/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10046831
Did you only just find out time is relative.

>>10046831
how do you define speed/rate?

>>10046831
Stronger gravity decreases the movement of time, rather than "increases the rate", since its harder for all the atoms and particles to move around in space in the presence of a harder gravitational pull.

>>10046853
>decreases the movement of time
Time doesn't exist

rephrase

>>10046839
>Did you only just find out time is relative.
Time doesn't exist at all

It's a concept to station the past and future

>>10046858
if you're going to be pedantic nothing exists at all
you're just like, a standing wave, man

>>10046858
Wow. What are pas and future then?
When do they occur if time doesn't exist?

>>10046857
>rephrase
rephrasing doesnt exist

kys

>>10046858
>Time doesn't exist at all
What exactly do you mean by this? Seconds minutes and hours exist, I'm looking at a clock that measures them right now. So when you say "time" and "exist", what do those words mean to you?

>>10046870
I'm guessing he means they're not tangible, or something.

>>10046874
I'm guessing he refuses to define his terms, such as rate and speed that inherently rely on the definition of time, because he is a dipshit troll.

>>10046889
So is time like centimetres?
Just a measurement?

>>10046866
they were and will be NOW

>>10046862
no physicality. Only a concept

>>10046870
a visualization of the rate

there is no physical time

>>10046897
it's a constant. a rate/speed

gravity disrupts this constant

depending on how you look at it it either speeds it up or slows it down

For example if you were in a black hole things outside would be traveling much quicker

As you, under this gravitational field, would be moving forward 1000s of earth years in seconds, I would call it speeding up the rate

>>10046866
William The Conqueror is not fighting in 1066 and your great-grand children are not bouncing on knee.

King William is buried in St Stephens Abbey and your great-grand children don't exist, NOW

There is only 'now'

>>10046927
So does the entropy of our system never change?

>>10046941
You are in the 'now'
anything (not everything) is possible.

>>10046831

You simply call time what is an observation of a change in the state of a system.

Do this simple thought experiment, suppose that you see a sphere, in the middle of nothing, and the sphere does absolutely nothing.

If somebody recorded a video, 1 year long, of that sphere and showed it to you and, on another screen, he just showed you an image of that same sphere for 1 year long you would not be able to see the difference, nor you would be able to say if there was any "time" involved in that observation of the sphere.

And that's why we are autistic about patterns and cycles.

>>10046962
even if nothing changes, it has been traveling at the 'rate'.

And yes, people think about ageing and change through the rational of 'time'.

It's a perfectly good concept. It just doesn't have any physical property and doesn't exist outside of the concept.

>>10046831
Try defining speed or rate without a reference to time
>oh wait you cant and OP is a complete brainlet

>>10046858

AKA that it's just a relation AKA relative

faggot

>>10046918
>a visualization of the rate
the rate of what? Finish your sentences man.

>>10046973
>reference to time
a concept of distance and speed

it's a great concept

But it doesn't exist. no physical time

>>10046985
the rate of the universe. the constant.

>>10046973
>distance and speed
or ageing and rate

>>10046992
The rate of the universe what? the rate that it changes? the rate that it expands?
C'mon man give me something to work with here.

>>10046980
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10046831
Depends on your definition of time. I could say time exists because i can walk outside today, and not get wet because it rained yesterday. Something separates those two events, and its not distance(relative to Earth).

>>10047006
Because faggots deserve to be dragged behind a truck and tossed into the nearest tire fire.

>>10047002
it is just 'the rate'

we can see ageing and change.

gimme a moment, it's interesting to try to define it.

>>10047009
>i can walk outside today, and not get wet because it rained yesterday

both happened in the 'now'

It isn't raining yesterday. It rained yesterday

>>10047006
he's either denying himself or an edgy teen

>>10047014
>gimme a moment, it's interesting to try to define it.
No stress my man, defining your premise is the single most important part of your argument, take your time and get it done right.

>>10047016
we can see the change in the 'rate' when gravity is a factor.

what would you call it?

>>10047014
>it isnt raining yesterday. It rained yesterday.
Ok, now we have pinned down your definition of time. You believe time is not some traversable “4th dimension”, but you do believe it is a difference in entropy from one moment to the next.

Tell me, what should we call this consistant measurable difference in “nows” that is marked in the forward direction by an increase in entropy?

>>10046968

that is what you're missing.

if a thing does not ever, ever changes anything and stays exactly the same, it has no "time" as you say it.

in a completely closed system, with no internal state modification in any sense, you cannot have any proof of change, relative to what you want.

you are confusing the concept of "measuring" with "existing".

I'll make you another example.

If a piece of string exists alone and isolated in the universe, there is no way to measure it, nor "measure" has any sense, because it implies a way to confront it with something else.

Same issue with time.

Do you have any familiarity with special relativity?

You should if you don't.

>>10046831
>mad ramblings
>prove me wrong
How's you about form a coherent sentence first?

>>10047017
Probably "time" since that's what you're describing

This thing isn't going anywhere. Op found out about theory of relativity and now has existential problems

>>10047028
Still waiting on an answer to this OP.

>>10047017
It sounds to me like you are describing what I would tentatively describe as the rate of "progression" in the universe.
By this I mean the rate at which cause leads to effect, the rate at which, for example uranium decays, but with respect to the actual physical mechanisms that lead to that decay.
In other words, this rate of progression is a method for describing the constant motion of the universe around us as we move through space.

>>10047028
>forward direction
I certainly didn't talk about direction because that would define time.

there is only the 'now'

'time' as we call it is immediate.

>>10047031
>if a thing does not ever, ever changes anything and stays exactly the same, it has no "time" as you say it.
no i don't

you can see change but it doesn't define anything other than understanding how people find it hard to understand the concepts around this

ageing and change happen in the now.

What -was- is the past what -might be- is the future.
nontherless we are always in the present

>>10047038
That's OK. I'm just saying it's a concept not a physical thing.

we use the concept of time to measure.

>>10046831
Different observers will disagree about what state of a system is simultaneous. Hence time must be real, because different people disagree about what is "now".

>>10047049
What you're describing is just change and ageing.

physical things which we measure through the concept of time.

They do not define the physical property of time because there is none

>>10047041
was thinking how the ghost phenomenon and alien abduction phenomenon may exist in the same universe. Spiritual (no physicality) and scientific (Physical). A thought exercise which helped me understand 'quantum' (not time/space/particles because, i believe, they also don't exist). I'm can understand how, just not the what and why, yet!

It's impossible to understand 'quantum' until you understand that time does not exist.

The question - what would happen if you traveled back in time and killed your grandfather? - paradox hit my autism and I simply changed the condition of the question. It'd similar to - what if fairies existed- or - what if you could speak to animals-

>>10047055
the 'quantum' may be the observational proof that time doesn't exist

>>10047067

Dude.
What the hell are you talking about.

Also not /sci/

Entropy goes up always. This is a direction. We call this direction time

>>10047072
>a thought exercise

also the alien abduction phenomenon is consistant (different countries, age ranges, religions, race social status, etc) and as such I can use science to rationalise it.

You might not want to think about it but remember, everything is pseudoscience until it's science. Many of the greats thought this way.

