What is time?

[Influx]

As applied to the human system, lost I checked, no one has escaped death! Save one, who, anyway was not really a human!

[kevin]

This spinning business, and how we have FIXED time to the apparent spin/s.
I feel like a washing machine salesman?

Have you noticed how clouds at different levels often travel at different speeds?
If we were discussing ocean currents we would have maps of how the different seas are moving, especially above and below the equator?
All of which is assigned to the spin of earth, and all explained as FACT/S.
But remember , all those facts and science results are based on theories of space been nothing but a vacuum, and we surely think different to that, don't we?

We must stop seperating the earth from the space aroundit in particuler, there is no seperation, and there is another substance as such that is rotating in different circulations at different diametrs, just as atmosphere does, and water does.
You accept that refraction occurs in atmosphere and water, well think about the other substance as well.
We do not see in a linear line method, we see via this STUFF.
Kevin

[soulsurvivor]

What we see in STUFF is what we see through inside self. We don't die; we change structure and function. Perhaps all depends on gaining understanding of the human system, as in, you only understand what you experience or have memory of experiencing. Key being memory, for inside self contains all memory. Inside self is STUFF.

[junglelord]

The earth is a mere hollow copper sphere....Tesla.

[altonhare]

A volt meter measures volts that ARE present in the structure of the wire! The clock does NOT measure the "something" in the universe, but is rather an imaginary synchronization device made to organize our lives.

I *think* I can see what you're driving at here. But clarify further so I'm sure. According to you, what precisely is the difference between the unit meter or volt and the unit second?

The electric universe is powered by electric currents, which is controlled by simple inherent laws of the structure of space

So, then, what is the structure of what you are referring to with the word "space"?

Are you referring to a continuous superfluid aether? If so, is this aether unbounded or is it a big glob with some particular shape?

Or are you implying that "nothingness" has shape/structure?

Energy can NOT be seen in the universe!

I agree, as the term is commonly used "energy" does not have a particular shape i.e. we can neither see it directly nor visualize it.

Only the energies EFFECT on MASS that is located in space can be seen!

I think what you mean here is that we can measure the locations of objects, infer a velocity (a measurement of the objects' motion), and when we analyze the results we find that motion is always conserved if we assign a particular parameter "mass" to each object. Essentially we find that we can equate the velocities of two (or more) objects according to some parameter "m" by the equation m1v1=m2v2. We call the product m1*v1 the "momentum" of object one and say p=m*v. More specifically we call this "inertial mass" and we think of this as a measurement of "resistance to motion".

Additionally we find that if we manipulate the momentum in the following way:

p2/2*m

We obtain a value that, when added to other measurements of a system's tendency to change (such as how far a ball is up a hill or how far two opposite magnetic poles are from each other), is constant for a closed system. We refer to this constancy as a "constant of motion" and call it the "total energy". We sum it up concisely:

Constant = Total Energy = Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy = p2/2*m + PE

Therefore, energy is not something which can "act" or "have an effect". The objects themselves are moving and we parametrize this motion using standard-reference distances to give velocities, which we then use to define convenient terms we call "momentum" and "energy". This makes it convenient to study the motion of objects.

One should always be conscious that the mass here is inertial mass i.e. it is a parameter assigned based on measurements. It is tempting to assume that inertial mass is a direct measure of quantity of matter i.e. the extent of the objects involved in mutually perpendicular directions. This is, however, purely an assumption.

For those possess little or no scientific background, everything I presented here is considered "standard terminology". I'm merely stating this because most of what I write tends to be about redefining things a certain way and many just want to know the terms as they are used rather than getting bogged down with what they may feel should be termed "semantics".

When we detect radio waves, we are really measuring the vibration of electrons in the structure of the antenna! We can not have movement without something to move.

For example, even light, which most people think of as energy, is really the movement of tiny particles, the photons!

I think you'd be very interested in thread theory, which explains light in terms of the motion of particular object(s), which are not particles. This is technically off topic so if you watch the video and like it please take your comments to the "details of thread theory" thread.

