Time Does Not Exist

[xyz]

To summon up briefly , any measurement greater than zero/nothing is history/memory .  Time does not exist , only the zero instant exists simultaneous for a unified Universe. 

 

When you measure the value of a Caesium atom you are not measuring time, you are recording the atoms history. 

 

Time dilation does not happen, the now moment never changes from a zero value.   

 

Scenario 1 - take two identical video cameras, one camera (a) we will set up recording Caesium clock (a) which is in a inertial stationary reference frame, the second camera /b/ we will set up recording Caesium clock /b/ which is in motion.  We start the recordings synchronised from a starting point of zero/nothing.   We record for three hours to a synchronised stop. 

 

 

We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start.  We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''. 

 

Scenario 2 - Take the smallest possible measurement value you can imagine or think of, try to use this value to ''measure time'', even that value would be a recording of the history of the now moment. 

 

 

 

Thank you for reading , any questions?

Edited January 18, 2016 by xyz

[CraigD]

To summon up briefly , any measurement greater than zero/nothing is history/memory . Time does not exist , only the zero instant exists simultaneous for a unified Universe.

I suspect you’re making a philosophical, ontologic, not a scientific, claim here.

 

Clearly, time, perhaps by a less philosophically provocative term, duration, is a useful quantity in science. It’s one of the 3 ones fundamental to classical Newtonian mechanics – mass, position, and time.

 

Are you saying that the formal scientific theories like classical mechanics can be rewritten to not have time quantities, or are you rejecting eternalism?

 

Scenario 1 - take two identical video cameras, one camera (a) we will set up recording Caesium clock (a) which is in a inertial stationary reference frame, the second camera /b/ we will set up recording Caesium clock /b/ which is in motion. We start the recordings synchronised from a starting point of zero/nothing. We record for three hours to a synchronised stop.

 

We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start. We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''.

How do you explain the results of the Hafele and Keating Experiment, which plainly contradict your claim?

[xyz]

I suspect you’re making a philosophical, ontologic, not a scientific, claim here.

 

Clearly, time, perhaps by a less philosophically provocative term, duration, is a useful quantity in science. It’s one of the 3 ones fundamental to classical Newtonian mechanics – mass, position, and time.

 

Are you saying that the formal scientific theories like classical mechanics can be rewritten to not have time quantities, or are you rejecting eternalism?

 

How do you explain the results of the Hafele and Keating Experiment, which plainly contradict your claim?

Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real''

 

 

the true nature of time is that it does not exist, which takes the view that all points in time are equally zero/nothing and anything more than zero is history/memory. 

 

The Keating experiment is not a time dilation, consider when ''measuring'' the frequency of the Caesium atom, you are not measuring ''time'' you are measuring a period of history/memory, because anything more than zero/nothing is history/memory. 

 

Your measurement starts at the zero instant, then you get your cycles, these cycles are a period of history of the now not a measurement of time. 

 

Only zero/nothing can be the value of time, making a unified universe  simultaneous now and anything more than the now is history. 

 

The big bang was not the start of time, the big bang was the start of history.

 

(4/3pi r³) - (4/3pi r³)=0=nothing

 

0_t......................................1_sec 

 

anything more than zero is a measurement of history. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Time dilation does not happen...

Yes it does. It has to to keep the speed of light constant in all inertial frames of reference.

 

Scenario 1 - take two identical video cameras, one camera (a) we will set up recording Caesium clock (a) which is in a inertial stationary reference frame, the second camera /b/ we will set up recording Caesium clock /b/ which is in motion.  We start the recordings synchronised from a starting point of zero/nothing.   We record for three hours to a synchronised stop. 

 

 

We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start.  We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''.

If the two started off at rest relative to each then the one that accelerated will experience less proper time (proper time is an actual thing, I'm not being vague) than the one that stayed inertial and the video of the one that accelerated will be shorter. If one accelerated so that it was in motion relative to the inertial frame and then the other accelerated so that it was at rest relative to the one that accelerated first, then they accelerate towards each other at the same rate and then accelerate again in opposite direction so they don't fly past each other, then both videos will be the same length.

 

The one that accelerates more will also be the one that expirience less proper time. It has to work this way because the speed of light is constant and if two observers measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to themselves and they're in motion relative to each other then they have to be measuring time and space differently.

 

Scenario 2 - Take the smallest possible measurement value you can imagine or think of, try to use this value to ''measure time'', even that value would be a recording of the history of the now moment.

Are you trying to say that the instant a moment in time happens, it's already passed? That proves that time does exist!

 

...any questions?

When will you learn?

 

The Keating experiment is not a time dilation...

It showed that different amounts of proper time had past for objects moving at different velocities relative to each other, so yes it is.

[xyz]

Yes it does. It has to to keep the speed of light constant in all inertial frames of reference.