>>10047076
>We call this direction time
and it's a great concept
>just not physical

>>10047080

Alien abductions reports are, very likely, a mixture of schizos, people who seek fame, psychological disturbances, sleep paralysis and sheer ignorance.

I repeat, not /sci/.

Also, it is pseudoscience because there have been studies and alien abductions do not fit the criterias for the scientific method, hence they get called pseudoscience.

>>10047080
Pls. Go back to /x/

>>10047089
identical reports for 80+ years from isolated areas to developed capital cities and from 'schizos' to politicians and businessmen

It was just a thought exercise that came from the time travel paradox.

Why not try to solve something no one has managed to do before.

If it's lies and crap then so be it.

>>10047090
>a thought exercise
I suggest you try them, especially the ones that make you uncomfortable. really helps with critical thinking.

also never been to /x/ and can't imagine they can understand the ideas and concepts I've mentioned

>>10046831
GPS systems need to solve four equations for position because they have to account for time.

>>10047094
>have to account for time.
Yes, it's a concept of measurement

>>10047093

Well, probably the issue of "alien abductions" has already been solved in an easier way.

Time travel paradoxes do not resolve by implying that time does not exist, probably the reason is that time travel is not physically possible (in the backward sense), the motivation is still undecided.
It could be that, since we live in a 3+1 universe, a being living in a 4+1 universe might go backward or forward in time just like we go back and forth in a corridor.
Just as a 2 dimensional creature cannot see the 3rd dimension we cannot see additional ones.

All of course is just an opinion.

>>10047106
>just an opinion.
and I respect that. You've obviously been thinking about it.

I would only say that the past is the past, you can't kill your own father because what's happened has happened. You can't travel back in time because it is only a concept. There is no physical path.

maybe you could say
>time is immediate

however you could travel to the 'future' or theoretically traverse vast distances of space in 'seconds' by being within several contrasting extreme gravitational forces (although everone you ever knew will be long dead when you arrive at your destination').

So time travel, as in popular fiction, is possible, to the future at least.

If we could somehow go 'back' it would only be in an observational capacity. There would be no ability to change anything of consequence.

>>10046831
>imaginary time

>>10047050
>I certainly didn't talk about direction because that would define time
Way to dodge the question. How about this:

What should we call the consistant measurable difference in “nows” marked by a change in entropy?

So op is just saying what everyone else is saying on planet earth except he’s pedantically saying we can’t call it time

>>10047145
>difference in “nows”
this is the flaw

There is only 'now'.

To me it reaches in every direction of possability and among that, the inevitable.

Sorry I can't answer that question better

>>10047157
No he's saying it has no physicality and is abstract concept of measurement, of the constant rate we travel (And is influenced by gravity).

>>10046831
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>>10046992
>the rate of the universe. the constant.
I wonder how slow, or fast, things would seem when stationary, completely stationary in the universe.

>>10047171
Dude you're not considering time as a dimension but as a moment. The entire scientific community consider time as a dimension and you're not doing so. You can continue arguing about that but the point is that there are more proofs that time is a dimension that proofs that it isn't. What you're saying is a logical assumption but science is another thing in first place. Math and physics is the way. Without information you're not going anywhere. Only because you cannot understand and elaborate the concept of time it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

>>10047196
>The entire scientific community consider time as a dimension and you're not doing so.
Yes, I'm not the entire scientific community. I Come to my own conclusions based on evidence, not peer pressure.

I've said a lot already and you didn't ask a question.

I'll put it to you like this, you simply can't understand 'quantum' without understanding 'time' does not exist.

And I believe the only possible way to transverse vast distances of space rely on the science that time is purely abstract.

There is only NOW

>>10046831
actually we're traveling at a constant that has actually finished. a continuous motion that is like a spark grazing wheat. Like a imagine a spark from a fire work (sparkler) in the pitch blackness of night in a wheat field as the single spark grazes multiple wheat strains, graze, pass, graze, pass. Our world actually has no physical matter. You'll find that out later but you won't. I know that but you don't know that. This is actually a much larger play of the cosmos with the larger base of the theme being darkness. Know you will always have consequences for your actions. From the smallest tree to the smallest bug. Enjoy the everlasting hell that is now and never.

>>10047215

>you simply can't understand 'quantum' without understanding 'time' does not exist.
-what is a time development operator ?
-what is a schrodinger equation
-what is a time dependant state


sorry, but youre just a guy who underestimates the rigour of physicists

>>10047096
yeah actually it is a CONcept. I don't actually have to do. I can actually live forever. for me to die is actually me being a con. I have all the intelligence I have all the skills to grasp. There's nothing justifiable about my death it's a choosing. This is a now topic I could still do such a thing money ore knot eye could steal set up the basis for such it's a matter of doing knot. I'm steal knot sure if you people know what you're doing ore if you choose knot.

>>10047226
>Our world actually has no physical matter.
debatable
However, it is into physics.

Death is inevitable but hopefully one day our genetic memory will live on.

>>10047244
It's time

>>10047171
Its a very simple question. Just give me a name for what we would call the difference from now, to when your last post was made. You wont answer it because it defeats your entire semantics based argument.
>this is the flaw

>There is only 'now'.
So you never made the post im replying to? There is only the current moment after all. This text im reading, that i assumed to have been typed by you, must have just materialized into the universe at this very moment, along with the rest of recorded history, huh? Reguardless of what you think time is or isnt, something of chronological nature HAS TO exist for there to be events that occur before or after other events. You have dodged every question i have given you because you know answering them in any way would prove your original premise wrong. Thus, you have proven that this entire thread is either a LARP or bait. The only other explanation other than the two formerly mentioned one is that you are truly retarded, which i dont consider to be the case because you were smart enough not to answer me twice.

>>10047215
And in fact your conclusions are wrong because you're talking olny about what your eyes see. You can't see time that's why we use math. And that's why you will never undertand time

>>10047277
>Thus, you have proven that this entire thread is either a LARP or bait
some people understand or have now understood.

And many of them, by removing the factor of time, are looking scientific theories in a new light.

I'm fine with the term 'time' and what it expresses.

>Just give me a name for what we would call the difference from now, to when your last post was made
I would call it 'time'

It's as if it's the pulse of the constant.

>Reguardless of what you think time is or isnt, something of chronological nature HAS TO exist for there to be events that occur before or after other events
May I ask if you believe in predetermination? Or that the future isn't written?

It goes back to the - anything, not everything, is possibe.

Obviously one day the Sun will die out either on it's own or some unseen space calamity. And you and me will all die. However, despite the inevitable, there's still the possible, where we can create new inevitables.

I'm not talking about free-will, it's about there being no physical predeterminates. maybe you could say the future is shapable.

>>10047313
We're living in a deterministic universe and there is no free-will. And with time as a dimension.
Prove me wrong.

>>10047309
>you're talking olny about what your eyes see.
observable, testable, evidential, etc etc
Yes, physics.

>>10047323
Can you show me a physicality? not evidence

>>10047324
>not evidence
*secondary

>>10047324
Yes. And in fact physics uses math and not only eyes. The theory of relativity would't exists if Einstein had only used his eyes.

