Maybe he forgot, while trying to see time as merely a concept of the mind, that time is like space: it's not a thing or an object. It's the measure which the universe must impose on itself in order to be measurable

Maybe he forgot, while trying to see time as merely a concept of the mind, that time is like space: it's not a thing or an object. It's the measure which the universe must impose on itself in order to be measurable — Gregory

Indeed. :smile:

Well said.

Motion one-way. We can call time the measurement of motion or time is what clocks measure. Time is used as a human convenience. A measurement--hours, minutes. Time is so flexible; it changes from country to country. So do you call a measurement an existent?

error

You don't understand?
— chiknsld

Please refrain from ad hominems. — Jackson

Why is that ad hominem? Well, it actually litterally is. A question is asked to you, It just asks if you don't understand. It doesn't imply that you're dumb.

Okay, the origin of the universe. Let's imagine, my philosopher friends, a 2-dimensional analogy of the true higher dimensional happenings. Consider two infinite stretches of space connected by a thin wormhole. The space is empty, but due to quantum reality filled with virtual particles making their eternal rotations in time and space. Consider them as closed loops in Feynman diagrams. The quantum bubbles. The vacuum is a bubbling medium. All preons (two, in fact, the absolute minimum) and all interaction mediating particles (photons and gluons) make their eternal rounds. There is no time yet going in one direction.

Now let's assume, dear reader, that all preons, photons, and gluons, are confined to just one dimension in our 2d imagery. Only gravitons can occupy the fullness of the 2d bulk space. In the real world, preons, photons, and gluons would exist in the three dimensions of the observable universe only. And our universe would be embedded in a 4d space, which exists on two sides of a thin 4d wormhole.

Now, let's consider the preons be situated on two circles circumventing the mouth. By giving the mouth a tiny width and by constructing particles from an flat plane by curling one dimension of this plane up to an equally tiny circle, and placing a particle as a small circle on it (giving them an apparant point-like form from a distance), we can fit the circles neatly around the throat (note that the 2d plane has become 3d but seems 2d from afar, like the point only looks point from afar.

And look what can happen now. The curvature around the wormhole is negative (repulsive gravity!). Meaning the virtual particles are inflated into existence. With a big bang on both sides. The rest is history.

Question remains, from where comes this big bangs generator and the particles and spacetime involved? The particles with specific charges...

My new philosophical position, a modification of Occam's razor - When you have two equal theories about some aspect of reality, choose the one that is less annoying. — T Clark

:up:

Motion one-way. We can call time the measurement of motion or time is what clocks measure. Time is used as a human convenience. A measurement--hours, minutes. Time is so flexible; it changes from country to country. So do you call a measurement an existent? — val p miranda

Yes, but that's why we have made clocks that run off only 1 sec every 10exp15 years. Not perfect, as they don't exist, but still... There were no clocks to measure time yet at the big bang, but you can image one, like is done in relativity, where everywhere in space an imaginary clock is thought. Which expresses itself as the time axis being an imaginary: it. Time is just asymmetric motion, irreversible processes. The mystery though is why it didn't start in the future, back to the start. It obviously is not the case, but that's no explanation. That's where gods come in.

I think clocks measure motion, not time. When anything moves, hands on clocks move. If all motion stops, what is called time stops. Immaterials are hard to prove; time is not mass. I think that there can be only one immaterial and that is space.

I think that there can be only one immaterial and that is space. — val p miranda

But how can you have space without time?

space/time combinaation is wrong in my view; space exists but time does not. The use of time is a human convenience. What is significant is motion, the fundamental process. When anything moves, a meaurement of the motion can be made. That measurement can be made in different units, maybe hours, etc. So one serious trouble with time and space is that it is discussed without a correct definition: time is the measurement of motion and space is a real immaterial that makes mass, etc. possible.

Older than I/older than me. In the second case, than becomes a preposition; it all depends on usage in a grammatical construct. That is the whole point: something must exist since nothing does not. Analysis should not replace reason. Perhaps you do not like a natural view of the origin of the universe.

I believe we can never really eliminate God as a creator of the universe. Science, as per Lawrence Krauss, is in the business of answering how questions and so all it can do is explain how God brought this universe into existence. See? God's still in the game!

