We don’t know how fast light travels, because time doesn’t exist.

[mikewormack]

We don’t know how fast light travels, because time doesn’t exist.
The theory of evolution, the theory of creation, carbon dating all of these theories have been used throughout the years to explain what happened on earth supposedly millions of years ago. Regarded as probably the number one scientist of the modern era Einstein used to speed of light for his most important theories, Olaf Roemer was the first to theorized that light moves at approximately 180 thousand miles a second. This theory helps tell us that stars and solar systems are millions and millions of miles away from where we are. Based on this we also believe with great confidence that a beam of light leaving a far away planet strikes the earth millions of “light years” after it left it’s origin. The speed of light has also been verified in laboratories, so what you are about to read may be scoffed at, ridiculed or called the ravings of a madman. The speed of light cannot be measured, because time doesn’t exist. To get an understanding of what I’m talking about, let’s think of time for a minute. What is a day? A day is 24 hours and equal to one rotation of the earth, time is used to measure the period of existence during the so called day. So based on our concept of time then light travels 180 thousand miles a second. This so called fact is supported by the belief it takes sunlight eight and a half minutes to reach the earth from our sun. Now suppose, that time doesn’t exist, then the length of the year we create could be make a day equal to 10000 years, it wouldn’t matter. However this fact would put a different spin on the theories I mentioned earlier, because science is based on what we can see, what we can replicate, what we can “prove”. When time is removed form the equation most theories in science prove nothing. I challenge anyone in the scientific community to prove the following concept wrong. More importantly though I testify to the power of the spirit of God who revealed this knowledge to me in a dream. Do not waver from your belief as a Christian because of what a scientist or the world says. God’s law is above the laws of physics and his knowledge is not based on theories, it’s based on what is. According to scientist it takes eight and a half minutes for sunlight to reach the earth. Imagine for a moment our solar system existed in your living room. You would be so large that you could actually see rays of sun traveling eight and a half minutes from the sun to the earth. Now walk next to the sun and hold a flashlight behind it, one that is as big as you in relation to your newfound size. The speed of that light, would be just like the speed of the flashlights we use here on earth, yet it would reach the earth in our living room instantaneously, while the rays from the sun would take “eight in a half minutes” to reach the earth. How could this be? So one of two things are true, the light from the flashlight and the rays from the sun would hit the earth simultaneously or there would be an eight and a half minute delay waiting for the sunlight to hit the earth. This would mean that light travels much faster than 180 thousand miles a second or that the speed of light is relative to size. It cannot be size according to our own scientific test which shows the speed of light in a vacuum to be equal to the speed of light from the sun. So the light therefore would have to reach the earth simultaneously. This would mean the earth’s eight and a half minutes would be instantaneous to the person holding the flashlight. Which is impossible by our own time standards. The only way for this to work is if time is taken out of the equation. If time doesn’t exist then we can’t measure the speed of light and have no way of knowing, how long light from other stars and solar systems reach the earth. If time doesn’t exist it strikes at the heart of science and a lot of scientific theories. Science is useful to give us an idea of how the universe works, but for the real deep ideas and beliefs which live in our hearts, minds and souls are better left in the hands of God, not man’s.
If anyone wishes to discuss or debate this thought. Email me at mikewormack@msn.com

[Epsilon=One]

Time does exist.

If fundamental, intrinsic time didn’t exist, then there would be no quanta. Without quanta, nothing would exist. Without existence there would be no mind to be deluded concerning the existence of an anthropic god.

There is little that is more detrimental to the general good will of mankind than personal, divisive beliefs in mythical gods with anthropic characteristics or concerns.