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Energy IS movement of MASS,

I would modify this slightly but significantly to say that "energy is the motion of objects". Mass is an observed quality of an object. What is really moving is the object itself. We must be careful not to reify concepts and treat them as objects themselves. That's how physics has gotten into such a mess.

All the dogmatic academia baloney aside, we honestly have absolutely no idea what is space and what it is made out of!

That's because space is not a thing that is "made out of" other things. Space is a concept. You have some good thoughts and I can tell you like to think thoroughly yourself, but I think you are creating "unanswerable questions" i.e. invalid questions by not having consistent definitions for some basic words such as "thing".

The same can be said and is true for the various mass that is in this space.

Again mass is a quality of an object, it is conceptual. A concept cannot be "in" anything i.e. we can't put love or justice in a box or a tank of water. Besides that an object does not occupy space like a fish occupies water or a bird the gas we call air. Water and air are collections of objects, i.e. they have shape. Space is not an object or a collection of objects, it doesn't have shape. Unless by "space" you mean "glob of continuous deformable aether".

You cannot move THROUGH nothingness because nothingness has no borders from which to gauge motion.

We really know and understand a lot less, A LOT, than scientist claim to understand!

I absolutely agree, modern "science" is hopelessly ignorance of what light or the electron actually are. They have developed impeccable mathematics but have no idea what light actually is. The particle hypothesis is incapable of explaining even the most basic observations. The aether hypothesis has little explanatory power and essentially ascribes whatever properties are needed to the aether in order to fit observations. The rope/chain hypothesis seeks to remedy this situation by offering a parsimonious hypothesis where the structure of involved directly relates to the function and to our observations.

Space-time is a fantasy of the standard model, which has failed hopelessly!

Agreed! Now what, according to you, distinguishes a "fantasy" from a valid scientific hypothesis?

We exist in a volume of space, the three-dimensional measurement system has nothing to do with how many dimensions there are in space. This includes the fictional time dimension.

You keep referring to space as an object. Volume is a quality of a single whole object and refers to its extent in each direction. Concepts like space do not have volume. Unless, again, you are referring to a glob of aether when you say "space". In which case, what gives this glob its shape?

There is no past, it does not exist in some sort of dimension, only in your memory. There is no future, it only exists in your hopes and desires for it. The failure of the standard model has been the inability to separate fiction form nonfiction. You can not take a drink from the radio, such a thought is absurd. Time is a mass-less idea, a concept only in our heads.

Physically all time is, is cause and effect i.e. causality. This has nothing to do with past/future. Objectively the universe is just objects changing location. There is not some kind of "flow of time" or other such nonsense.

Humans try to put a quantitative measure on causality and call it "time". This is similar to trying to quantify motion and calling it "velocity". Humans want to be able to communicate "this, then that". So they say A was at time 1 and B was at time 2. Physically, nothing had to be measured and the objects themselves don't have a "memory'. They just act in accord with their identities.

The fundamental flaw is the same fundamental flaw with all measurements, and that is you need a reference standard which must always be *assumed* immutable. You can never actually verify it is so, though, it is purely an assumption. A measurement is only as good as the reference standard used. This is why measurements/math should be kept out of physics theories until the very end, when we are simply trying to provide additional observational evidence for the theory. A theory is valid or not regardless of the quantitative measurements. First and foremost, the theory has to pass some minimum criteria. You sum this up quite well:

Only the change of objects position in the cosmos relative to themselves and our measurement of that change by a previously agreed upon system, is what we call time. But there is no time inherent in the structure of the universe.

The satellites show us the earth is spinning....everything spins.

No, you see an image on a screen. You can say that the thing on the screen is spinning, but you cannot say that the entity on which you stand is spinning. Stating otherwise is unscientific.

That is useful to me as measurements are physics.