That measurement can be made in different units, maybe hours, etc. So one serious trouble with time and space is that it is discussed without a correct definition: time is the measurement of motion and space is a real immaterial that makes mass, etc. possible. — val p miranda

time without space is not measurement of motion, distance is required in measurement which is space.
an object may move in any direction in 3D space, therefore without space there is no motion.

you may say an object moved for an hour, but what distance it made?
I'm trying to say that time and space cannot be separated, one without the other have no meaning.
space without time is fixed, not moving just staying in place.

Movement does not require time; movement creates time.

Movement does not require time; movement creates time. — val p miranda

Therefore if object does not move there is no time for that object?
don't objects age over time because they are subject to time?

Therefore if object does not move there is no time for that object?
don't objects age over time because they are subject to time? — SpaceDweller

Photons don't experience time and they move at light speed.
Any time measure is subject to the observer's reference frame, time dilates.
Movement like time is also relative.
It is accurate in my opinion to say that movement and time are entwined but they are still relative.
Space is expanding so space is not still, it is moving. No object in the Universe is 'still' within the reference frame of the whole Universe.
So movement and time are entwined but if movement reaches light speed then the time aspect stops, at least, relative to any observer within this Universe. Pretty weird stuff!
I would like to think that nothing is impossible but as far as I understand, it's impossible for anything with mass to travel at light speed.

Well, it seems it was a bad day for me. My two messages had a bad reception! I will try again some other day! :smile:

It is accurate in my opinion to say that movement and time are entwined but they are still relative — universeness

Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length.

So movement and time are entwined but if movement reaches light speed then the time aspect stops — universeness

No. If an observer reaches for lightspeed, the time he experiences is the same as yours. Time is not relative. But its pace is. It depends on your relative speed to the clock how fast you see it tick. If the clock goes with lightspeed you doesn't see it tick.The problem with a photon though is that there is no for the photon itself. There is no restframe for which this can be said. It always has speed. It's like instantaneous causation in Newtonian gravity. Which implies no time exists at all. The finite speed of light is the cause of not everything happening at the same time, same same place. The finite SOL is the cause if mass and time.

time is the measurement of motion and space is a real immaterial... — val p miranda

Sure, time is used as a measurement of movement, but it is also an intrinsic characteristic of space, because space defines that movement is possible in the first place, therefore there is a location x, which is different from location y (It takes time to traverse between location x and location y).

You can also look at time as the creation of space the same way you look at space as the creation of time (where location x is a time and location y is a different time, created by the space in-between them).

The thing that is important to understand is that you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have time without space and you cannot have space without time. When you have one reality (space) then you automatically have the other reality (time). One will be constant and the other will be the intrinsic characteristic.

Your argument seems to be that characteristics do not exist and that argument might apply more to physical phenomena, but when you are saying that one immaterial thing exists over another immaterial thing, the argument becomes trivial.

Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length. — Haglund

https://study.com/academy/lesson/special-relativity-proper-time-proper-length.html?msclkid=2b6077ffc3cb11ecbb608f3cc403a4cc

"Special relativity is the study of space and time and how they are connected. In this lesson, learn about proper time and proper length, as we study how time and length can change in special relativity"

"time and length change in special relativity, a phenomenon known as proper time and proper length."

"Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different. Einstein found that the faster an object went, or the closer the speed of an object was to the speed of light, c, that the time of that object would seem to slow down in relation to the object at rest."

Proper time and proper length are therefore relative notions used in special relativity.

Proper time and proper length are therefore relative notions used in special relativity — universeness

No. They are frame independent. Everyone agrees on proper time and length. It's the rate of the clock in the rest frame. That's the same for all observers. Like the proper length.

No. They are frame independent. Everyone agrees on proper time and length. It's the rate of the clock in the rest frame. That's the same for all observers. Like the proper length — Haglund

"Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different. Einstein found that the faster an object went, or the closer the speed of an object was to the speed of light, c, that the time of that object would seem to slow down in relation to the object at rest."

Every cause was once an effect.

@Baden
Could you delete my account? Thanks.

The avatar image... Impressive!

Subjects age because change brought on by movement results in aging

Wrong

I welcome criticisms such as yours and I appreciate the effort.