[mikewormack]

Time is a creation of man, twenty four hours of our day is equal to one revolution of the earth. It could just as eaisly have been 15 hours, ten hours 36 hours or whatever other hour the originator of time wanted to make it. So before time was created by man, you're saying that there was no quanta. Which sounds like saying the world is flat. The point of me saying there is no time, isn't to debate the tracking of our being, it's to raise the argument that we reley on time to assist us in revealing the secrets of the universe, but how inacurate does a test become when one of it's factors isn't constant. You may get a better understanding using our mesurement that we call time, but it won't be absolute because time is man made and is not constant through the universe for one main reason. If it is, then please explain how fast the speed of light is using the model I illustrated. The point is, you will not, and no other scientist will be able to answer or explain the model. The reason is, time does not exist. Ask your professor to explain it, ask any scientist you wish, none of them, will be able to explain based on the so called laws of physics, how a simple model that I explained would work.

[Epsilon=One]

Time is a creation of man, twenty four hours of our day is equal to one revolution of the earth. It could just as eaisly have been 15 hours, ten hours 36 hours or whatever other hour the originator of time wanted to make it.Time is that which is measured by a “clock.” Your example of a day is the time measured by the “clock” of the Earth’s rotation. The Earth is certainly not a “creation of man.” The “unit” of time that you mention, the “hour,” is man’s creation; and, it is irrelevant to the concept of time.

So before time was created by man, you're saying that there was no quanta.Man did not create fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT). FIT’s “clock’s escapement” is a requirement for the “interruption” that creates a quantum from “uninterrupted” seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179).

Which sounds like saying the world is flat.To my thinking, there is little difference from saying the “world is flat” and that time does not exist.

The point of me saying there is no time, isn't to debate the tracking of our being, it's to raise the argument that we reley on time to assist us in revealing the secrets of the universe…You are quite correct; time does "assist us in revealing the secrets of the universe."

…but how inacurate does a test become when one of it's factors isn't constant. You may get a better understanding using our mesurement that we call time, but it won't be absolute because time is man made and is not constant through the universe for one main reason.FIT’s “unit” is the only constant after the manifestation of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179). FIT not only existed before man; but, it is more fundamental than the illusion of gravitational attraction.

If it is, then please explain how fast the speed of light is using the model I illustrated. The point is, you will not, and no other scientist will be able to answer or explain the model. The reason is, time does not exist.Time does exist. Any model that demonstrates otherwise is in error as is your interpretation of the model you illustrate.

Ask your professor to explain it, ask any scientist you wish, none of them, will be able to explain based on the so called laws of physics, how a simple model that I explained would work.You're correct; it is impossible to explain the irrational.

Your model has no relevance concerning the fundamental concept of time. You must understand the internal geometry, harmony, and resonance of light quanta (photons) before you can rationally discuss concepts of time.

I suspect your logic is biased by impressed, metaphysical beliefs.

[Phototracks]

Mike,

Regardless of one's knowledge of science the most fundamental observation anyone could make with regard to nature is that all systems undergo change. Systems exhange energy and mass, they undergo spatial transformations relative to a particular reference system etc etc. This change is a constant feature of physical reality. If you look at a system and take a measurement of any and all possible quantities related to the system then a repeated observation will never produce the same values. This applies even at the fundamental level. Even a repeated observation of the system of one single electron will never produce the same result.

Some systems change in a manner that differs from others and it may appear they do not undergo change but this is due to a practical inablity to fine tune our observation to be able to recognize the change. In reality all are in a state of flux. Ice melts, particles decay, iron rusts, etc etc

If you pick a system that is uniform and cyclic in behavior you can create a paramater that can be used to associate change in one system to a change in another system. This is what is meant by 'time'.

If systems never underwent change and the entire universe was in a static fixed state(impossible of course) then time would have no meaning whatsoever.

As far as measuring the speed of an object basically what it amounts to is:

The object undergoes translation relative to a coordinate system. We measure the state of the system - one of the observables of the state is the postion with respect to the coordinate system - lets say it is at position x . We call this measurment State A.

We then conduct a repeated measurement of the system we call State B. we see the object no longer at position x but is at position y. The observable of position has undergone a change.

Now lets say you also took note of the state of your watch while taking measurements of the translation above. When you measured State A above you took note your watch was in a specific state-lets say the hands were at 1 on the second dial which in turned corrresponded to a particular mechanical configuration of the system of the watch. When you measured State B above and took note of your watch you noted its state too had changed. The hand is now on 4.