 

If the two started off at rest relative to each then the one that accelerated will experience less proper time (proper time is an actual thing, I'm not being vague) than the one that stayed inertial and the video of the one that accelerated will be shorter. If one accelerated so that it was in motion relative to the inertial frame and then the other accelerated so that it was at rest relative to the one that accelerated first, then they accelerate towards each other at the same rate and then accelerate again in opposite direction so they don't fly past each other, then both videos will be the same length.

 

The one that accelerates more will also be the one that expirience less proper time. It has to work this way because the speed of light is constant and if two observers measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to themselves and they're in motion relative to each other then they have to be measuring time and space differently.

 

Are you trying to say that the instant a moment in time happens, it's already passed? That proves that time does exist!

 

When will you learn?

 

It showed that different amounts of proper time had past for objects moving at different velocities relative to each other, so yes it is.

Thank you for your reply, however take no offence, I did not ask or require knowledge of present information quoted back to me when I am in an alternative theory section discussing an alternative theory.   All your replies are as if quoted from Wiki, which I have had  years of access to the same information you have.

You are trying to force a discipline on me, saying yourself ''when will you ever learn'', presumption for some strange reason that I do not know present thoughts. 

 

I have applied all the present information to my theory/hypothesis, my conclusion by evidential merit and premise for argument in the axiom that anything more than zero/nothing , is history.  We are NOT measuring time, we are recording history.  We experience simultaneously a ''now'' moment and record the history of these ''now'' moments.

 

Are you saying that anything more than zero/nothing is not history?

 

I think not Sir.

 

 

0_t...history...Planck length

 

 

Time can't be measured it can be recorded.

 

 

The frequency of the Caesium is the history recorded of the Caesium.

 

 

the frequency has a length greater than zero/nothing.  A blank CD is full of zero/s, time does not exist until time is recorded onto the CD, i.e 1

Edited January 19, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I never quote from anywhere!

 

You obviously do require knowledge of present information if you think that "Time dilation does not happen" because that statement alone proves that you have no understanding of what you've attempted to learn. The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference proves that time dilation does happen and experiments have demonstrated it.

 

You have presented no theory/hypothesis. What predictions does it make?

 

Time can be measured. Clocks do it all the time.

[xyz]

I never quote from anywhere!

 

You obviously do require knowledge of present information if you think that "Time dilation does not happen" because that statement alone proves that you have no understanding of what you've attempted to learn. The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference proves that time dilation does happen and experiments have demonstrated it.

 

You have presented no theory/hypothesis. What predictions does it make?

 

Time can be measured. Clocks do it all the time.

I suggest you need to understand ''measurement'' and my idea before you make bold assertions about my knowledge . 

 

0_t..history..9,192, 631,770 cycle

 

 

Do you disagree with this axiom?  do you disagree that 9,192, 631,770 cycles has past by, it is the history of zero?

 

9,192, 631,770 cycles is an increment of history from zero/nothing.

Edited January 19, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I disagree that anything you've presented in any way even resembles a valid argument. If clocks don't measure time then what are they for?

 

We start the recordings synchronised from a starting point of zero/nothing.   We record for three hours to a synchronised stop. 

 

 

We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start.  We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''. 

How will it be synchronised if they're in motion relative to each other? Synchronised from which frame of reference? It can't be both!

 

We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start.  We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''.

This means you think that current knowledge predicts that the videos will show time moving at different speeds. That's ridiculous, completely wrong and more than a little funny.

[xyz]

I disagree that anything you've presented in any way even resembles a valid argument. If clocks don't measure time then what are they for?

 

So you disagree that anything more than zero/nothing is history, how extraordinary when considering axioms are self evidentially true. Clocks do not measure anything, there is nothing to measure, and ALL measurement is absolute to a distance, anything more than zero is history. 

 

 

''This means you think that current knowledge predicts that the videos will show time moving at different speeds''.

 

 

You have read that wrongly , I consider the fps run equally of the two videos. 

 

 

 

You clearly have not considered fps and two independent synchronised time-lines playing simultaneous. 

 

It hardly   matters though , anything more than zero/nothing is history , even the Caesium atoms frequency, which is a length. 

[A-wal]

I disagree that the question even makes any kind if sense.

 

Clocks measure time. If they didn't there'd be no point in having them around.

 

Read what I said. You obviously think that standard theory predicts a different fps when the videos are played back. It doesn't, so you don't understand standard theory.

 

How will the two clocks be synchronised in your thought experiment if they're in motion relative to each other? Synchronised from which frame of reference? It can't be both!

[xyz]

I disagree that the question even makes any kind if sense.

 

Clocks measure time. If they didn't there'd be no point in having them around.

 

Read what I said. You obviously think that standard theory predicts a different fps when the videos are played back. It doesn't, so you don't understand standard theory.

 

How will the two clocks be synchronised in your thought experiment if they're in motion relative to each other? Synchronised from which frame of reference? It can't be both!