>>10047330
No theory would persist were it not evidential, observable, measurable, testable or ...

also
>theory

>>10047338
In fact is a theory, but has it's been experimented using this theory resulting in it being recognized as true.The theory" about time of Op simply hasn't proofs to be considered true but has proofs to be considered false.

>>10046831
>Implying that rate/speed does not include time

It's in the definition of rate, something per second, give a proper definition of what it is first, then we might give you proper answers.

>>10046985
>the rate of what? Finish your sentences man.
it's a

>>10047080
>also the alien abduction phenomenon is consistant (different countries, age ranges, religions, race social status, etc) and as such I can use science to rationalise it.
>You might not want to think about it but remember, everything is pseudoscience until it's science. Many of the greats thought this way.

No you retard, it's called controlled conditions, hard sciences require that. Haha lol at how you think you were saying some weird philosophical truth but actually you just skipped basic stuff that would have been obvious even to a retard if you just spent 5 minutes thinking about it. Smoke less pot

>>10047093
>identical reports for 80+ years
If reports from biased unreliable sources without controlled conditions are true then there is much more evidence for the existence of religion than aliens.

>>10047093
>also never been to /x/ and can't imagine they can understand the ideas and concepts I've mentioned
Everything you type looks like it's been copy pasted from there.
Nothing you are saying is complex or particularly interesting even remotely, it's just wrong but since you don't realize it you have to lie to yourself and others to avoid facing the fact that youre simply uneducated

>>10047402
I'm not saying I bellieve in it. I was doing a thought experiment and attempting to rationalize it. That included the possability it is lies and/or mistake.

>>10047405
see above

>>10047408
>Everything you type looks like it's been copy pasted from there.
link?

>>10047380
>It's in the definition of rate, something per second
Yeah, you're really making me think
what is the nature of the constant?

I would only seperate time as being something other and abstract. What i said earlier about 'time' being the pulse of the 'constant' sounds about right.

>>10046831
bump

>>10046831
>Time does not exist
Correct, it is a metaphysical concept that tries to quantify our experience of reality into separate moments using mathematics.
>We are traveling at a rate/speed
This doesn't make any sense.
>Gravity increases the rate
Gravity doesn't exist either, physically impossible.

>>10047492
>rate/speed
Yes, I agree. They're poor descriptions. I used them because it can be slowed/decreased and sped up/increased.

'Constant' would be better

>Gravity doesn't exist either, physically impossible.
would you say it's a force?
and what would you call, what we call - gravitational pull?

>>10047313
Anon that you were replying to here. I believe the universe is 100% deterministic. Not sure about time, whether its traversable like Kurt Gödel theorized, or just entropy. Funny thing about Kurt Gödel though, Einstein(the man whos theorys cock you are sucking) actually looked up to Gödel. He once said that the reason he walked home from work was to have the privilege of speaking with Gödel. For Einsteins 70th birthday, Gödel provided him with logical mathematical proof of the existence of closed timelike curves in a rotating universe. This meant that if the universe rotates about an axis, there are possible paths that matter with mass can take, when traveling very close to c, where that matter can end up at the start of its destination before it left on its journey. Neither Einstein, nor any other physicist since has been able to find a proven theory as to why CTCs cannot exist. If i was a betting man, i would not bet against Gödel being right. The man was so far beyond genius he might aswell have been from another planet.

>>10047503
>I believe the universe is 100% deterministic.
what a waste of the beautyful subjective miracle of life. This is the problem with scientist, i think they should inspire themselves by artists who know much more abouit how consciousness work via their real experimentation of lifes pleasures than cold scientists who believe it can all be summed down to math

>>10047505
Facts dont care about your feelings.

>>10047503
>Einstein(the man whos theorys cock you are sucking)
I've never read Einstein, or any science book related to this subject, so I'll take that as a compliment.

>closed timelike curves in a rotating universe. This meant that if the universe rotates about an axis
Yes I can see how that could be. However I see it as a cycle not a time loop. Each time would be different. And if this cycle is infinate then I hope these scenarios repeat. ie matter ending up where it started.

>>10047505
Many things are inevitable so you're both right (and/or wrong).

>>10047525
>Facts dont care about your feelings.
that's what a cold science non artist that never lived for a couple of years travelling from town to town while fucking cute girls all over and talking to different smart people dont undertsand. There are some things you dont know, some things you cant learn from science or math, some things that you can ONLY learn by experiencing them.

Lol so much at the response to this always being "those things that you say i cannot learn from a book i know are false because a book told me"

>>10047529
>I've never read Einstein, or any science book related to this subject
It shows

>>10047529
>never read Einstein
You stated earlier that some other anon should look into special relativity.
>>10047031
LARP confirmed.

>inb4 hurr that wasnt me
You lost bud. Count your losses and be thankful this board is anonymous, so i cant follow you around for the rest of your life reminding you why you are wrong.

>>10047533
>while fucking cute girls
I think your degenerate behavior may have caught you syphillis. You seem to be suffering from brain damage. Im not saying everything written in books is true. What i am saying, is that scientific theories backed up by proven facts are much more likely to be accurate than your “dude you are like not that smart man” hippie drivel.

>>10047544
>You stated earlier that some other anon should look into special relativity.
wasn't me

>>10047544
>LARP confirmed.
isn't me

>>10047533
who cares. To understand physics you don't have to have experience something other than hard work and study.

>>10047093
>identical reports
could be aliens or could be in heads, it's likely to be in heads, and yes people are that alike

>>10047552
>could be aliens or could be in heads, it's likely to be in heads, and yes people are that alike
great. I wholly agree this is a big possibility. Similar to an instinct, a shared genetic belief/hallucination

>I wanted to look at every possability

>>10047544
Are you sure he lost if that’s your reaction?

>>10047565
He admitted to having zero education in this subject. So even if i am wrong about who he is(not likely), he still lost. He has zero credibility.

>>10047501
>'Constant' would be better
That's the same as not travelling.
>would you say it's a force?
>and what would you call, what we call - gravitational pull?
Just a natural property of the physical. A kind of intrinsic logic that physical "things" operate with/order themselves by, but it is not a separate force or a separate thing at all in reality, we've just labelled it as such.

>its an "OP is too much of a brainlet/physics let to realize that the words 'rate' and 'speed' imply a parameter (time)" episode
They show this one every week.

>>10047578
do you know what space-time is and what relation it has with gravity?

>>10047551
That’s not understating, that’s rigor and rote.

>>10047592
That's not an answer.

>>10047592
rigor == understanding

>>10047575
I'll reiterate. those 2 references, were not mine.

I've kept to the same line throughout.

>>10047575
purposely ignorant.

“If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.”

And it was a critical thought exercise.

>>10047578
>Just a natural property of the physical. A kind of intrinsic logic that physical "things" operate with/order themselves
I find that description limited

>like accepting defeat

>>10047582
>do you know what space-time is and what relation it has with gravity?
space-constant
FIXED

>>10047582
Space-time is logically impossible. "Space" and "time" are metaphysical concepts that do not have physical properties, therefore physical the property of curvature or of "fabric" is logically impossible for such concepts.

>>10047615
>Space-time is logically impossible
omg go back to school dude

>>10047610
>I find that description limited
You think it's a separate "force"?

>>10047620
I've studied metaphysics at university. Do you believe space-time to be fabric-like?