So if I ask you why the pencil fell to the floor, and you pull out your standard-reference and tell me it fell at 9.8 m/s2, does that make you a physicist? What if someone else measures it and says it's 9.81? Is s/he more a physicist than you? When my sister measures her bust size is she being a physicist? If I ask you why the earth goes around the sun and you tell me the sun crosses the sky 365 times before it crosses the same path, does that make you a physicist? If I want to learn more about this wall and I count 943 bricks in the wall, am I being a physicist?

Does anyone else really think that measurement IS physics?

I'm not attacking JL personally, but I think this claim is misleading and detrimental to science and leads to a lot of erroneous conclusions regarding measurements like time etc.

[Influx]

Influx wrote: A volt meter measures volts that ARE present in the structure of the wire! The clock does NOT measure the "something" in the universe, but is rather an imaginary synchronization device made to organize our lives.



I *think* I can see what you're driving at here. But clarify further so I'm sure. According to you, what precisely is the difference between the unit meter or volt and the unit second?

What I am saying is that the volt meter measures electrons that exist, clocks just tick away at a predetermined rate. What units of measure we use in the volt meter or the clock is is irrelevant, just as long as we collectively agree to what they mean.

Influx wrote: The electric universe is powered by electric currents, which is controlled by simple inherent laws of the structure of space



So, then, what is the structure of what you are referring to with the word "space"?

Are you referring to a continuous superfluid aether? If so, is this aether unbounded or is it a big glob with some particular shape?

Or are you implying that "nothingness" has shape/structure?

I have no idea what space is, what it is made of or if it can even have structure. I do not agree with the aether or standard models space-time. All I can say is that space, from my point of view, has the property to permit mass, or objects as you point out, to occupy a volume.

Influx wrote: Energy IS movement of MASS,



I would modify this slightly but significantly to say that "energy is the motion of objects". Mass is an observed quality of an object. What is really moving is the object itself. We must be careful not to reify concepts and treat them as objects themselves. That's how physics has gotten into such a mess.

You are correct, mass is a property of objects that occupy the volume space. My bad, by mass I meant matter!

Influx wrote: The same can be said and is true for the various mass that is in this space.



Again mass is a quality of an object, it is conceptual. A concept cannot be "in" anything i.e. we can't put love or justice in a box or a tank of water. Besides that an object does not occupy space like a fish occupies water or a bird the gas we call air. Water and air are collections of objects, i.e. they have shape. Space is not an object or a collection of objects, it doesn't have shape. Unless by "space" you mean "glob of continuous deformable aether".

You cannot move THROUGH nothingness because nothingness has no borders from which to gauge motion.

Again, apologies, I meant matter not mass.

Influx wrote: Space-time is a fantasy of the standard model, which has failed hopelessly!



Agreed! Now what, according to you, distinguishes a "fantasy" from a valid scientific hypothesis?

ANY THEORY IF CORRECT AND DOES SO MATCH AND INHERENTLY AGREES BY VIRTUE OF BEING CORRECT WITH THE UNIVERSE WILL AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCE AND OR DIRECT A MEANS, METHODS AND OR A WAY BY WHICH OR THROUGH WHICH NEW PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY’S AND OR ABILITIES ARE DERIVED, DEVELOPED, APPLIED AND IMPLEMENTED.

Now, according to me, if any theory does not do this in at least ten years of existence it is most likely a fantasy. In other words, "by their fruit we shall know them".

Influx wrote: We exist in a volume of space, the three-dimensional measurement system has nothing to do with how many dimensions there are in space. This includes the fictional time dimension.



You keep referring to space as an object. Volume is a quality of a single whole object and refers to its extent in each direction. Concepts like space do not have volume. Unless, again, you are referring to a glob of aether when you say "space". In which case, what gives this glob its shape?

To me, space, that is, the cosmos with all the matter, is not a concept. Objects in space have dimensions, a property of the object. Space has the property of volume that permits the existence of the objects or matter that have volume themselves. That is, in my mind, space is a single dimension that has an area with, or volume and no TIME.