Both system underwent change. While the position changed from x to y the watch underwent a change from 1 to 4.

The velocity is the rate which the position changes with respect to the change in the system of the watch. In other words if the object moved from 2 to 4 measured units while the watch underwent change from 1 to 4 units then every single unit of change in the second system corresponds to 2/3 units of change in the first system. It is just semantics that we call the unit of change in the latter a second.

Time as you describe it does not exist. There is nothing 'flowing'. There is no synchronization of process in the universe. This violates the principle of relativity as it implies a preferred frame of reference. Time is simply a metaphor for change.

Also this process of creating a parameter of change varies from one reference system to another. There is no 'absolute' measure of time or change. It depends on what reference system you are referring to.
Time exists in the sense that change exists. Without change the Earth would not rotate and the hands on your watch would remain forever stuck at noon. No observations would be possible since the neurons in your brain would not change their state. Time would be a meaningless concept.

[Epsilon=One]

I regret that in my day that "Phototracks" had not written my physics books.

Time is simply a metaphor for change.Or, maybe, an interruption???

I think of time as a system of counting. I consider the phenomenon as more the "clock" that creates the "unit" that is counted.

[mikewormack]

"Man did not create fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT). FIT’s “clock’s escapement” is a requirement for the “interruption” that creates a quantum from “uninterrupted” seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179). "

If man did not create fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) then where was it discovered and by what means is it regulated?

"To my thinking, there is little difference from saying the “world is flat” and that time does not exist."

Time exist in the forms that we create, just like stealing is a creation of man. If man didn't create either one, neither would exist.

"You are quite correct; time does "assist us in revealing the secrets of the universe."

You're correct; it is impossible to explain the irrational."

Surely you can explain how fast light travels. You can also explain that light takes eight and a half minutes to reach the earth. So if you had a scale model of our solar system or you were bigger than our solar sytem and had a flashlight scaled to your size. How long would each beam take to reach the earth? I don't see what is irrational about it. If you don't know the answer then you don't know. I read some of your post and I can tell you're probably regarded as being an intellect, who could surely understand and answer a simple question like this one.

[Epsilon=One]

If man did not create fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) then where was it discovered and by what means is it regulated?FIT is regulated by the ellipsoidal geometry of seminal motion which has a harmony created by the hyper-relativistic oscillations of slide, swing, and vibration of said geometry, which translates to spherical resonances. This energy transfer creates interruptions referred to as “conceptual units” that are the uniform increments that are “counted” as time.

FIT is observable as the intrinsic frequency and harmony of all manifestations that exist.

Time exist in the forms that we create, just like stealing is a creation of man. If man didn't create either one, neither would exist.Analogies are always a weak form of argument. There is no relationship between theft and the concept of FIT.

Man creates many units of time such as: hours, years, et cetera. Man does not create the “clocks” that create these times anymore than man creates the oscillations within the atom.


Surely you can explain how fast light travels. You can also explain that light takes eight and a half minutes to reach the earth. So if you had a scale model of our solar system or you were bigger than our solar sytem and had a flashlight scaled to your size. How long would each beam take to reach the earth? I don't see what is irrational about it.If you can’t understand the irrationality of being “bigger than our solar sytem (sic.)” and “a flashlight scaled to size” than you probably don’t have a clue as to why the speed of light appears to be constant.

If you don't know the answer then you don't know.An irrational problem can not have a rational solution with rational postulates.

I read some of your post and I can tell you're probably regarded as being an intellect, who could surely understand and answer a simple question like this one.I understand the question. Apparently, it’s my answer that you can’t understand. Spirituality often obfuscates logic.

[mikewormack]

If you can’t understand the irrationality of being “bigger than our solar sytem (sic.)” and “a flashlight scaled to size” than you probably don’t have a clue as to why the speed of light appears to be constant.

