TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[firecracker]

Popular, I feel better already!
I think the scales we measure things on do change gradually. That's why we have red shifts and blue shifts, etc.
Thanks for the reply
F

[Farsight]

As evidenced by Pound-Rebka, firecracker!

Pound-Rebka experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And gravity!

[Hillel]

Nice... But there a lot of holes in the explanation.
For example, I didn't see a word about the problem of explaining motion without the idea of time (like the Xenon paradox).

[ldsoftwaresteve]

It's been a while. I see there are a few changes on board.
If time doesn't exist except as an internal mental construct, what does that say about our ability to project?
And if we've done that with time, what else have we done it with?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hillel

Nice... But there a lot of holes in the explanation.
For example, I didn't see a word about the problem of explaining motion without the idea of time (like the Xenon paradox).

He supplements that with his "Motion: Explained" paper... another one with no maths and no testable predictions. Farsight has pretty much been debunked as a crackpot on every single science site on which he's participated across the web.


(btw: It's nice seeing you around, steve. I hope all is well with you and yours. )

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thank you InfiniteNow. You're one of the few I've missed. Can't say I'll stick around very long though.

Is there a discussion going on about Now? I do believe we project time into existence and shouldn't. But it's hard as hell to prove. A lot of mass to move, eh?

The thing about it is - if we are doing something wrong, we're probably doing it in other areas of perception as well.

And another observation would be that we might have created a blindspot which keeps other things hidden from us too.

cheers old pal.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Is there a discussion going on about Now? I do believe we project time into existence and shouldn't. But it's hard as hell to prove. A lot of mass to move, eh?

Lol. Indeed. There is the thread to which I linked below, but I haven't really found it very satisfying to be honest. I really got a lot out my "Moments and Events" thread, but it's still too far into the metaphysical to provide real empirical or physical appeal... however, YMMV.


Is "now" the border of the universe?


Be well, friend.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

InfiniteNow:You have a very gentle spirit, but I'd expect that from one who contemplates the moment. Life IS now. We prepare for the next moment by contemplating past moments.
'Now' is:
the tip of the nose of the stallion that races to defend its harem.
the hand of the newborn with eyes squeezed shut that reaches out to touch existence.
the first kiss.
the bleeding edge of life.
meaning.

[Hillel]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

He supplements that with his "Motion: Explained" paper... another one with no maths and no testable predictions. Farsight has pretty much been debunked as a crackpot on every single science site on which he's participated across the web.


(btw: It's nice seeing you around, steve. I hope all is well with you and yours. )

Sorry, but being a foreigner (in many meanings...), I'm just not quite sure I've got you... Is there realy a paper called "Motion: Explained"? I searched and didn't found it. I also don't get you with the "no maths and no testable predictions" thing. don't it's a good idea to explain philosophic stuff (and this is philosophy, not science, after all) with no math?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hillel

Sorry, but being a foreigner (in many meanings...), I'm just not quite sure I've got you... Is there realy a paper called "Motion: Explained"? I searched and didn't found it. I also don't get you with the "no maths and no testable predictions" thing. don't it's a good idea to explain philosophic stuff (and this is philosophy, not science, after all) with no math?

Hi Hillel,

I may have been mistaken on the "Motion Explained" thing. Sorry about that. The issue is that the ideas have no basis in reality. They offer no way to test them, and no way to be falsified. This is critical. What good is it if it is nothing more than personal speculation and conjecture? He may as well be suggesting that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

Also, I'm not a big fan of philosophy. I like reality, and this is, after all, the physics and mathematics forum.

Math is important. It's nothing more than fiction if it provides no math.


Long story short is that Farsight has some interesting speculations, but they do not even begin to approach the threshold of relevance or reality since they offer no math and no testable predictions.

You can philosophize all you want. That won't make it a valid representation of the reality in which we exist.

[Hillel]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Hi Hillel,

I may have been mistaken on the "Motion Explained" thing. Sorry about that. The issue is that the ideas have no basis in reality. They offer no way to test them, and no way to be falsified. This is critical. What good is it if it is nothing more than personal speculation and conjecture? He may as well be suggesting that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

Also, I'm not a big fan of philosophy. I like reality, and this is, after all, the physics and mathematics forum.

Math is important. It's nothing more than fiction if it provides no math.


Long story short is that Farsight has some interesting speculations, but they do not even begin to approach the threshold of relevance or reality since they offer no math and no testable predictions.

You can philosophize all you want. That won't make it a valid representation of the reality in which we exist.

Infinite,

Thanks for the explanation. I get the spirit now. I just happen to disagree with you about the principe. Every science has a profound basis behind it, and that thing is called philosophy. If you ask Einstein what is time, he'll answer you: what is measured by a clock. But it isn't really what time is. It's a technical definition that doesn't explain what the real thing is. But /i'm afraid my English is just not good enough to carry this argument on (what a shame...), so I will stop at this point.