Can time be infinite?

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no such thing as time! Show me time.

I'll tell you later!!

Very clever Mr Muishkin.

So Ginko, you see with your ears too?

[Ginkgo]

So Ginko, you see with your ears too?

I'll let Lev field that one. After all it was his comment.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So Ginko, you see with your ears too?

I'll let Lev field that one. After all it was his comment.

Yes, in this case I meant it literally, as in a noun, a person, place or thing. Show me this time thing! And in truth, even if he changes his mistake to, "I'll show you time later." We all know that it's impossible to show anyone this 'thing' called time. He can show me relative change. He can show me relative position. But he can't "show" me time.

They posit that time travel is real. I can travel a road, in either of two dimensions, in either of the four possible directions, and I can show that to you. I can travel in a ballistic rocket in the third dimension, in either of it's two directions, (I'm sure Lev would love to see me travel in the descending direction, to crash and burn), and I can show that to you. But no one can show that they travel in this, so called, forth dimension, in either of it's, so called, two directions, as it doesn't exist. If it exists ''show' it to me.

I thought that many think that there is only "now." Is that what you two think? Can someone "show" me the past or the future?

[HexHammer]

So Ginko, you see with your ears too?

I'll let Lev field that one. After all it was his comment.

Echo locating "view" is possible for blind people, just like bats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXtExOMCDfE

[Ginkgo]

Yes, in this case I meant it literally, as in a noun, a person, place or thing. Show me this time thing! And in truth, even if he changes his mistake to, "I'll show you time later." We all know that it's impossible to show anyone this 'thing' called time. He can show me relative change. He can show me relative position. But he can't "show" me time.

I would say this is basically correct because within the context of modern science/philosophy of science time is regarded as an emergent property. Time as an emergent property is not considered to have its own 'existence'. I think I am correcting in saying that the underlying assumption when it comes to emergentism and time the principle of instatiation applies. Within the context of current thinking that is.

They posit that time travel is real. I can travel a road, in either of two dimensions, in either of the four possible directions, and I can show that to you. I can travel in a ballistic rocket in the third dimension, in either of it's two directions, (I'm sure Lev would love to see me travel in the descending direction, to crash and burn), and I can show that to you. But no one can show that they travel in this, so called, forth dimension, in either of it's, so called, two directions, as it doesn't exist. If it exists ''show' it to me.

I think this will explain it:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

I thought that many think that there is only "now." Is that what you two think? Can someone "show" me the past or the future?

I don't actually think that, but I can't speak for Lev

[Lev Muishkin]

I think the conversation on this particular topic of the thread speaks for itself.

Simply enough there is a succession of events, and that is the measure of time.
Although it is beyond the imagination of some, Minkowski space, suggested by Einstein, and demonstrated in several empirical observations, requires time as more than just a comment on succession, but as part and parcel of the reality of space, in which velocity causes the relative difference in the amount of time allotted to each moving body.
QED time does exist.
It is a dimension like others.
Objects have not only a where, but a when and how fast.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think the conversation on this particular topic of the thread speaks for itself.

Simply enough there is a succession of events, and that is the measure of time.
Although it is beyond the imagination of some, Minkowski space, suggested by Einstein, and demonstrated in several empirical observations, requires time as more than just a comment on succession, but as part and parcel of the reality of space, in which velocity causes the relative difference in the amount of time allotted to each moving body.
QED time does exist.
It is a dimension like others.
Objects have not only a where, but a when and how fast.

...demonstrated in several empirical observations...

Sight any particular, so called, "empirical observation," that was conclusive, as I know of none.

[Lev Muishkin]

I think the conversation on this particular topic of the thread speaks for itself.

Simply enough there is a succession of events, and that is the measure of time.
Although it is beyond the imagination of some, Minkowski space, suggested by Einstein, and demonstrated in several empirical observations, requires time as more than just a comment on succession, but as part and parcel of the reality of space, in which velocity causes the relative difference in the amount of time allotted to each moving body.
QED time does exist.
It is a dimension like others.
Objects have not only a where, but a when and how fast.

...demonstrated in several empirical observations...

Sight any particular, so called, "empirical observation," that was conclusive, as I know of none.

Your post post-dates mine. QED.

Travel in a airplane either east-west or west -east and the clocks disagree with one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

Other proof of the ToR.- upon which the existence of Time relies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_ecli ... y_29,_1919

[uwot]

Your post post-dates mine. QED.

That's a sequence of events.