"An irrational problem can not have a rational solution with rational postulates. "

What is irrational, it's not a problem, it's a question that Physics should be able to answer or at the very least theorize. If you need some time to think about it don't rush back with an answer. People thought mesuring the speed of light was irrational too, one of the first attempts was using lanterns on the on hill tops. You go to the exstream to get to the absolute answer, isn't that science. How do you think we know what the mass of the sun is, they didn't actually float it in water. They hypothesised, as I am doing. It's easy to run away from a question by saying it is irrational, but explain how it is more irrational than other scientific theories. Or could it be, you can't explain the answer. I already told you, you wouldn't be able to, no one will. Right a paper on it, man. You heard it here first.

"I understand the question. Apparently, it’s my answer that you can’t understand. Spirituality often obfuscates logic.[/QUO"


So you are saying that regardless of the size of the light or the scale it will travel at aprox. 180 thousand miles per second. Is that true or false?

[Epsilon=One]

What is irrational, it's not a problem, it's a question that Physics should be able to answer or at the very least theorize.Anyone can theorize . . . and make many mistakes; as you have with your logic.

You are presenting an irrational paradox more than a problem.

And your paradox, as does every paradox, rests on hypothetical and false assumptions.

You are badly confusing, and with little intrinsic logic, two different concepts of time. This is not difficult to do; as, Albert Einstein made the same mistake with spacetime (ST); however, unlike you, AE did not have the advantage of current observations regarding the Cosmos and subatomic colliders.

You are confusing the concepts of time as a dimension (distance/length) for location regarding “change” and time as a “counting” device of a natural occurring “clock” (FIT).

Time's unit is constant, which has nothing to do with “spacetime.”

To say that either concept of time does not exist defies all the principles of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142).

You do not seem to understand the “Why?” of light’s seeming constant speed; and, how that relates to your paradox that is dependent upon the juxtaposition of macro (distance to Sun) and micro distance (hypothetical size increase). You apparently do not understand the concepts of relativity, which should be addressed before you dispute the existence of time.

Does your unconventional belief arise from some sort of religious conviction???

I already told you, you wouldn't be able to, no one will.I don’t believe there is any paradox that is not susceptible to rationality . . . even religion.

So you are saying that regardless of the size of the light or the scale it will travel at aprox. 180 thousand miles per second. Is that true or false?Succinctly, yes. Of course, any concept that requires wisdom is never “black and white.”

[mikewormack]

"[QUOTE=Epsilon=One]Anyone can theorize . . . and make many mistakes; as you have with your logic."

What mistakes have I made with my logic? It's a simple concept.

"You are presenting an irrational paradox more than a problem."

If it is irrational say what is irrational about it. If you are being rational then it should be easy.

"And your paradox, as does every paradox, rests on hypothetical and false assumptions."

What false assumption did I make. If I made one it would be easy to point it out.

"You are badly confusing, and with little intrinsic logic, two different concepts of time. This is not difficult to do; as, Albert Einstein made the same mistake with spacetime (ST); however, unlike you, AE did not have the advantage of current observations regarding the Cosmos and subatomic colliders."

You mention all of these mistakes I have made and yet you can't point to them. That's not being rational.

"You are confusing the concepts of time as a dimension (distance/length) for location regarding “change” and time as a “counting” device of a natural occurring “clock” (FIT)."

No I'm talking of time on earth and our use of it in measuring how fast light moves, which is our means of determining how old the universe is among other things.

"Time's unit is constant, which has nothing to do with “spacetime.”"

So what you are saying then, is it is possible in spacetime that 10000 years could be equal to one of our days.

"To say that either concept of time does not exist defies all the principles of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142)."

That's the point, you finally get it.

"You do not seem to understand the “Why?” of light’s seeming constant speed; and, how that relates to your paradox that is dependent upon the juxtaposition of macro (distance to Sun) and micro distance (hypothetical size increase). You apparently do not understand the concepts of relativity, which should be addressed before you dispute the existence of time."