[soulsurvivor]

If you continue to apply "time" to existence, then aren't you're defeating your own theory of "no time"?

[altonhare]

What I am saying is that the volt meter measures electrons that exist, clocks just tick away at a predetermined rate. What units of measure we use in the volt meter or the clock is is irrelevant, just as long as we collectively agree to what they mean.

The clock is measuring distance-traveled by one of its hands. I can point to a clock and name them "hands". The volt meter is measuring velocity/momentum of electrons, which nobody has actually seen but rather inferred/assumed. I cannot point to an actual electron for you, I would have to assume some object, present a model of it to convey its structure, and name it "electron".

So again, what precisely is the distinction, according to you?

I have no idea what space is, what it is made of or if it can even have structure. I do not agree with the aether or standard models space-time. All I can say is that space, from my point of view, has the property to permit mass, or objects as you point out, to occupy a volume.

This is exactly the problem. In science, we don't measure/observe/determine what space or anything else IS. We first *define* our terms. Then we pose a hypothesis in which we point to the relevant objects (or models thereof). If you have a theory about space you will first have to define it and/or point to it. Then your theory follows from there. If your theory invokes a contradiction, it's time to find a new hypothesis or define your words in a way that does not lead to contradiction. This is the scientific method.

So you are having problems deciding/discovering what X is, precisely because you are not hypothesizing about what it is. You have to assume some structure or characteristic and see how it works. So I suggest the first thing(s) you do is define the word "space" at the heart of your inquiry, that you may truly know what you are asking. Then I recommend you pose a hypothesis regarding space and objects and see where it leads you.

ANY THEORY IF CORRECT AND DOES SO MATCH AND INHERENTLY AGREES BY VIRTUE OF BEING CORRECT WITH THE UNIVERSE WILL AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCE AND OR DIRECT A MEANS, METHODS AND OR A WAY BY WHICH OR THROUGH WHICH NEW PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY’S AND OR ABILITIES ARE DERIVED, DEVELOPED, APPLIED AND IMPLEMENTED.

Whoa, this I didn't expect to hear. A scientific theory is validated by technology? If that's the case what in the world are you doing critiquing the standard model and relativity!? They have produced more gadgets than I can count!

Now, according to me, if any theory does not do this in at least ten years of existence it is most likely a fantasy. In other words, "by their fruit we shall know them".

If a theory doesn't produce some useful device within 10 years, an amount of time you set on personal preference, you discard it? This seems patently unscientific. Quantum produced all kinds of great technology but it cannot actually tell you what light or the electron actually is.

Obviously technology != Science

To me, space, that is, the cosmos with all the matter, is not a concept. Objects in space have dimensions, a property of the object. Space has the property of volume that permits the existence of the objects or matter that have volume themselves. That is, in my mind, space is a single dimension that has an area with, or volume and no TIME.

I think you should do some introspection and analyze your arguments carefully. Objects have dimensions, yes, because they have an extent in each mutually perpendicular direction. How do you define volume such that it is a property of space/concepts but not of objects?

Permit existence? Something just exists, it doesn't ask for permission.

Space is "a single dimension"? How do you define dimension here?

[Influx]

The clock is measuring distance-traveled by one of its hands. I can point to a clock and name them "hands". The volt meter is measuring velocity/momentum of electrons, which nobody has actually seen but rather inferred/assumed. I cannot point to an actual electron for you, I would have to assume some object, present a model of it to convey its structure, and name it "electron".

So again, what precisely is the distinction, according to you?

What distance the hands of clock travel is completely irrelevant. The clock is a symbolic representation of what people call time. There is no outside force acting on the hands of the clock to have it display time! The volt meters sensor or probe does detect something, electron flow or "whatever". This is my distinction. The clock is just a symbol.

Then I recommend you pose a hypothesis regarding space and objects and see where it leads you.

Yeah, this is exactly what I am trying to avoid anyway. To many useless hypothesis in this world. I am just trying to understand space form a realists point of view. That is, try to understand the universe as we see it, without invoking to many a hypothesis. This may seem strange, but I am trying to understand space from inside out, from my point of view. Not assume what space is and then work from there.