>>10046831
We can actually measure time dilation so your hypothesis is demostrably false

>>10047623
Well, by definition it's a force. But it's not generated, stored or disipated. So, I would guess theres a + to match the - .

Do you think it is opposing something or resisting? an equal or opposite force?

>>10047635
>We can actually measure time dilation
False, clocks (atomic or not) behave differently at different altitudes due to less air pressure and temperature change.

>>10047635
Ok, there's a constant and the rate you experience the constant is 'dilated' via gravitation force.

If you put and electrical current through a crystal it ossilates. You can count these oscillations from 'then' to 'now' and that is your 'time' measurement.

The quartz in your watch for example

>>10047666
electrons don't exist

>>10047659
>False, clocks (atomic or not) behave differently at different altitudes due to less air pressure and temperature change.
could it be that they effect the behavior of gravity and that in turn affects the constant?

>>10047632
>I've studied metaphysics at university.
Then you have a degree in baloney.

>>10047676
keep it clean ladies

>>10047659
>False, clocks (atomic or not) behave differently at different altitudes due to less air pressure and temperature change.
Then why does that effect doesn't happen when you put a clock in a vacuum chamber?

>>10047637
What we call gravity is simply observing the behaviour of the physical, and separating the behaviour into different "things" or "forces" that are made external to the physical "things" themselves. But this is just a way to breakdown our observations so that we can quantify them and use them in equations etc. Nothing wrong with it, but it should not considered proof that these "forces" actually exist as separate "things".

So observing something go "down" is considered its own separate "force" that must be separate to other "forces" and therefore could be as you describe opposing or resisting some other separate "force". I think this is a narrow view and misses the bigger picture.

>>10047632
then stop talking about real physics.

>>10047680
Gravity is dictated by the density and size of a 'thing' so how does the behavior of atoms/particles change when under this great pressure?

It makes me think about how conductive metal atoms work together to pass a current

>>10046831
bump

>>10046831
How do you define speed without time?

>>10047714
checkmate OP

>>10047714
By it's ability to increase/speed up decrease/slow down

>But you're right, it's difficult to label it a speed
So I've started calling it 'the constant'

>>10047726
speed is how much space you have traveled during an amount of time. Then wtf is you constant?

>>10047726
A constant doesn't change by definition

>>10047692
Theoretical physics is metaphysics (done badly).

>>10047696
>atoms/particles
Don't exist.

>>10047748
No, theoretical physics is regular physics done right.

Okay guys, I have a crazy idea. What if there was a constant (you might also call it speed), that is the same everywhere in the universe?
Wouldn't that be insane? Physicists are so stupid, they haven't even thought of something this simple.
I dub it c for constant.

>>10047714
oh, I see what you mean.

OK speed is the distance:pulses in the constant, ratio.

Those pulse can be seconds and you can use the term 'time'. As I said I'm fine with the concept, it just doesn't exist in the physical.

>>10047737
Yeah, it's difficult to get my head round. Yet, we observe what gravity does to the constant.

It doesn't change the 'now' it changes the way you experience the 'now'

Say you and your friend both have stop watches and there's a black hole in the room next door. Your friend steps into the black hole just as you both start the stopwatches.. a day passes.. he steps out of the black hole and you both stop your watches. Yours says 24:00. His says 00:00.02.

Despite only a couple of seconds passing for him, he is not in the past. He's in the now. With you There is only 'now'.

You have 2 other friends who also stopped and started their stopwatches at the same time as you. one was on an airplane and his stopwatch read 23.59.59 ...99999 ...999999 due to increased/opposing gravities

And the other friend is on the ISS Space Station, her watch reads 24:00.00 ... 000 ... 001
Due to less gravitational influence

Despite all of you experiencing the constant at different 'rates' you are all in the 'now'.

>>10047763
Yes. It's the same everywhere in the universe. There is only 'now'.

>>10047750
again, debatable
>and they into physics

>>10047751
What physical property does "time" have?

>>10047034
This

>>10047773
Should be a public debate about it.

>>10047766
Dude. Write your theory and send it to a scientific journal. Then cry because it got rejected.

>>10047773
well, how can it even be debatable without going into pseudoscienc that doesn't have any proofs?

>>10047802
Or post it on 4chan so it can be debated and critiqued openly and anonymously. It's a good vehicle.

I don't understand this distinction between physical and unphysical. Clocks tick at a constat rate, so we can say how many clock ticks it was between different events. The amount of clock ticks is a measure of the time between those events. We can only experience the 'now', but that doesn't mean time isn't 'real', we NEED it to describe the universe

>>10047829
>we can say how many clock ticks it was between different events
Actually we can't. Relativity of simultaneity and all that

>>10047829
I agree. As an abstract description it's fine.

>>10047834
Uhh fine
...we can say how many clock ticks it was between different events in our frame...

>>10047845
what if only 1/20 of a clock tick has passed? How would you know?

>>10047850
Make a clock that consistently ticks at a faster rate and convert units? Are you asking about how time is measured experimentally?

>>10047774
It doesn't. It's a unit of measurement. Time has no physical property.

>>10047763
Isn't c taken?

>>10047858
then time is flowing normally and it isn't based on clock ticks

>>10047862
>unit of measurement
No. Time is a dimension. Have you ever heard about space-time?

>>10047863
What you said there doesn't make much sense.
I never said anything about time not flowing normally, you haven't said anything about why that makes it not 'based on clock ticks'

>>10047829
You believe we are travelling through "time" in one direction?

my personal take on this as to how I explain it to myself

time as it is is an artificial construct. it's helpful i'll give it that but it's nothing more than labeling the intervals of something. in our case we mostly used the divison of the earth's rotation cycle but we went onto cycles of a Caesium atomic clock. so it's an interval, something from 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 where 0 is the past, x is the present and 1 is the future. so it's pretty much an observator's point of view thing I guess (relativity). it's just a scientifical way of saying when my pizza will be ready to be eaten

>>10047872
true

>>10047862
>It doesn't. It's a unit of measurement. Time has no physical property.
Correct, which is why space-time is illogical horseshit.

>>10047866
>>>/x/

>>10047880
>Correct, which is why space-time is illogical horseshit.
No it isn't what do you understand about spacetime?

>>10047882
it's there so we can explain the existence of things..it's just like numbers...they are not there but we still use something as to reffer to them

>>10047880
This. Forward, left and up are also units of measurement. This is why space is illogical horseshit. Actually everything is a point

>>10047889
>Forward, left and up are also units of measurement
No they aren't, you can't say two units of forward and have anyone know what you mean, they're directions but are dimensionless

>>10047773
There is no empirical evidence of any particle. There is no debate, it's a fact that checks out.>>10047805 is right too. If you would like to provide extraordinary evidence of a "particle" then we can have a "debate".

>>10047692
There is no difference. Depending on the physicist for example, you'll have ones that believe imaginary things such as "particles", "dark matter","quantum (insert fancy descriptive word)", and discrete bullshittery.
>>10047751
>No, theoretical physics is regular physics done right.
This type 1 error gives me an aneurysm. If nothing is "physical" then how the fuck can theoretical physics hope to comprehend reality?