Below a basic elemet of the theory you speak of:
"The first postulate -- the speed of light will be seen to be the same relative to any observer, independent of the motion of the observer -- is the crucial idea that led Einstein to formulate his theory. It means we can define a quantity c, the speed of light, which is a fundamental constant of nature. "

Which takes us back to the original problem everyone sees light at the same speed, regardless of location. However if one were to hold a light source such as a flashlight behind an identical smaller model of our sun and aim it to the earth, it would appear the light would seem to get to the earth instantaniously while the rays from the sun would take eight and a half minutes. Based on what the theory of relativety and our shared belief that the speed of light is a constant the only way this is possible, including our ideas of time, is the person on earth would feel as if eight minutes past, while the person with the light source would feel as if thousands of years past in the same eight minutes according to our mesurment of time, which is ridiculous until you realize that time does not exist. But it makes sense to us here on earth to say and believe it, just like it made sense to believe that the earth was flat at one point. Time is merely our creation to tell us when to get up, when to go to work, when to crap. Maybe not so much when to crap. The point is, time is synthetic, and when you use time which is man made to solve earthly problems, then Einstien is a genius. However if you think or anyone thinks we can use our man made time to solve the absolutes of the universe, they are as crazy as you think I am.

"Does your unconventional belief arise from some sort of religious conviction???"

Do you have to be an atheist to spawn scientific opinon?

"I don’t believe there is any paradox that is not susceptible to rationality . . . even religion."

Science is not about belief, it's about what you can prove through workable hypothesis or experiment. And no, there is no way I could replicate this experiment. I reley on the reader using common sense.

If you have a better theroy on what would happen with a huge light source, I'd love to hear it. However, don't spend a lot of time on it, cause you just read the real deal.

[Epsilon=One]

Speed requires the existence of time.

What mistakes have I made with my logic? It's a simple concept.If you would carefully read my posts you would note the mistakes that I have presented.

If it is irrational say what is irrational about it. If you are being rational then it should be easy.It is quite easy to spot your irrational errors. Nowhere among your contentious arguments concerning the nonexistence of that time do you once define what your concept of time.

You seem to confuse the concept with the device. You are also irrational when you offer as proof that time doesn’t exist by referring to speed, which any scientist is aware is an aspect of time, which is the very concept that you propose does not exist.

What false assumption did I make. If I made one it would be easy to point it out.It is quite easy. You should note that I have been doing so since my first post . . . up to and including this one.

I have no concern with trying to change your mind that seems fixated on a ludicrous hypothetical proposition. My effort is to rebut your opinion for those that may not understand your misuse of the concepts of time, speed, and proportion.

You mention all of these mistakes I have made and yet you can't point to them. That's not being rational.I continually point out many of them. I can not speak for your ability to parse. For some reason the communication concerning the discussion seems to elude your understanding. Possibly, we should begin with what your definition of time is. Obviously there is a problem with semantics.

(I’m}…talking of time on earth and our use of it in measuring how fast light moves…The concept of time is not limited to Earth. Are you referring to the “unit” that expresses time??? How do you determine "how fast light moves" without involving a concept of time?

…which is our means of determining how old the universe is among other things.This is an entirely different matter than whether time exists. Is this what you want to discuss: How old is the Universe? Or, How old Reality is? Or, How old the Earth is? Or, how old are sentient beings? These are all different matters and quite different from the concept that time does not exist. I suppose you also think that you don’t "age" with “time.”

So what you are saying then, is it is possible in spacetime that 10000 years could be equal to one of our days. No. You are confusing “space-time,” a dimension, that has nothing to do with fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

If you are equating years and days, I would suppose you’re limiting yourself to the Solar system. Is your concern: How long the Cosmos has existed?; How long Earth has existed?; or, How long sentient beings have existed? None of which has meaning without the concept of time.

Again; it seems that you are not questioning whether or not time exists, which is obvious, even in your arguments. What you are apparently quibbling about is the age of the Universe, Earth, and life . Am I correct? If such is the case let’s be direct and argue this.

Your example, “flashlight and all,” as I have pointed out, does not address the issue of time as you also speak of the speed of light . . . which is an aspect of time.

That's the point, you finally get it.You are making my argument. Or, are unable to parse; or, you do not believe in logic, observation, and scientific method. Are you relying on concepts of Scripture???