Whoa, this I didn't expect to hear. A scientific theory is validated by technology? If that's the case what in the world are you doing critiquing the standard model and relativity!? They have produced more gadgets than I can count!

Engineering, trail and error and experiments have build the modern world. Not the standard model gibberish. EM theory was and is responsible for our technology right now.

Influx wrote:To me, space, that is, the cosmos with all the matter, is not a concept. Objects in space have dimensions, a property of the object. Space has the property of volume that permits the existence of the objects or matter that have volume themselves. That is, in my mind, space is a single dimension that has an area with, or volume and no TIME.



I think you should do some introspection and analyze your arguments carefully. Objects have dimensions, yes, because they have an extent in each mutually perpendicular direction. How do you define volume such that it is a property of space/concepts but not of objects?

Space has the property of volume that permits the existence of theobjects or matter that have volume themselves. Hey I said that objects or matter have volume themselves. Maybe you just skimmed over this sentence. The shape of this objects in space is irrelevant, space IS a volume. Without this volume objects could not exist.

Permit existence? Something just exists, it doesn't ask for permission.

Jeez Louis, its just a figure of speech. Like, the brakes in my car permit me to stop!

Obviously technology != Science

Hmm, technology is the result of engineering and the know how gained during trail and error experiments.

If you continue to apply "time" to existence, then aren't you're defeating your own theory of "no time"?

When I reefer to time I mean the synchronization system that guides our day to day life. Which is symbolic. I mean that there is no time as in the space-time continuum, as in the fourth dimension.

[skyfish]

Hello everyone,
I see so many great ideas flashing around here like lightning!
I support an aether theory, and consider it as the medium that
pervades all of space and from which all energy and mattter
manifest. I do think we have to consider the possibility of
dimensional influences at the subatomic scale, as suggested
by string theory which may be the source of primary angular
momentum.

There is recent credible scientific information that supports
an aether theory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... tions.html

That will allow physicists to test QCD, and look for effects beyond known physics.
For now, Dürr's calculation shows that QCD describes quark-based particles accurately,
and tells us that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away
in the quantum vacuum.

Aether energy is pre-particle, a quantum ocean, the zpf. I do see that we are in relatively
unexplored territory and the terminology may not be totally agreed upon, but
it sure is wonderful that this is being discussed. I belive that we are in the midst
of a paradigm change, where our understanding of nature and ourselves will
transform the world...and beyond. I know that some of us are ready!

skyfish

[altonhare]

What distance the hands of clock travel is completely irrelevant. The clock is a symbolic representation of what people call time. There is no outside force acting on the hands of the clock to have it display time! The volt meters sensor or probe does detect something, electron flow or "whatever". This is my distinction. The clock is just a symbol.

The volt-meter shows you a dial with a hand or a digital symbol we call a number. These are symbolic representations of *something*. Just like the hands or the pendulum are. You have distinguished between a symbol referring to something and the something itself. But you haven't drawn a clear distinction between why time is different than volts.

That is, try to understand the universe as we see it, without invoking to many a hypothesis.

So, then, you are using words that have no meaning? How can you have any meaningful communication/thought/discourse using terms to which you have refused to assign meaning?

Engineering, trail and error and experiments have build the modern world. Not the standard model gibberish.

Is engineering, trial, and error science?

Space has the property of volume that permits the existence of the objects or matter that have volume themselves.

Okay, if both space and objects have volume, what precisely is the difference between the two? Why do you have two words?

[quote="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... tions.html]Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it?[/quote]

The problem here is not that there must be some "non material" material in the atom. The problem is that physicists measure inertial mass. Inertial mass measures resistance to motion, which can depend upon factors other than the quantity of matter present. If some objects are connected to each other and others are connected less so, objects with fewer connections will be observed to have smaller inertia even though they are the same size as other constituents observed to have more inertia because they have more connections. This is only one easy to understand example. In general inertia can have an extremely complex dependence on an entity's environment that can completely obscure the "inertia = quantity of matter" connection.