Travel in a airplane either east-west or west -east and the clocks disagree with one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

Have checked out my blog? It not only references that experiment, but explains why it happens.

Other proof of the ToR.- upon which the existence of Time relies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_ecli ... y_29,_1919

Well, technically Relativity posits spacetime, which Einstein apparently believed was an actual substance. In fact about a year after the eclipse, and 6 months after the results were published by Eddington, Einstein gave a lecture called Ether and the theory of Relativity (or something), that's in the blog too.
None of which is direct empirical evidence for time, we don't currently have any, my guess is we never will. What we do know is that things happen and that the rate they happen at is affected by velocity and strength of gravitational field. If you introduce time as something discrete, ie not just the things that happen, you then get caught up with how matter can interact with it, which is the challenge to dualism generally.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think the conversation on this particular topic of the thread speaks for itself.

Simply enough there is a succession of events, and that is the measure of time.
Although it is beyond the imagination of some, Minkowski space, suggested by Einstein, and demonstrated in several empirical observations, requires time as more than just a comment on succession, but as part and parcel of the reality of space, in which velocity causes the relative difference in the amount of time allotted to each moving body.
QED time does exist.
It is a dimension like others.
Objects have not only a where, but a when and how fast.

...demonstrated in several empirical observations...

Sight any particular, so called, "empirical observation," that was conclusive, as I know of none.

Your post post-dates mine. QED.

Travel in a airplane either east-west or west -east and the clocks disagree with one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
Inconclusive, as they can't know for certain if a force dilated time, or it simply affected the clocks.

Other proof of the ToR.- upon which the existence of Time relies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_ecli ... y_29,_1919
Inconclusive, as electromagnetic energy can either be reflected, scattered or absorbed.

We're just too young to prove it, if in fact, it can ever be done.

[Ginkgo]

Well, technically Relativity posits spacetime, which Einstein apparently believed was an actual substance. In fact about a year after the eclipse, and 6 months after the results were published by Eddington, Einstein gave a lecture called Ether and the theory of Relativity (or something), that's in the blog too.
None of which is direct empirical evidence for time, we don't currently have any, my guess is we never will. What we do know is that things happen and that the rate they happen at is affected by velocity and strength of gravitational field. If you introduce time as something discrete, ie not just the things that happen, you then get caught up with how matter can interact with it, which is the challenge to dualism generally.

We do tend to view pace and time as being as being continuous, but as you point out the other possibility is that time and space are discrete. This suggests time and space manifests itself in the macro world from the fundamental Planck scale of things. Time as space as an emergent property is where the focus seems to be at the moment. There are of course a number of competing theories in this area, but they seems to be pointing in the a similar direction in respect to emergentism.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What we do know is that things happen and that the rate they happen at is affected by velocity and...
Rather we believe that it's true, we don't know. I say this again because there has not been enough controls in place, not enough isolation, to be sure it was not due to gravity, the magnetosphere, or other such forces. More experimentation should be conducted on time dilation during the upcoming trip to Mars, the furthest we'll have ever been from earths influences, so as to be as sure as we can be, until we can become at least an interstellar species, which would indeed lock it down for good, as factual, one way or the other.

...strength of gravitational field.
This on the other hand is much more believable, such that the terms "we do know" are indeed probable.

[Lev Muishkin]

We're just too young to prove it, if in fact, it can ever be done.

Jesus.
Try and read a fucking book sometime. Your objections are complete bullshit.
Relativity is demonstrable.
You are about 100 years out of date.

[SpheresOfBalance]

We're just too young to prove it, if in fact, it can ever be done.

Jesus.
Try and read a fucking book sometime. Your objections are complete bullshit.
Relativity is demonstrable.
You are about 100 years out of date.

You're wrong, son. Just another clone of another mans thinking.

I'll ask you again, how could anyone truly know that it wasn't just the clock that was affected instead of time? They can't son, as time is not directly observable.

[Lev Muishkin]

We're just too young to prove it, if in fact, it can ever be done.

Jesus.
Try and read a fucking book sometime. Your objections are complete bullshit.
Relativity is demonstrable.
You are about 100 years out of date.

You're wrong, son. Just another clone of another mans thinking.

I'll ask you again, how could anyone truly know that it wasn't just the clock that was affected instead of time? They can't son, as time is not directly observable.

People smarter than you did the experiment. Do you really think they used a wind up clock. What in your fetid imagination could affect a clock alone: consistently, repeatedly.