Below a basic elemet of the theory you speak of:
"The first postulate -- the speed of light will be seen to be the same relative to any observer, independent of the motion of the observer -- is the crucial idea that led Einstein to formulate his theory. It means we can define a quantity c, the speed of light, which is a fundamental constant of nature. You can not have speed without time.

However if one were to hold a light source such as a flashlight behind an identical smaller model of our sun and aim it to the earth, it would appear the light would seem to get to the earth instantaniously while the rays from the sun would take eight and a half minutes.”it would appear” and “would seem” are the operative words in your statement.

Based on what the theory of relativety and our shared belief that the speed of light is a constantIt is not my shared belief; just the opposite. The speed of light “appears” to be constant. Again, you cannot have speed without time.

…the only way this is possible, including our ideas of time, is the person on earth would feel as if eight minutes past, while the person with the light source would feel as if thousands of years past in the same eight minutes according to our mesurment of time, which is ridiculous until you realize that time does not exist.You are wrong. You might think of it as similar to how much smaller the Earth seems to an astronaut than a man walking across the desert at noon. Of course, no analogy or hypothetical, as your example is, is ever good argument.

But it makes sense to us here on earth to say and believe it, just like it made sense to believe that the earth was flat at one point.This is ludicrous logic.

The point is, time is synthetic…if you think or anyone thinks we can use our man made time to solve the absolutes of the universe, they are as crazy as you think I am.On the point of being crazy I have no argument; however, the concept of time is not man made; unless man created the rhythm of subatomic phenomena and Cosmic motions.

Do you have to be an atheist to spawn scientific opinon?No, but it helps if the mind is not impressed, or limited, with metaphysical dogma.

Science is not about belief, it's about what you can prove through workable hypothesis or experiment. And no, there is no way I could replicate this experiment. I reley on the reader using common sense.Again, you make my point, exactly. Common sense is the best anecdote for nonsensical faith in the metaphysical.

If you have a better theroy on what would happen with a huge light source, I'd love to hear it. My theory is that the size of the light source has nothing to do with the concept of FIT.

Please don’t rehash the same “huge light source” theory. If you have nothing better than that to prove that time does not exist, just agree to disagree with the logic of most all scholars. The debate would best be: What is time?; rather, than: There is no time.

[mikewormack]

[QUOTE=Epsilon=One]Speed requires the existence of time.

If you would carefully read my posts you would note the mistakes that I have presented."

It is quite easy to spot your irrational errors. Nowhere among your contentious arguments concerning the nonexistence of that time do you once define what your concept of time."

I went through you're post, what irrational errors are you talking about?

"You seem to confuse the concept with the device. You are also irrational when you offer as proof that time doesn’t exist by referring to speed, which any scientist is aware is an aspect of time, which is the very concept that you propose does not exist."

It is speed, because it is easier for most people to grasp and provides a situation for a simple demonstration that anyone could do.

"I have no concern with trying to change your mind that seems fixated on a ludicrous hypothetical proposition. My effort is to rebut your opinion for those that may not understand your misuse of the concepts of time, speed, and proportion."

I'm not trying to change your mind, I am just telling you what is.

I continually point out many of them. I can not speak for your ability to parse. For some reason the communication concerning the discussion seems to elude your understanding. Possibly, we should begin with what your definition of time is. Obviously there is a problem with semantics."

I understand what you are saying, and I think you understand what I'm saying, by your lack of an answer, you already answered my question.

"The concept of time is not limited to Earth. Are you referring to the “unit” that expresses time??? How do you determine "how fast light moves" without involving a concept of time?"

Do they keep time on Mars? Or are you talking about the space shuttle? You can't determine how fast light moves, you can guess based on our use of time, how light will react on earth within our thinking of how it reacts in the universe, but you do it with a syntetic variable.

"This is an entirely different matter than whether time exists. Is this what you want to discuss: How old is the Universe? Or, How old Reality is? Or, How old the Earth is? Or, how old are sentient beings? These are all different matters and quite different from the concept that time does not exist. I suppose you also think that you don’t "age" with “time.”"

