Time Does Not Exist

[Bitcoin-hotep]

Definitively universal time clock does not exist, but saying time does not exist is like saying space does not exist.

You are making a straw man argument, Space and Time are not the same.

[beetcoin]

the existence of time is relative, as discovered by albert einstein. there is no objective, true existence of time.

Can you explain how he thought time could bend? I do not understand that.

to be honest, i'm not smart enough to explain it to you in full detail (or even understand it). but general relativity was his discovery about that time and space are part of the same thing - called timespace. through his equations, he figured out that you could dilate time depending on the speed that you are travelling; it is like a fabric. also, two seemingly simultaneous events are not necessarily simultaneous - it depends on where the two event occur in relation to where your position is.

In that case I partially agree with you.
The concept of time just depends on in what way look at it. We made several concepts that everyone uses.

That is the same with length and math. Why do we say that a certain length is one meter? Just agreements everybody uses.

Exactly, meters are not real, but the "time is not real" statement is actually going a step further. Meters are measuring a distance between two things, time is measuring an illusion given to us by light and movement.

spacetime is inseparable.

[Hazir]

Time exists as a dimension of human reality, just as dimensions exist to define the physical space we inhabit. One uses dimensions to determine coordinates (position) within this physical frame of reference, and one uses time as the 4th dimension to measure our relative progress through 3 dimensional space. This is known as "space-time".
The enigmatic nature of space-time is this: if you are stationary (or relatively so) within the 3 physical dimensions, time is not stationary and keeps moving forward in relation to you, so future and past exist but they are only accessible through thought. If you are not stationary but increase your speed within those 3 physical dimensions, time begins to pass more slowly. If you reach the speed of light, your local time stops. If somehow you could ride a wave of light, time for you would halt and past and future would merge with "now". Thought itself would become frozen until you slowed down again.
What I have said so far is in essence what Einstein was on about with his Theory of Relativity. While the mathematics of it can be grasped, the enormity of the meaning behind it hurts the brain. I like to shrink it to something more manageable for my brain which is that time simply exists for me.

[counter]

I tend to believe time exists but just in the way we try to rationalize it.  I think it is one of those things that is beyond or knowledge and understanding.

[kuroman]

watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzgYRBlslw you might understand what's time from a scientific perspective in theoretical physics

[Bitcoin-hotep]

Time exists as a dimension of human reality

See. I can accept that, it is not a constant in the universe though, unless someone is there to experience it.

[beetcoin]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

[tins]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

I forget which book it was, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote one where on one planet time was linear. Those on the outside looking in could see what had been, what was, what was soon to happen. Only those inside, the ones living within, would experience time as it was. I really don't remember all the details, I read it back in high school, roughly 15 years ago. But I remember thinking it was a cool concept at the time.

[kuroman]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

what you are mentioning here is just the relativity of time, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it's not a constant. Einstein had the swag!

[beetcoin]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

what you are mentioning here is just the relativity of time, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it's not a constant. Einstein had the swag!

well, my point was that time does not objectively exist.. if it's not objective, the question is.. does it truly exist? factor in the observer effect, and it seems more and more likely that the observer creates "time," but that exact "time" is not necessarily bound to everyone else.

[Bitcoin-hotep]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

See, that brings even more questions after proving that time as we know it is a lie.

[acs267]

Time is just a idea for something much larger created by humans, to simplify something unknown. Hey, maybe 'time' is actually something else. But humans didn't necessarily come on the Earth with time as a essential, so who knows?

[Bitcoin-hotep]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

I forget which book it was, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote one where on one planet time was linear. Those on the outside looking in could see what had been, what was, what was soon to happen. Only those inside, the ones living within, would experience time as it was. I really don't remember all the details, I read it back in high school, roughly 15 years ago. But I remember thinking it was a cool concept at the time.

I am going to start reading more into time-space and relativity. It seems like Physicists are into something we should all know.

[Bitcoin-hotep]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

what you are mentioning here is just the relativity of time, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it's not a constant. Einstein had the swag!

But that doesn't prove anything about the existence of time, it really just asks more questions.

[kuroman]

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

what you are mentioning here is just the relativity of time, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it's not a constant. Einstein had the swag!

well, my point was that time does not objectively exist.. if it's not objective, the question is.. does it truly exist? factor in the observer effect, and it seems more and more likely that the observer creates "time," but that exact "time" is not necessarily bound to everyone else.

I disagree, for me space and time are related to each other while general and restraint relativity theories explain it pretty well, I have my own interpretation on this mater that doesn't include an observer at all :

For me the a non existence of time requires a static system, a system that never change trough time, and such does not exist in the universe thanks to the second principal of thermodynamic, everything changes and the change can be expressed with a time equation and thus time exist, but where we might agree, is that the time as we perceived in our daily lifes might not be the real or rather the only representation of time as proven by relativity for example

[noviapriani]

I have always thought time was an abstract idea constructed by the human mind, like many things. Time supposedly travels forwards yet it is always the present, future and past are just concepts. There is only the eternal now.

so you're saying that the record of time , in past and future is an illusion and there is only the moment, right? that the recollection of past and future is the illusion, an anticipation created by the human mind.

[sana8410]

I have always thought time was an abstract idea constructed by the human mind, like many things. Time supposedly travels forwards yet it is always the present, future and past are just concepts. There is only the eternal now.

so you're saying that the record of time , in past and future is an illusion and there is only the moment, right? that the recollection of past and future is the illusion, an anticipation created by the human mind.

Basically I just believe the only thing that ever really exists is the present moment. The future and past are just concepts, we only ever experience the present moment. Yes things happened in the past etc but in the present moment they only exist in the mind. The time is always "right now", and it always has been. If anything things go in cycles, not linear. If you don’t know what I am saying its kinda like Buddhist/zen philosophy.

[Bitcoin-hotep]

I have always thought time was an abstract idea constructed by the human mind, like many things. Time supposedly travels forwards yet it is always the present, future and past are just concepts. There is only the eternal now.

so you're saying that the record of time , in past and future is an illusion and there is only the moment, right? that the recollection of past and future is the illusion, an anticipation created by the human mind.

Basically I just believe the only thing that ever really exists is the present moment. The future and past are just concepts, we only ever experience the present moment. Yes things happened in the past etc but in the present moment they only exist in the mind. The time is always "right now", and it always has been. If anything things go in cycles, not linear. If you don’t know what I am saying its kinda like Buddhist/zen philosophy.

I agree with this. The Hindus had a pretty good idea of the universe.

[beetcoin]

i think the buddha claimed that there were subatomic particles that vibrates a shitload of times in 1 second. he also said that the universe was expanding and contracting. a lot of physics goes hand in hand with buddhism, which is why i like it.

[bitmaster111]

time doesn't wait for anyone