What is nothingness?

[ratiocinator]

nope....

it is not a force or a substance

I didn't say it was a force or a substance.

just a quotient

numbers in your head

The evidence based science says you are wrong.

 

[Thief]

I didn't say it was a force or a substance.



The evidence based science says you are wrong.

send me some time in a bottle

I hope it's cheap

 

[ratiocinator]

send me some time in a bottle

I hope it's cheap

Ever see an instantaneous bottle? Every bottle contains (space-)time. No matter how many times you assert otherwise, the evidence for relativity tells us that time and space are part of the same manifold and that they are, to an extent, interchangeable. Part of what one observer calls time is what another calls space, that is, the space and time directions through the manifold are observer dependant.

 

[Thief]

Ever see an instantaneous bottle? Every bottle contains (space-)time. No matter how many times you assert otherwise, the evidence for relativity tells us that time and space are part of the same manifold and that they are, to an extent, interchangeable. Part of what one observer calls time is what another calls space, that is, the space and time directions through the manifold are observer dependant.

space is real enough
it's that nothing in-between the substance
and movement is real

time is only a measure of movement

measure is not required for existence

 

[ratiocinator]

space is real enough
it's that nothing in-between the substance
and movement is real

time is only a measure of movement

measure is not required for existence

As I said, you can assert all you want - stamp your foot too, if it makes you feel better, but the evidence (that supports relativity) remains the same.

Of course, it is possible to argue for a different view - Julian Barbour has done so, for example. The main difference is that he actually has some grasp of the evidence and the science and doesn't just make baseless and nonsensical assertions on a message board. "Movement is real but time isn't" seems to be a rather popular bit of contradictory gibberish on discussion forums.

 

[Thief]

Movement is real but time isn't"

you obviously don't get it

movement is real
time is a measurment

but you don't need the measure to have the movement

 

[ratiocinator]

but you don't need the measure to have the movement

But you do need time. Movement is change of position over a period of time.

As I said, none of your assertions changes the evidence that time and space are observer dependant directions through same manifold.

Your assertions are irrelevant.

 

[Stevicus]

But you do need time. Movement is change of position over a period of time.

As I said, none of your assertions changes the evidence that time and space are observer dependant directions through same manifold.

Your assertions are irrelevant.

I've seen sci-fi programs where the story might have time stopping. The observer might still perceive time and can still move, but everyone around him is stopped, frozen in time. But the observer is still aware of time and can count off 60 seconds. Time still exists for him, even if it's stopped for everyone else.

Now, if everything suddenly vanished in the universe and there's no more motion, then no one would be around to observe the passage of time. But if someone could be inside some kind of "bubble" and still be alive, wouldn't they be aware of the passage of time, even if everything else was gone? They would be aware that the universe did exist in the past, at which point time would still have to exist.

If the universe suddenly disappeared and winked out into nothingness, there would be no motion, but to say there would be no time would mean there would be no past, which would mean we never existed at all. Of course, nobody would be around to know or care about that, but wouldn't there still be a past? Wouldn't there be something that "used to be," even if only theoretically?

 

[PruePhillip]

nope....

it is not a force or a substance

just a quotient

numbers in your head

If time isn't a property of the universe then we would be in a strange situation.
We can't really comment on what time is because we simply don't know. But
one interesting idea is that the future is being created as the universe expands.

 

[Thief]

But you do need time. Movement is change of position over a period of time.

As I said, none of your assertions changes the evidence that time and space are observer dependant directions through same manifold.

Your assertions are irrelevant.

all of the increments of time are man made

distance is a measure.....created by man
seconds, minutes, hours...…..created by man

time is one form of measure divided by another

mph, rpm, fps, days per year, eons.....etc

all man made

all in your head

 

[Thief]

inside some kind of "bubble" and still be alive, wouldn't they be aware of the passage of time, even if everything else was gone?

that would be the ….moment....

when God said ...I AM!

and everything started to move

 

[ratiocinator]

all of the increments of time are man made

distance is a measure.....created by man
seconds, minutes, hours...…..created by man

You can't have a "measure" if you're not measuring something.

time is one form of measure divided by another

mph, rpm, fps, days per year, eons.....etc

Now you're getting even more muddled up. The first three are "one form of measure divided by another" but they aren't measurements of time but things that change with respect to time. Days per year isn't one measure divided by another, it's how one sort of measurement of time is subdivided, and eons is just a vague but large amount of time, so isn't a measure at all.

None of which changes the actual evidence that space-time is a real feature of the world.

 

[Thief]

You can't have a "measure" if you're not measuring something.



Now you're getting even more muddled up. The first three are "one form of measure divided by another" but they aren't measurements of time but things that change with respect to time. Days per year isn't one measure divided by another, it's how one sort of measurement of time is subdivided, and eons is just a vague but large amount of time, so isn't a measure at all.

None of which changes the actual evidence that space-time is a real feature of the world.

all I have described are.....man made increments

 

[ratiocinator]

all I have described are.....man made increments

...and totally irrelevant to the evidence that says you are wrong about time.

 

[Thief]

...and totally irrelevant to the evidence that says you are wrong about time.

nope.....I will remain firm on this

time is a quotient on a chalkboard

you will find it nowhere else

 

[ratiocinator]

nope.....I will remain firm on this

time is a quotient on a chalkboard

you will find it nowhere else

Stubbornly ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

Should we believe all the accumulated evidence that supports special and general relativity and hence the reality of space-time, or some random guy on a message board who shows no sign of even understanding the point?

Tough one, eh?

BTW, I found the time to write this without looking at a chalkboard.

 

[Thief]

Stubbornly ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

Should we believe all the accumulated evidence that supports special and general relativity and hence the reality of space-time, or some random guy on a message board who shows no sign of even understanding the point?

Tough one, eh?

BTW, I found the time to write this without looking at a chalkboard.

how about you look up a definition

 

[Thief]

What is the scientific definition of time?
Time, a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Time is of philosophical interest and is also the subject of mathematical and scientific investigation.​

 

[Thief]

still not a force or substance

 

[Thief]

it's just in your head