You don't feed a steak to a baby, you give it baby food. Once it is able to digest it, then you may bring on the meat. But so you don't think, I'm ducking your question, I'll answer it. There is no way we, you are anyone else can determine how old the universe is, all we can do is apply the principles we see, hear and feel on earth and attempt to answer questions that are not of this world. And as I told you repeatedly and expressed through a model to which you still have no answer for time does not exist. The universe simply is, this is the steak.

"No. You are confusing “space-time,” a dimension, that has nothing to do with fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT)."

You can call it time, FIT, or the thing my grandpa looks at on his wrist, you already heard the answer. You are basicly showing me an apple and an ornange then asking, which ones the fruit.

"If you are equating years and days, I would suppose you’re limiting yourself to the Solar system. Is your concern: How long the Cosmos has existed?; How long Earth has existed?; or, How long sentient beings have existed? None of which has meaning without the concept of time."

I haven't limited myself to anything, I gave you a simple model to follow involving our solar system, if it makes a big difference to you, substitute the earth and the sun with a galaxy.

"Again; it seems that you are not questioning whether or not time exists, which is obvious, even in your arguments. What you are apparently quibbling about is the age of the Universe, Earth, and life . Am I correct? If such is the case let’s be direct and argue this."

You are right, I am not questioning if time exist or not, I'm saying it doesn't exist, with the exception of the worlds creation of it and using it to solve matters in the universe isn't going to work.

"Your example, “flashlight and all,” as I have pointed out, does not address the issue of time as you also speak of the speed of light . . . which is an aspect of time."

If you recall the title of this post is we don't know how fast the speed of light is, because time doesn't exist. Read your sentance back to yourself a couple of times and you'll see what my point is.



"You are making my argument. Or, are unable to parse; or, you do not believe in logic, observation, and scientific method. Are you relying on concepts of Scripture???"

"You can not have speed without time."

correct! But you still have a varience of motion as it relates to different objects.

”it would appear” and “would seem” are the operative words in your statement."

"It is not my shared belief; just the opposite. The speed of light “appears” to be constant. Again, you cannot have speed without time."

The last part is correct.

"You are wrong. You might think of it as similar to how much smaller the Earth seems to an astronaut than a man walking across the desert at noon. Of course, no analogy or hypothetical, as your example is, is ever good argument."

You lost me? Earth? Astronaut? Small? Where are we going here?


"This is ludicrous logic."

I agree.

"On the point of being crazy I have no argument; however, the concept of time is not man made; unless man created the rhythm of subatomic phenomena and Cosmic motions."

Man didn't create the rhythm of subatomic phenomena and cosmic motions, just the interpatation and translation all might I add is turned in to our idea of being.


"No, but it helps if the mind is not impressed, or limited, with metaphysical dogma."

A fancy way of saying don't go to church?

"Again, you make my point, exactly. Common sense is the best anecdote for nonsensical faith in the metaphysical."

Use you're so called common sense then and answer my question. I'll dumb it down a bit. Get a cap off of a bottle of coke, put it on the desk in front of you, now pretend that's the earth. Now get a quarter and put it on the desk away from the coke bottle cap. Now for the sake of the experiment pretend that the coke bottle cap and the quarter the same poportions as the real earth and sun. Also pretend the distance between the two is 93 million miles give or take. Now further pretend for the sake of our experiement that you are looking at the earth and the sun, you can actually see the rays of light filling our solar system. Now you see a solar flare traveling to the earth which is a few steps away from where you are. Now based on our time, it's going to take eight minutes for the flare to hit the earth. How long would it take you? Easy enough, huh? I know what you're thinking. Holy Toledo. If you don't know the answer, ask a four or five year old kid they'll tell you.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So.....clearly, although Time itself may not have 'existence' it is still A Very Usefull tool, to us, to use, to Get a Grasp on the Reality(ies) of the Universe, we occupy.


So we can, in a relativistic manner, measure "things" ergo gain Knowledge of Our Place.....and Us too.....Right?