>>10047774
This kills the physicist. Time has absolutely no attributes whatsoever. To say that it acts upon something is absurd as saying Santa Clause acts upon my chimney. It is not a modality, nor a phenomena. It is nothing other than a goddamn measurement. A parameter set by humans used to quantify the quality of their life. Yes. Quantifies Quality, that is what fucking time does. Would anyone like to refute me?

>>10047802
>send it and appeal to authority

That's right, send your theories to the same fucking retards that have induced this poppycock to begin with, The same people that actually believe that time and space are things that act upon other things. Fucking lol. Space has no properties, you're talking about the shit that "fills it" so to speak. There is no "absolute vacuum (black holes are also another hilarious theoretical bullshit "thing"). "Warped space"="shit in motion", not actually "space as a nothingness". So together "Space-time" isn't going to make either of these concepts have any more basis in reality than they already do, that being none.

>>10047904
>they're directions but are dimensionless
So are "later" and "earlier"

>>10047904
but that's how movenet works in games/video games/maps...

>>10047911
>So are "later" and "earlier"
Which are also not units in the same way seconds or decades are, both those units refer to some constantly repeating physical process

>>10047912
Come on now, explain what you mean by that?

>>10047909
All I'm seeing is hot air. Where's your theory to revolutionize physics?

>>10047918
well the coordinates. we use them to describe position of something on the plane of space. like chess...queen can move 2 units forward and everybody will know what you mean

>>10047933
>queen can move 2 units forward and everybody will know what you mean
So you've specified it's moved 2 units in the direction of forward, "forward" isn't the unit.

Reading this thread has reminded me which is the level of /sci/ right now. 99% of people on this board are idiots. REALLY

>>10047880
>space-time is illogical horseshit
go study and only then come here to post a reply

>>10047909
my god your post is so full of bullshits that I don't even know where begin to reply to your pseudo-shit proven by no-one.

>>10047921
>theory
No
>revolutionize physics?
Non sequitur. There is nothing "physical" about reality. That's like saying "go revolutionize nature".

>>10047961
I will trade one (you) for the naming of 1 attribute of time.

>>10047965
Btw the light of the stars that you see in the sky shows how the star, that you're obseriving, was milions of years ago. This is a proof of the existence of time.

>>10047964
Okay, enlighten me with your description of "reality". Oh right, you can't.

>>10047975
wtf does that have to do with the example you moron

>>10047977
I'm waiting anon. Since you say that all physicists are doing it wrong, you must know how to describe reality properly.

>>10047979
I never said that

>>10047882
It's an illogical metaphysical abstraction constructed out of mathematics. It does not exist in physical reality.

jesus christ I come back after 2 hours and it's an absolute shitstorm, what the hell is going on in here.

>>10047981
>nothing
Like clockwork

>>10047985
A philosofaggot with no experience in physics saying that physics is all wrong, and people feeding the troll it looks loke

>>10047985
ignorant people that doesn't understand physics are trying to seem people

>>10047983
You'd be surprised how many "illogical" abstractions turned out to be real

>>10047990
>>10047992

Oh nothing interesting going on then.
Thanks for the debrief.

>>10047972
Btw the light of the stars that you see in the sky shows how the star, that you're obseriving, was milions of years ago

Jesus fuck you are such a mental midget. Did you see the fucking star millions of years go on your mica telescope? No? Then there's no fucking proof that light was from millions of years ago is there now? Or is it from millions of years ago because you said it was? What is it?

>This is a proof of the existence of time.
D- at least you tried.
Also resistance is not time by the way. and longitudinal compressions/rarefactions of light don't have a speed. Perhaps if the light was more coherent and had less resistance and capacitors to pass through (like the atmosphere and the dozens of fucking lenses in the goddamn telescope) it would be perceived faster. Yes perceived, not "received" because light is not emitted. Just so you know.

>>10047975
>Okay, enlighten me with your description of "reality".
You can "describe" reality in all the details you want, it's still a description.

>Oh right, you can't.
You're half right.

>>10047952
I have "studied" it, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

>>10048006
Like what?

>>10048012
yes but by non agreeing with such an obvious thing proven to be real your only demonstrating that you have a limited intelligence. Exactly like people who believe that the Earth is flat.

>>10048015
The electromagnetic vector potential comes to mind. It was introduced to make the equations look nicer, but it turned out that it has an actual physical effect.

>>10048025
>physical effect.

Fields are physical?

woah, is op the new einstein or newton lads?

>>10048041
Try to understand something before you reply

>>10048022
>an obvious thing proven to be real
Very bold statement, you sure about that?

>>10048025
You're talking about rewriting the same equation in a different way? The same equation that was written based on electromagnetism? And you're surprised the re-written equation described the same thing?

The problem I'm talking about is building metaphysical concepts cloaked as scientific from mathematical equations, like space-time. Space and time are metaphysical concepts, you can't just mash them together and call it "science".

>>10048088
It's more about seeing potentials only as mathematical constructs with which you can easily derive the fields and nothing more, or if the potentials themselves can have physical effects

>you can't just mash them together and call it "science".
You're saying that based on what exactly? Common sense? That's long out of the window.
Fact is that if you treat time as a dimension, all the right stuff just pops out very elegantly, independently of your interpretation. If time behaves like a dimension, where's the difference to a real dimension? How can you test it?

>>10048142
>It's more about seeing potentials only as mathematical constructs with which you can easily derive the fields and nothing more, or if the potentials themselves can have physical effects
The mathematical construct is really a metaphysical one that began as an observation. Mathematics is the logic of quantity which is applied to these metaphysical concepts.
>Fact is that if you treat time as a dimension, all the right stuff just pops out very elegantly, independently of your interpretation. If time behaves like a dimension, where's the difference to a real dimension? How can you test it?
Treating "time" as a "dimension" is a way to get rid of "time" without looking like it. It's a clever metaphysical trick to make a non-physical concept appear physical.

When you make time the "4th dimension", you use 3 dimensional physical things to represent time instead, this enables the experience of the physical to be conflated with the experience of time being physical as well. Having a direction, speed, shape, separation, finiteness etc. But all of these properties are 3-dimensional observations, the 4th cannot be observed.

Time cannot be separate as the 4th dimension, it cannot be separate to itself, therefore it cannot exist as a separate "thing" in the 3rd dimension which is why they've had to "put" it in a different dimension.

>>10048256
>make a non-physical concept appear physical.
How do you know it's non-physical? Who defines that? We know for a fact that space and time transform into each other.
This is just bullshit philosophy, unfounded in reality. Maybe it's time to adjust some of those views, even if it's 100 years late.

>>10048256
>It's a clever metaphysical trick to make a non-physical concept appear physical
Oof. Read this http://spacetimecentre.org/vpetkov/Minkowski-length-contraction.pdf

>>10048301
How do you know it's non-physical?
Time has no properties..no attributes. Not the anon you're talking to but >>10047965 my question here goes unanswered.

>Who defines that?
That's the joke. There is nothing physical there to define as "time". How do you define what is not there? Answer, you make it an imaginary concept. A placeholder for what is actually occurring.

>>10048540
the common place this ends up is realizing that the unreal thing is a useful abstraction that we can exploit; if you can exploit your timeless model of the universe in a way which beats all those rotten "timeys" to hell and back then you've got a winner!