The assumption that inertia is a direct measure of the quantity of matter present has led to many of the more fantastical conclusions of the standard model, not the least of which is "virtual particles blinking in and out of existence". If they'd at least put aside the 4 century old, oft-falsified, impotent particle hypothesis they could start getting to some real explanations.

[Influx]

Influx wrote: What distance the hands of clock travel is completely irrelevant. The clock is a symbolic representation of what people call time. There is no outside force acting on the hands of the clock to have it display time! The volt meters sensor or probe does detect something, electron flow or "whatever". This is my distinction. The clock is just a symbol.



The volt-meter shows you a dial with a hand or a digital symbol we call a number. These are symbolic representations of *something*. Just like the hands or the pendulum are. You have distinguished between a symbol referring to something and the something itself. But you haven't drawn a clear distinction between why time is different than volts.

No clear distinction? The units of measure are irrelevant. The voltmeter measures something that exists, the electron, the clock is a symbol for something that DOES NOT exist, it is, again, a synchronization tool!

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. WIKIPEDIA

Neither energy nor time exist, since these are only fictions or concepts we have created, to
measure, calculate or predict certain functions and reactions in and between space, matter, light,
"zero-point radiation", "zero-point ultra fine matter", and cruder "atomic matter" (which may be
only a concentrated assemblage of the latter). William R. Lyne

So, then, you are using words that have no meaning? How can you have any meaningful communication/thought/discourse using terms to which you have refused to assign meaning?

I am describing the universe, the words I use are irrelevant, as long as we agree on their meaning!

Influx wrote: Engineering, trail and error and experiments have build the modern world. Not the standard model gibberish.

Is engineering, trial, and error science?

Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical and scientific knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective and meet specified criteria. WIKIPEDIA

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction. WIKIPEDIA

In my humble opinion, , Engineering is the application of the knowledge gained by Science. What knowledge are we using in the industrial and commercial complex that was the result of the theory of relativity, special, general or otherwise. What part of knowledge is applied practically and benefits our life, that came from these brilliant theories? Black holes, super strings, white holes, the multiverse, other dimensions, parallel worlds, time travel, negative energy, big bang, big crunch, big bangs, and dark matter? All these theories ever did was sucks loads of tax money down the drain when useless fundamentally flawed experiments were preformed.

Influx wrote: Space has the property of volume that permits the existence of the objects or matter that have volume themselves.

Okay, if both space and objects have volume, what precisely is the difference between the two? Why do you have two words?

If you remove the matter from space "nothingness" it will still be nothingness that has the capacity to support the existence of three dimensional matter!

[altonhare]

No clear distinction? The units of measure are irrelevant. The voltmeter measures something that exists, the electron, the clock is a symbol for something that DOES NOT exist, it is, again, a synchronization tool!

So far you have merely stated that the clock is a symbol for something that exists while the digital read out on the volt-meter is a symbol for something that does exist. State how you know the readout on the volt-meter refers to an existent while the readout on the clock does not. In essence, justify your claim rather than simply repeating it.

[Influx]

In essence, justify your claim rather than simply repeating it.

Justify my opinion? Look, the clock does not measure any effect! IT does not measure any reproducible or observable phenomena. What is science? Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena..... <-----------this can not be done with time! Time is a concept, the clock is a representation of that concept. The voltmeter is a tool to measure an effect that is real, that effect is a measurably evidence of natural phenomena. While time is not.

[altonhare]

Justify my opinion? Look, the clock does not measure any effect! IT does not measure any reproducible or observable phenomena.

But this is patently wrong. The hands on a clock measure the distance-traveled by the hand. A pendulum counts the number of times it has returned to the same position, also a measure of distance-traveled by the pendulum. A digital clock is measuring some particular electromagnetic frequency in an electric circuit, which most likely involves apparatus similar to a volt meter.