[Paree]

Just though I would add, that I don't see any paradox in what "mikewormack" posted originally. The light from the torch would reach "the living room" just as fast as that from the "sun". Surely everyone can see that??

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Just though I would add, that I don't see any paradox in what "mikewormack" posted originally. The light from the torch would reach "the living room" just as fast as that from the "sun". Surely everyone can see that??
For the speed that it travels space at yes, but that requires a duplicate measure of space, as a time function....so

What was your point?

The title says time doesn't exist but we do use it as it shows us a difference in the distance travelled, both motions occuring at the same speed, c.

[Bos]

This is just ridiculous. Your question is almost comical. Epsilon I can't believe you even talked to this guy for more than a few words, as he doesn't seem to understand the simplest things.

Your problem questions the speed of light, yet you can't even comprehend how absurd your question sounds. You claim that if you grew in size to be as big as the sun and shined a big flashlight towards the earth that it would be a different speed than that of the sun's rays. This really shows your misunderstanding of basic ideas. Your assuming that when we as people on earth shine a light on a wall, it hits it instantaneously but the light from the sun hits us at about 8 minutes. This is because the sun is quite far, while the wall in front of you is quite close. If you grew in size and were next to the sun, your scale would mean nothing. Just because the earth might appear smaller and closer doesn't change the speed of light at all! How you can't see this I will never understand and how you can think that is an "impossible" question to answer is quite comical. Also, if you've asked scientists before and they couldn't answer it, then they shouldn't be scientists because anybody with any knowledge of light, distance, and time can clearly see this.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This is just ridiculous. Your question is almost comical. Epsilon I can't believe you even talked to this guy for more than a few words, as he doesn't seem to understand the simplest things.

Your problem questions the speed of light, yet you can't even comprehend how absurd your question sounds. You claim that if you grew in size to be as big as the sun and shined a big flashlight towards the earth that it would be a different speed than that of the sun's rays. This really shows your misunderstanding of basic ideas. Your assuming that when we as people on earth shine a light on a wall, it hits it instantaneously but the light from the sun hits us at about 8 minutes. This is because the sun is quite far, while the wall in front of you is quite close. If you grew in size and were next to the sun, your scale would mean nothing. Just because the earth might appear smaller and closer doesn't change the speed of light at all! How you can't see this I will never understand and how you can think that is an "impossible" question to answer is quite comical. Also, if you've asked scientists before and they couldn't answer it, then they shouldn't be scientists because anybody with any knowledge of light, distance, and time can clearly see this.
Has it 'crossed you' (Had you thought) that this was a sort of philisophical exploration of the idea of light in a space of Non existent time....?

Questioning usually doesn't hurt as it allows for thought exploration....Right?

[johnyd]

#1. if time doesn't exist, then explain how two of our "minutes" ago, this reply wasn't here, but now it is? if time does not exist, then how come i can hold something in my hand, then if i drop it, it is no longer in my hand. how come i can be in NY one day, and in PA another?

#2. if the galaxy was in your living room, then the sun and earth would be less than a milimeter away from each other, and the light would travel to earth instantaniously, as would the light from the flashlight. (unless your living room is very big, in which case just like #3)

#3. if there was a giant flashlight next to the real sun, the light would get to earth at the same time as the light from the sun (assuming the flash light is bright enough to reach the earth)

and one more thing....i am not saying this to be anti-christian but just to make a point.
since we cannot prove light travels at about 300,000,000 m/s (but we also cant prove it DOESN'T) or that time exists, you have concluded that they do not.
then how come (once again i am only making a point) we all say God exists, if we cannot PROVE it? we cannot prove God exists, but millions of people, including you, believe in Him. so how come, (if you are catholic*) you would probably reply to me for blaspheming, which i am trying to avoid, but you try to prove that time does not exist, when there is more proof that time does exist than proof that God exists? (rephrase: more FIRST HAND proof that time exists than that God exists.)
*in my experience, catholics tend to be more offended from "blasphemy" than protestants*

p.s. you really shouldn't bring religion, no matter how little, into science. the two do not mix well, as you can see.