>>10048540
Read up on relativity before you write bullshit. Proof that you‘re wrong has been posted. God, this is why “philosophers“ are fucking useless.

>>10047875
Yes. Time is only a measurement

>>10047909
Thank you for looking at what I said.

I agree with what you have said

>>10047911
>So are "later" and "earlier"
they are references to the time measurement

>2 hours earlier
>3 years later

>>10047921
Not him but I would say by removing 'time' from theories helps you understand the nature of what is termed - 'quantum'

>It doesn't exist in the future
there is no future, it's a concept of measurement.
there really is onbly 'now'. Everywhere in the universe it is now

>>10047949
It seems that the debate is about the nature of time, either it is physical or it's a concept of measurement. Who do you believe are the '99% of idiots'?

>>10047972
err.. that's the light you see

>it's NOW everywhere in the universe

>>10047990
>A philosofaggot
I'll take that as another compliment

My point was that change (such as ageing) is physical and happens in the 'now' and 'time' has no physical property and we use it as an abstract measurement.

>>10048022
or critical thought.
Things age and change. Time doesn't do this, time doesn't exist, we use the measurement of time to document the change.

>>10048993
Absolute simultaneity is impossible

>>10048805
>the common place this ends up is realizing that the unreal thing is a useful abstraction that we can exploit; if you can exploit your timeless model of the universe in a way which beats all those rotten "timeys" to hell and back then you've got a winner!

Maybe if we exploit the 'now' and the way in which gravitational forces change the way you experience the 'now' it can lead to traveling vast distances in space in a short measurment of 'time'.

Although everyone will be dead for 1000s of years by the 'time' you return. If we thought about 'us' rather than the individual this might not matter.

Further exploit of this might, one day, give us that ability to also observe what we term as 'the past'. Though that's sci-fi for now

>>10049013
Only if you believe in the pohysicality of time

If you don't, there is only 'now'.

>>10049013
Not in a 3 dimensional universe at least.

>>10049017
Simultaneous now everywhere is not logically consistent with causality, sorry about your intuitions.

>>10049020
well, I do believe - anything, not everything, is possible. The 'future' does have inevitables but we also create new inevitables within the 'possible'. So, as I said before, you could say the 'future' is shapable and only determined within the inevitable.

If you removed the factor of 'time' to (the theories of) causality does anything really physically change? Time really is just a measurment

>>10049025
well, I don't care what you believe if you can't be bothered to pick up the special relativity textbook.

>>10049039
What if the 'now' just was?
what if it is just the nature of the simultaneous universe?

>>10049046
Everyone has a different now. They can observe a different order of certain events. An absolute now doesn‘t exist

>>10049051
So something that has finished for one person, another can observe (and interact with) it starting?

If they changed the outcome, how would the other person have already observed a different outcome?

Are saying time has a physical aspect? Show me

>>10046831
Bump

>>10049046
Read a physics book you moron

>>10049254
>Read a physics book you moron
You rely on time to rationalize theories, yet you can't physically rationalize time.

>>10049254
read a quantum physics book you moron

>>10049055
Are saying time has a physical aspect?
it does, and whether you can change stuff has to do with timelike and spacelike intervals in spacetime

>>10049343
That's secondary

Simialar to saying love exists because you see a couple kiss.

The 'constant' chages it's rate due to gravity yet is always in the 'now'

Time is a rationalization in the for of units of measurement. I have no problem with it being used. It just doesn't exist. It doesn't act on anything nor does it have any physicality.

>>10049348
Read the pdf I linked for fucks sake. I know you won‘t because it requires actual knowledge

>>10049652
That isn't me.

You sent it to someone else. But I will check it anyway later

>>10049652
Yeah, their whole premise is wrong. Time is not a dimension and there is no 'spacertime'.

They allude to the nature of the constant but they cannot accept that time is abstract.

>>10048805
>the common place this ends up is realizing that the unreal thing is a useful abstraction that we can exploit

Sure why not? What are you exploiting though? If it has no basis in reality you might as well just say "If we exploit Santa Clause, we'll get more gifts". That's vacuously true. The west exploits the myth of Santa clause so that people will buy more things on Christmas, that doesn't make Christmas or the story of Santa Clause any more true.

>if you can exploit your timeless model of the universe in a way which beats all those rotten "timeys" to hell and back then you've got a winner!
I guess I win then since I live in the universe, where time has no meaning whatsoever other than what stupid humans give it. Seriously can I please have an attribute of time?

>>10048932
>Read up on relativity before you write bullshit

Someone should flog you with your own ironic statements.

>Proof that you‘re wrong has been posted
Not one of you mental midgets has yet provided one iota of proof that time exists outside the realm of concepts. You can call that a "proof" if you want, but in the end the concept of time has no more meaning or place in reality than the tooth fairy/jackalopes. Deal with it or anti-up some fucking proof.

>>10049869
>if you can exploit your timeless model of the universe

Further elaborating on this retarded statement, I exploit the timeless model every single fucking day 24/7. For instance when I go to a gas station to fill my car up, it is not "time" I am putting in the tank. It is gasoline, potential for work. There is no "time" whatsoever in this volatile substance. I put this in my car and then proceed to turn the ignition which starts the engine. The engine is nothing other than a machine that exploits pressure difference, the difference coming from the gasoline which ignites inside this sealed series of chambers. Each piston is positioned in a geometrical fashion to fire of in such a way that it turns a crankshaft in a circular fashion. Not one part of this machine uses "time" nor relies on it to make the reaction of gasoline and the intake/exhaust of air.

>hurr but what about the "timing" stoopid?
Location and geometry, and the pressure mediation of gases. That's not fucking "time".
>But it "takes you time" to go from point a to point b
Expend capacitance faster, remove the weight, shorten the distance, change the vehicles design. That's not time.

>>10049869
It's not my problem if you don't understand the proof. Stop talking about things you have no clue about.

>>10049869
Also, please explain the relativity of simultaneity to me in a 3D space. I'm waiting.

>>10046831
>prove me wrong

>>10046831
Somebody just got to the good stuff in physics 3

>>10048416
The problem with this is that they are already treating time as a real thing, in order to make a case that spacetime is a real thing too.

Time is simply a construction born out of how the human mind works. Our memory is the basis for the concept of past, our pure awareness is the basis for the concept of present, and our imagination/pattern recognition is the basis for the concept of future. However, memory can only ever be experienced in the "present", the future can only be imagined/predicted in the "present".

We have combined these 3 concepts into what we call "time", which has become so ingrained in our psyche, language, society etc that it has become a concept that "science" has taken as a physical fact of reality.

It has become such an integral part of theoretical physics that theories cannot work without it (even though the concept of time they use means it doesn't exist in physical reality anyway, proving their theories wrong automatically).

Science and mathematics needs to be built from the ground up again, because it's at a dead end. It's being abused and controlled by fraudsters coming up with nonsense theories and scam experiments. It's filled with nepotism, corruption, and will do everything it can to protect itself from questioned or re-built.

>>10049938
Obviously it means - give an example of time existing as a physicality not as a unit of measurement.

>>10050006
Would you agree time could be termed - the pulse of the constant - ?

How a quartz crystal behaves in our watches is an example. Or even the rotation and orbit of our planet. It's an abstract unit of measurement.

