had power.)

Newton (and Galileo...not to mention Cartesius) succeeded in giving models of Reality with much more precise predictive power. Forces could be measured and by theory and calculation results could be predicted... Is how I see it. The idea of the universe as a clock began to spread. If known the parts can predict the whole. Im no historian but I think the blockuniverse where ALL poins of time (including the future) exists simultaneousli in some virtual observational view became "the law". Determinism became the belief of laymen and the church saw god as the creator of the word (including the world) observing it as a whole finished thing.

 

 

 

So long as clocks are seen as mechanical devices designed to provide a convenient laboratory collection of reproducible repetitive events, then there is no real conflict with the earlier concept concept of time, the division between past and future from the perspective of the events being examined in the laboratory.

 

DD is moving slowly now. Theres nothing wrong in dividing time into past and futere as seen from the present moment... How CAN we do it from elsewhere? Here DD is not clear about the difference in looking at ourselves and our models...And the problem REALLY is that Newton thinks there is a: UNIVERSAL SIMULTANEOUS PRESENT MOMENT... referred to as "Absolute Time". To make a long and complicated story short: It has not been demonstrated to have a counterpart in any model ...and we dont experience it ...so EVERYBODY (except me) is convinced it does not exist. I hasten to add that I myself dont BELIEVE there is Absolute Time I only find the evidence against it unconvincing.

 

Newton made an error when he presumed that these laboratory clocks provided a valid universal collection of well understood events: i.e. that everybody's clock could be set to agree and thus provide a universal division between between past and future. The power of Newton's achievements, the ability of his ideas to analytically predict the behavior of many events, insured the development of clocks of ever finer precision. In fact, this precision became so important that the scientific society actually moved to the position that "clocks define time"; totally losing sight of the fact that the central issue of time was the division of the past (that which cannot be changed) from the future (that which science is trying to predict).

 

The scientific community had become so sure that the future was a direct calculate-able consequence of the past (the mechanical machine paradigm) that they forgot the underlying purpose of the concept: i.e., to separate reality into those two distinctly different realms, the past and the future. They did not feel that these realms were different in any interesting way and thus did not worry about the universal fact that the past is what we cannot change and the future is what we do not know. Absolutely no scientific interest was dedicated to that issue at all.

Im with DD in critisising blocktime. But Im not aware of DD giving an alternative. The model of time still is a straight line and the present is a moving point in it... what DD does is saying that only what is seen on the right (past) side of the line is real. The left side is not decided and becomes real when the present moment passes into the past.

 

 

When Einstein realized Newton's error, (that everybody's clock could not be set to agree) he also realized that it was that fact which had created the problems displayed by the success of Maxwell's equation. His relativity was a brilliant solution; however, his classical education had so tied to the idea that the universe was mechanical machine where the future was a calculate-able consequence of the past that he continued to regard the past and the future as entirely equivalent ("God does not play dice"). He continued to conceive of time as a fundamental parameter of that boundary between past and future even when he himself proved that it was not (the twin paradox is actually a simple statement that they won't agree with each other's personal time parameter).

Its not very clear what DD means here. But I like the term "personal time parameter"

http://scienceforums.com/topic/27330-an-experiment-with-clocks/

 

Even today, the simple statement that "clocks to not measure time" is sufficient to convince anyone in the physics community that one is a complete crackpot (that's yours truly if anyone is interested :D )

No DD! Im NOT convinced, on the contrary I think you make sense and that you are a serious thinker.

(That does not imply we agree on matters.)

No one will even consider the consequences of that suggestion and they will go to any lengths conceivable to avoid even thinking about the issue. The mechanism they use is misdirection of attention! Only magicians understand how easily people can be misled. Misdirection of attention is the very soul of magic; with it magicians can hide the truth for decades even when we know they are trying to fool us (how much worse is it when we trust them implicitly). In science, attention is focused on new ideas, not on the old concepts which are presumed to be clear and consistent; how else could Newton's error have stood for three hundred years? The current error in perspective will probably stand for another thousand years in spite of the fact that this very simple change resolves the problems between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Someday, they will invent an atomic clock which displays the correct time by definition (see the current definition of time) which is small enough and cheap enough that most everyone can wear one on their wrist. Maybe then, when none of those clocks agree, it might dawn on someone with scientific authority that those clocks do not agree on the measure time (the division between past and future). I really wish I could get someone to discuss the issue with me (preferably someone who understands mathematics

He he...you really got temper...

Im sure theres something I overlooked ...Hmm...what might that be... lets check.

Edited April 18, 2013 by sigurdV

[Doctordick]

Again I didn't realize this collection of threads existed and I accidentally ran across it this morning.

 

Having just reread it, I found my comments to be a pretty decent.  The complaint about what I have said pretty much deals with the intellectual authorities ideas of what time is.  The premiss held by most everyone here is that authorities are right and one should accept their opinions.  I would comment on that.  In the long haul authorities generally turn out to be wrong (that is what advances in science is all about).

 

As an aside, the term "dunce" arose from the name of a Scotch intellectual (sometime before Newton) who was pretty well convinced he knew the right answers.

 

 All I am asserting in this thread is that the general concept of time (used by most people) is a reference to specific past events of interest to them (or to specific future events of interest to them).  The real interesting aspect of these things is that past events are generally taken to be "known" and future events are generally taken to be "expected".  Two rather different concepts.  Oh yeah, the present is generally taken to be the transformation from being "expected" to being "known".

I actually find it difficult to understand why my position generates so much controversy.

Have fun -- Dick

 

Have fun -- Dick