Embedded Files
WIKIPEDIA "Time is a dimension and measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them."
The essence of this site is to suggest how it may be shown that there is no past, and no future, and that a thing called time may not exist or flow, and is thus not a dimension, and has no durations or intervals etc
The word 'Time' is used in so many ways that discussing it without outlining what precise meaning you are referring to is extremely confusing.
'Time', as I am discussing and contesting here, is any definition of the word that suggests time is anything other than a useful notion, i.e that a 'real temporal past' or a 'real temporal future' or anything other than 'just matter and motion 'now' ' might exist.
There is an odd irony in that some of my friends think this discussion on timelessness is useless because everyone knows that it's obvious Time does exist, and so I must be wrong in suggesting it does not.
There is an odd irony in that some of my friends think this discussion on timelessness is useless because everyone knows that it's obvious Time does exist, and so I must be wrong in suggesting it does not.
While others think there is no point publishing this work because everybody knows that Time does not really exist, so why re-explain this?
While others think there is no point publishing this work because everybody knows that Time does not really exist, so why re-explain this?
What's worse is some people agree that time does not exist... and then say something like, 'ahh but time must exist,we all get older, and what about entropy?'
What's worse is some people agree that time does not exist... and then say something like, 'ahh but time must exist,we all get older, and what about entropy?'
(The only thing all groups seem to agree on is that I talk about time too much).
IF time exists, then time travel might be possible, but ....
...Does Time exist? No But, Yeah but no...
...Does Time exist? No But, Yeah but no...
In general conversation we may say that things change 'over', 'in' or 'with' Time. And if someone questions - do you really mean 'Over' or 'In' or 'With' a thing that really exists - called 'Time'? We can back off, be vague, and say 'well, yeah, but no, but yeah, but you know what i mean, Time does exist, but its only an expression, so it doesn't exist ! but time obviously passes because we all get older', so it does exist, but not really as a 'thing' and so on'.
But in the scientific view, as expressed in the example links given below this vagueness is not an option. Either it makes sense to talk about Time as something extra to just motion now, or it does not.
The subject of time and timelessness can be tricky enough as it is but is can be even more confusing if we are not very clear about exactly what is meant by 'Time', before going to argue that it may not exist. To see how confusing this can get, just imagine two people arguing about a film plot, while they are in fact talking about two different movies without realising it.
While it may be easy for someone to say 'of course Time is just a man made idea', this casual response will make a true scientists toes curl. This is because someone with such an opinion usually hasn't considered the serious scientific reasoning. evidence, theories, experiments, and results which suggest that Time really does exist. And by Time existing here I mean, for example...
What is meant by 'Time Existing'?
What is meant by 'Time Existing'?
As more than just as a 'notion'
Existing as a real effect, force or part or function of the universe.
Specifically existing as a thing that has a future and a past, a flow, and a direction
And as a thing which may be travelled through - if only in theory, and if only by information or particles
A thing which may or may not be predictable
which is a part of 'space-time' and which can be warped or 'dilated'' by various forces
- and so on.
(See >> table-of-timeless-vtime-distinctions for a detailed table of these distinctions as compared to the Timeless view).
So it is 'Time' as defined and discussed in the following example articles, and many others,that, respectfully, I think can be shown to not exist in any such way.
Instead, it seems to me, that matter just being able to exist and interact 'now' is enough to explain all our observations apparently relating to time - which is not the view held in many articles, see the following for a few general examples...
"Time
is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions ofobjects.[1] The temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing; future events become present, then pass further and further into the past. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars"
The conclusion of this lecture is that rapid space-travel, or travel back in time, can't be ruled out, according to our present understanding. They would cause great logical problems, so let's hope there's a Chronology Protection Law, to prevent people going back, and killing our parents. But science fiction fans need not lose heart. There's hope in string theory.
"Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner analogous to moving between different points in space, either sending objects (or in some cases just information) backwards in time to some moment before the present, or sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate)."
"In physics, a wormhole is a hypotheticaltopological feature of spacetime that would be, fundamentally, a "shortcut" through spacetime. For a simple visual explanation of a wormhole, consider spacetime visualized as a two-dimensional (2D) surface. If this surface is folded along a third dimension, it allows one to picture a wormhole "bridge". (Please note, though, that this is merely a visualization displayed to convey an essentially unvisualisablestructure existing in 4 or more dimensions. "
Two Russian mathematicians have suggested that the giant atom-smasher being built at the European centre for nuclear research, Cern, near Geneva, could create the conditions where it might be possible to travel backwards or forwards in time.
Time travel for beginners J.Gribben.
"In one of the wildest developments in serious science for decades, researchers from California to Moscow have recently been investigating the possibility of time travel. They are not, as yet, building TARDIS lookalikes in their laboratories; but they have realised that according to the equations of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity (the best theory of time and space we have), there is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent time travel. It may be extremely difficult to put into practice; but it is not impossible."
"A Technion-Israel Institute of Technology physicist has developed a theoretical model of a time machine that could enable future generations to travel into the past."
Space Daily
Chronology protection conjecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The chronology protection conjecture is a conjecture by the physicist ProfessorStephen Hawking that the laws of physics are such as to prevent time travel on all but sub-microscopic scales. Mathematically, the permissibility of time travel is represented by the existence of closed timelike curves. The chronology protection conjecture should be distinguished from chronological censorship under which every closed timelike curve passes through an event horizon, which might prevent an observer from detecting the causal violation.[1]
Note: One of the problems with discussing time is that the word is commonly used in a number of different ways. Unless we are clear about which concept of time we are discussing our minds can switch between these different definitions - but we may not realise we are doing this. So we may agree that obviously its always now, so time does not exist, but then say time (like money) relates to a very real and practical notion... so time does exist.
In selecting these articles as examples, this is not an ignorant 'witch hunt'. These article were picked at random from the first page of a Google search just as examples to make it very clear as to what concept of 'Time' existing I am challenging.
In pointing to these and other articles I am in no way 'fanatically' saying all references to Time and Time travel are wrong. What I am trying to say is, scientifically, I think I can show that the concept of time as seen in examples like this may be wrong. To wave the sword of science around you have to be willing to also be attacked by it. So it is completely accepted that if what I am suggesting is wrong, then it is wrong. But the only way to find this out is to state the claims clearly, directly and openly so they can be fully challenged.
These are examples I have chosen to demonstrate that the view here is is that Time does really exist in some real sense - and thus that 'now' is not everything, but one part of a 4 dimensional landscape*, and 'Time' is not just a useful word or concept but a fundamental aspect of nature that is needed to exist , and 'pass' from the future through the present into the past, as change happens.
So it is this concept that I am aiming to entirely reexplain purely in terms of matter and motion existing and interacting 'now' - with 'now' being all that there is.
Summary
Summary
It is easy to simply claim 'Time is just motion', but meaningless to do so unless you can sensibly and scientifically reexplain every observed phenomena that seems to be a proof that more than just motion exists. Missing out even a single proof makes any such claim as useless as a balloon with 'just one hole' in it.
So it is this that the book draft 'A Brief History of Timelessness' as outlined in the following pages aims to do.
Continue to,
* Note in claiming that the idea of a '4th dimension' is literally only a useful idea, and does not relate to anything that actually exists in any real way, this also brings into question what may be meant by any other views involving other 'dimensions'.
Google Sites
Report abuse