>>10049918
Just as it's not my problem to spoon feed you on

>>10049936
>Also, please explain the relativity of simultaneity to me in a 3D space. I'm waiting.
Non sequitur? Still doesn't give an attribute to time.

>>10050026
>can't explain shit, only hot air
I can't say that I'm surprised, philotard

>>10050020
>the pulse of the constant
Unless you define what this means, your "theory" is worthless

>>10050020
What you are calling the pulse is just an arbitrary measurement made by us using a flawed concept of "time". A pulse implies a beginning and an end, a constant has no beginning and end, so they are incompatible.

>>10050007
if you think things are a certain way then its on you to demonstrate its true. Or find an instance of when someone else demonstrated it was true. Thats how it works.

how it doesnt work is saying things are a way and believing its true until someone else proves to you it isnt.

as an example if you said

>there is a pink unicorn in a different dimension that created the universe and telepathically speaks to me and when i die i will live in the unicorns garden eating marshmallows until time = infinity

there is no way to prove you are wrong, and its dumb to even bother to try. Along with extra dimensional unicorns the things in that category of stuff is infinite and its dumb to take any of it seriously until someone comes up with some evidence it actually exists.

https://youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU

>>10050057
also this
https://youtu.be/5wV_REEdvxo

>>10050039
The constant is the 'now'. I call it a constant because there is only 'now'.

I explained it here a little
>>10047766


The pulse is a regular/routine sign that (same as a beat in music) can be counted. Counted from -then to -now for example a year, second, season etc

>>10050043
I don't believe the word 'pulse' implies that. I fact quite the opposite, the human heart beat isn't defined by its beginning and end. Neither are pulsars or the waves on the ocean. Size, weight, regularity, intensity etc are all definitions.

>>10050070
>Counted from -then
But there's only now

>>10050070
>the human heart beat isn't defined by its beginning and end. Neither are pulsars or the waves on the ocean.
What are they defined by?

>>10050086
The Now™

This thread is full of people who studied philosophy and are trying to look smart by talking about physics. -Time doesn't exist- Yes it exists you moron. You're aging right now and you will die in a couple of years maybe so shut up. Particles and atoms exist idiots, ever heard about nuclear fusion or fission ? Gravity exists. Ever heard about Ligo and Virgo ???? I don't think. Go read a physics book with real math instead of using your retarded brain.

>>10050091
Even "The Now™" requires the concept of "not now", which would be past and future. All the words we use in our current language won't work.

>>10050098

Is "time" a concept for physics or philosophy? You appear to be a master of both disciplines.

>>10050098
You don't exist. Your opinion is invalid

Philosophy is for people who are too stupid for real science but still want to look smart. That's also why it's so hilarious when they try to show the real scientists "how it's done"

>>10050114
Your only an NPC so your opinion is invalid too.

>>10050122
Literally all this thread

>>10050122
>>10050125
>Complains that people just want to look smart by making a post that tries to make them look smarter than those they complain about

>>10050134
I am actually smart though. That's the difference

>>10050144
It's obvious.

>>10050134
>Make a post to complain about someone that complains that people just want to look smart by making a post that tries to make them look smarter than those they complain about

>>10050057
>>10050065
best posts itt

>>10046858
>It's a concept to station the past and future
Yes, time is not a force or energy, but just a unit of measurement. This is why we refer to time as the 4th dimension. Because dimensions are not forces, energies, or universes either, but just units of measurement. Time is just the distance between two states of a 3 dimensional object.

>>10050194
>Makes a post to complain about someone that complains about someone that complains about people just wanting to look smart by making a post that tries to make them look smarter than those they complain about

>>10050031
>can't explain time, but thinks describing it is an explanation of where it comes from.
>Thinks something with no attributes can be described accurately let alone explained.

>>10050287
>still nothing
HAHAHA

>>10050213
>Time is just the distance between two states of a 3 dimensional object.
Only two states?

>>10046831
>im to dumb to understand general relativity and im having an existential crisis

>>10050297
As I stated before, extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. I want an attribute of time, not a description of fuck all. You can send me all the hypotheses and math you want, but until I actually have some proof that "time" exists then you can start having a rational discussion with me about it.

Not proofs of an observable phenomena:

Math: a description.
Measurements: A description of arbitrary units.
Time: Circular reasoning. Doesn't explain itself.

Until then you can fuck off, this is your last (you).

>>10050329
Learn special relativity first or my explanations will continue to fly over your head.
You're already having trouble with the basics

>>10050347
Not who you replied to, but I've just learned special relativity, please move on to the next step.

>>10050357
>Not who you replied to

>>10050392
Stop stalling and start educating.

>>10050398
Stop samefagging and start learning

>>10050400
Stop stalling, share thy wisdom.

>>10050329
then I fcking blind person will tell you that nothing exist because he/she can't observe anything. Are you really that stupid that you trust only your eyes?

>>10050105
Just a term and it doesn't suggest a negative or equal.

>>10050078
Yes, you're beginning to understand

-then is a term for change and ageing, a station.

As I said, William the Conqueror is not fighting in 1066, he's buried under an abbey, in the now.

His actions in 1066 are counted in years. Pulses of orbit of the sun.

Purely abstract. But useful measurement.

>>10050213
The 3 dimensions can have a physical form.

Time can't. It doesn't exist in any form other than abstract

>>10050327
Really not. Understanding and accepting that time doesn't exist helps the universe make more sense. It certainly helps to understand the nature of 'quantum... '.

>>10050434
Observations take many forms

>>10050006
>Time is simply a construction born out of how the human mind works. Our memory is the basis for the concept of past, our pure awareness is the basis for the concept of present, and our imagination/pattern recognition is the basis for the concept of future.
I would only add that the concept of the future is also fed by inevitable consequences of 'the now'

Time cant be an acceleration force or a entropy because it doesn't reverse when you add energy, it just pauses. Any good books/videos that give in depth of explaining it?

>>10050434
A blind person still perceives the medium by which they travel. They read by braille, use sticks to locate obstacles and are capable of all the other sense. Some even use echo location. They most certainly "observe", in such a way that many have surpassed and inspired those actually capable of sight (Helen Keller, Ray Charles).
w
10050347
Your explanations fly over my head because you are basically saying "measurements are measured and therefore are a thing" and your only argument is "Time exists because special relativity said so". Yet special relativity has no explanation of time having an attribute or being a phenomena. It's a measurement plain and simple. I literally cannot dumb it down anymore for you other than to throw facts at you.
>Oh well you need to believe our imaginative bullshit in order to understand our beliefs
No different than a religion. Do you also believe that the circle on your wrist that says "QUARTZ" proof of time? Do you honestly believe that something that has no physicality, no properties, no attributes, no location/origin or any measurable effect(because it's a fucking measurement to begin with) can possibly be considered a "dimension"? What psychosis must I learn to consider the measurement of an event the actual event?

>>10051137
Space is just a measurement too.
So is everything. What are you on about? We can't prove anything for sure, we can only disprove things. But if you're not retarded...

>>10051125
There is no movement. Just 'now'. It is now everywhere in the universe. It's not physical, that's why there is no path or acceleration to the abstract concepts of past and future.

