[time-nuts] Time may not exist

[Arnold Tibus]

The question wether time exist is very interesting. But is it not elementary to 
ask before what we understand as time? 
(Interesting to hear people saying: " I've no time..." how if he lives at the 
same time and speed around?)

My actual opinion is:  
Time is in fact a (invented) way to measure events, movements, variations, 
actions, finally all life. What we only can do is to compare different movements 
defining one as reference. At the moment looking to resonances and atomic 
decays seem to be the state of the art. But we do find still instabilities and 
do look for more stable actions. But what is stable against what? 
Are the found intervalls always stable and valid under any circumstances? 
I have some doubts
. 
Speed of light is defined as absolute in vacuum - 
where we do have real vacuum, a complete nothing? And, speed of light is a 
measure needing distance and time - is distance constant?

If and where nothing grows, moves, varies, there is no relation of this kind 
possible, there is - no time !? 
This could answer the question, what was before the 'big bang' -  no time, 
no need to think about, not allowed!? In effect, there was as well no distance... 

During the past the expansion of the universe was not constant, perhaps it 
even will not be in the future, most likely. What about the big enigma gravity? 
We can only take our actual relative physical behave of matter to evaluate the 
time scale for the past - do we 'measure' correct?

I would conclude, the way to measure the action and ongoing of our 
surrounding physical world by comparing to as most stable known physical 
long term effects is what we call time, but this seem to be relative and not 
at all absolute for ever. It would be very intersting what our future physicists 
will find out the next centuries. 

But it is fascinating to observe and measure more and more precise that what 
we call 'Time' !
carpe diem

Arnold, DK2WT






On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:21:16 EDT, GandalfG8 at aol.com wrote:

> 
>In a message dated 28/07/2007 05:49:07 GMT Daylight Time, bill at iaxs.net  
>writes:

>Before  this subject deteriorates into what trial lawyers and
>politicians excel at  (twisting words to obscure the truth),
>consider what happens if time does  not exist.

>Velocity is distance moved per unit of time, or distance  is
>velocity times time. If time does not exist, then nothing  moves.

>Reproduction becomes impossible.

>Even thought becomes  impossible because neurons fire depending
>on the pulse rate at  synapses.

>Not to mention communication and other things that are  frequency
>sensitive, including light and radiant heat.

>And then  there's the matter of Earth rotating in several ways.

>Since all of  these things do exist, time exists. It is what goes
>on inside the brains of  quantum physicists that leads them to
>make rash statements about things  they cannot measure. As I
>recall, the derivation of the Planck length  seemed suspect.


>--------------------------------------
> 
>But does time actually does exist in an absolute sense?
> 
> 
>There are intervals between events, that we refer to as "time" or the  
>"passage of time", and we choose to allocate a unit to this, the "second", just  as 
>we choose to allocate units to distance and mass.
> 

>Distance and mass, however, are a bit more user friendly, in that  generally 
>there is at least the possibility that a given distance or  mass will remain 
>obligingly the same for long enough to enable a repeat  measurement, albeit 
>within certain tolerances.
> 
>This doesn't apply to time, nor to anything else once time becomes  involved, 
>which in itself, of course, makes the above statement extremely  suspect:-)
> 
>With time, it's those intervals between events that we seek to measure with  
>ever increasing precision, and great fun it is too:-), but however 
>"repetitive"  given events are the "same" event never occurs twice and neither does the  
>same interval.
> 
>This may all seem boringly obvious but, since "time" depends for it's  
>existence on these patterns of events and the intervals between them, the  question 
>as to whether time itself really exists as a quantity may turn out  to be not 
>quite so trivial after all.
> 
>regards
> 
>Nigel
>GM8PZR