I think you are misunderstanding somehow, 

 

''time'' is a discrete value of zero that is continuous. i.e 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

A clock marks a distance of history increments between 0 and 0  of the 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7,0

0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0,0

 

Between zero and 1 is a distance, is history, 1 marks an increment position of history, 1=0 the simultaneous now moment

 

 

''You obviously think that standard theory predicts a different fps when the videos are played back. It doesn't, so you don't understand standard theory.''

 

 

Just no, I do not think that or suggest that, you are missing the point entirely. Read it again.

 

 

I am using the video recorders to ''time'' the whole experiment. The whole point is that using the recorders to synchronise time, the recorders time will be the same fps in synchronised playback.......and you are still missing the point that the caesium atoms frequency is not zero, it is an amount of cycles in 1 second of distance/''time'' which is an increment of history. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

When we measure time, we are measuring a sequence of events (a clock ticking, an atom decaying) and comparing them to other events.  I am of the belief (not very scientific ) that time exists because events happen.  There is no difference between absolutely nothing happening and time standing still (not existing).  It has somehow only recently occurred to me that the same would have to be true of space as well.  If nothing is happening, than both time and space are irrelevant.

[xyz]

When we measure time, we are measuring a sequence of events (a clock ticking, an atom decaying) and comparing them to other events.  I am of the belief (not very scientific ) that time exists because events happen.  There is no difference between absolutely nothing happening and time standing still (not existing).  It has somehow only recently occurred to me that the same would have to be true of space as well.  If nothing is happening, than both time and space are irrelevant.

Things do not need ''time'' to move.  Consider 1 second on a clock is marking a position of zero 

 

0+1=0

 

Between 0 and 0 , is history, we mark points 1 or 2 and so on. 

 

1 is zero

 

A ruler does not measure 0-1m, it measure 0-0 but it depends which end of the ruler you holding

Edited January 20, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Just no, I do not think that or suggest that, you are missing the point entirely. Read it again.

You said "We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start.  We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''. " That means you thought that current knowledge predicts that they WOULD observe a discrepancy in the synchronisation of the tapes! It doesn't. You have no understanding of current knowledge.

 

The amount of cycles as you put it would be different in both frames of reference. If the first observer measures 1 cycle in the second observer's atom for every two cycles of their own then the second observer would measure 1 cycle in the first observer's atom for every two cycles of their own. From the perspective of a third observer between them who measures the first two moving away in opposite directions at the same speed, the cycles would be synchronised.

 

What you say makes no sense. Clocks measure distances in time, just as rulers measure distances in space. In the weird way you've written it, clocks measure the amount of 0s that pass. That's measuring a distance in time.

 

How would those clocks be synchronised if they're in motion relative to each other? Synchronised from which frame of reference? It can't be both. Answer the question!

 

Things do not need ''time'' to move.  Consider 1 second on a clock is marking a position of zero

Yes they do. Movement is a measurement of distance over time.

 

0+1=0

No it's not.

 

1 is zero

It really isn't.

 

A ruler does not measure 0-1m, it measure 0-0 but it depends which end of the ruler you holding

Huh?

Edited January 20, 2016 by A-wal

[Maine farmer]

I didn't say that things needed time to move, I said time exists because things happen.  Time only exists because events happen.  Time is a result, not a cause.

[xyz]

I didn't say that things needed time to move, I said time exists because things happen.  Time only exists because events happen.  Time is a result, not a cause.

My apologies I misread, events happen you say so time exists.  Do things not happen if we don't time the thing that's happening?  

 

Name one event  or anything you can think up, that you can ''time''.

 

Define the process of what you are actually doing to ''time'' something. 

 

 

I will give you an example

 

 

I and you are about to ''time'' a runner, running around a running track, with stop watches. Both of our stop watches are set at zero time, We synchronise our start by the sound of the starting gun (yes we could be a fraction off each other with  the synchronisation, this does not matter),

 

After 100m we both synchronise a stop. 

 

 

We both show 15 seconds.

 

 

15 seconds is 100m of the runners  history, they started at zero also. 15 seconds also represents our 0m we travelled, but also represents 15 seconds of our history.   We never actually ''timed'' anything, we recorded history. 

[xyz]

You said "We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start.  We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ''time-line''. " That means you thought that current knowledge predicts that they WOULD observe a discrepancy in the synchronisation of the tapes! It doesn't. You have no understanding of current knowledge.

 

 

 

You have that backwards , the no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the ''time-line''  of the two recordings shows that time does not change because they record in real time and record the every ''now'' moment. 

 

My two video clocks are constant, and remain constant.

 

 

Has for the rest, you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. You are telling me something is not to my own ideas, 

 

 

0+1=0

''No it's not.''

 

Yes it is, it is my idea so I should know sorry. 

 

1 second is a reference point of zero(the now)

 

look ... 

 

0000000000000

0100000000000

0120000000000

0123000000000

 

1 replaces zero but is still zero, it is a marked reference point of history. 

 

from 0 to 1 is an increment of history. 

 

we record history not measure time.