They are just references and stations of events.

>>10051218
that doesnt explain anything

>>10050086
>size, weight, regularity, intensity etc are all definitions.

Even how loud or colorful

It's semantics really.

Pulse, to me, just means a regular intervals sign that can be counted to. Station things within the abstract time. That's why I feel it's fair use

>>10051283
Sorry. Maybe if I said it doesn't do anything, because it isn't anything.

It doesn't act on anything because it isn't physical. It's characteristics are abstract.

>>10051137
No, my explanations fly over your head because you don't understand the principle of relativity and don't even bother to look it up. This will be my last (You)

>>10051137
Prove me that a blind person does this or it's fake. Just like you say about time.

Stop entertaining schizophrenics and giving them a platform to peddle their bullshit.

>>10051436
No

>>10047038
Eureka

>>10051423
>Principles of relativity
>relativity which is based on how light works
>relativity gives us a psychosis duality of being unable to decide whether light is a "particle" or a "wave"
>A particle being an arbitrary measurement and a wave being what something does
>AKA "light is a measurement and what the measurement does"
>Basically pretend that light is a wave-particle duality when it's neither a wave nor a particle
>assume this non discrete modality (because believe it or not light is not its own thing) has a "speed" even though a component of it is based on density and has no speed variable associated with it.
>This is somehow an explanation

Sorry, reality doesn't work like that. I still want my attribute of time, and now that I've upped the anti and you seem to believe that "relativity" is an answer, how about you also give me an attribute of light? Differentiate what light is as to what it does.

>>10051433
Helen Keller and Ray Charles existed... I don't know what more proof you want.

Echo location
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IKT2akh0Ng

Proof by observing a blind person and allowing him to offer an explanation of what he sees as well. A person that can see does not train the ears as the brain is not rewired in such a fashion to have the ears be more sensitive, because the eyes take up the slack.
Time is fake because it was invented by humans, blind people are an actual observable phenomena and even have a conscious to confirm this claim. The blind person can literally say "I exist and use sound to locate things" while time is still pondered about on a Chinese basket weaving forum.

>>10051797
>>relativity gives us a psychosis duality of being unable to decide whether light is a "particle" or a "wave"
Awww it thinks quantum mechanics is relativity, how cute.

>>10051810
who cares what you call it, quantum mechanics is a dumb name, and we usually mean QFT when we say quantum physics anyway

my point is, their point still stands, there is still 'a psychosis duality of being unable to decide whether light is a "particle" or a "wave"'

>>10051797
>I can't into wave packets
Stopped reading there

>>10051900
God, you're so stupid. Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what you're talking about. Confusing the principle (not principleS, retard) of relativity with wave-particle duality. LMAO

10051810
>Awww it thinks quantum mechanics is relativity, how cute.

Wow, you are so stupid that you don't even know what relativity is based off of. E=MC^2 now what does the fucking "c" stand for you massive retard? Why does GR insist that light has a constant speed? "Quantum" mechanics simply takes this a step further and "Quantizes" everything into even more imaginary particles. "Quantum", "quanta" are nothing but descriptive buzzwords used to reify what actually has no "quanta" in reality (a field). So in either case, a misunderstanding of the nature of light=QM/GR goes down the toilet.

>>10052019
>wave packets
Packets of waves? What is waving? The packets? Packets of what? What the fuck are you even saying you dunderhead?
>What something does travels as a unit
That's even more retarded than saying a wave is a thing.

>>10052103
>What is superposition
Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself

>>10046831
Time is simply another dimension to the universe, but out consciousness moves through it at a constant rate in what we call the forward direction rather than moving freely in either direction.

>>10052103
>Relativity is based on E=mc^2
lol

>Why does GR insist
The constant speed of light and quantization are have been observed in experiments, that's why the theory "insists" on them. But I'm sure you can give us a better explanation, because physics is all wrong

>>10046831
>Gravity increases the rate
>Time does not exist

there's no "rate" if there is no time /(concept of speed)

>>10046831
This is correct. Also rest mass E=mc2 is the kinetic energy associated with this rate/speed. There's no factor 1/2 as there is only 1 direction.

>>10052152
Give me a quick derivation of this formula please

>>10052194
I assume you know the expression for kinetic energy Ekin=mv^2/g. Then just substitute our speed/rate c and degeneracy g=1 since we only travel in one direction, and voila.

>>10052239
>I assume you know the expression for kinetic energy Ekin=mv^2/g
No. Source please. How does moving in one direction double the energy? Also show me one thing that can more in two directions at the same time

>>10052152
>>10052239
wut

>>10052146
Yes, I know it's not a rate. Would it be OK to call it 'the constant' ? in that it never changes. Although it isn't changed itself, the way you experience 'constant' is changed when gravity is applied.

>>10046831
bump

>>10052484
>Would it be OK to call it 'the constant' ? in that it never changes.
How can there be change if there is no time?

>>10046831
we are traveling on a 3 dimensional surface in 4d space. Saying time is accurate in that it is not part of our surface but it is a dimension that the surface exists in.

>>10053639
so 'constant' is OK, as a term for the factor of 'the now'?

>>10053643
Or rather it's just an abstract unit of measurement to help humans deal with the memory of the 'past' and expectation of the 'future' .

>>10053658
>it's just an abstract unit of measurement
so is length, mass, force, and velocity. I don't think you have a very good understanding of either ontology or physics.

>>10053664
>so is length, mass, force, and velocity.
whatever you use to measure those is the abstract unit. Not whatever you're measuring which may have a physicality.

>>10054152
i agree with this

space and time are equivalently abstract

but space-time as a thing exists

>>10046831

>>10054158
>but space-time as a thing exists
universal-constant
fixed

a way of rationalizing/describing 'the now'

>>10053658
>so 'constant' is OK, as a term for the factor of 'the now'?
How do you define "constant" if there is no time to see if it changes or not?

>>10054152
>whatever you use to measure those is the abstract unit. Not whatever you're measuring which may have a physicality
same exact thing could be said of time. If you can't prove time isn't just a way of rationalizing the "now", you can't prove distance isn't just a way of rationalizing the "here." Like I said, it's pretty obvious you haven't really thought about this more than whatever lsd-inspired posts you've seen on /sci/ - paranormal.

>>10054517
There is a physical distance between 2 physical things (yes, the unit of measurement is abstract), but the physical distance is physical.

There is, however, no physicality, distance or otherwise for 'time'. It is entirely abstract.

>>10056073
Move object from point A to point B
The distance it took to move is a physical representation of the time span it took to move

>>10056073
>Move object from point A to point B
>The distance it took to move is a physical representation of the time span it took to move

the distance is a distance, not time.

'Time' is the counting of 'pulses' between that distance's point A and B.

A car travels a physical distance of 100 miles, in 2/24 of our planet rotation (2 hours of a day).

100 miles - 2/24 planet rotation

50 miles an hour

The rotation of our planet was the regular pulse we used to count against the distance traveled.

It's our abstract way of positioning/stationing events.

>>10056102
meant for you
>>10056132

>>10047012
And your reasoning for this is?

This is probably the most autistic thread I’ve read on this board all year.

>>10058028
who are the autists
>those who believe time has a physicality
>those who believe it's entirely abstract
?