Time does not exist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Written are write we word the order which in matters never it as exists not does time.

Backwards life live you then this understand can you if.

Understanding for necessary is time means that words the of sequence the on reliant wholly is text other any and this of understanding very the nonetheless.

[Terrapin Station]

Alright, Yoda.

[prothero]

="uwot"Who knows what science will discover? But given the staggering accuracy demanded of GPS, a clock on a satellite is sensitive to the influence of the topology of the landscape it is passing over, the gravity of every other body in the solar system, including passing near Earth meteorites and asteroids, even space junk. Eliminating all that and discovering some new phenomenon isn't going to be easy.

Actually it appears the clocks are corrected to account for the time dilation effects of both special relativity (relative speed) and general relativity (gravity) and the corrections are not arbitrary but built into the system.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

[Hobbes' Choice]

Alright, Yoda.

Sequence the about all it's.

To make that extra obvious I could also reverse each letter in the words.

sdrow eht rettel hcae osla dluoc i suoivbo artxe taht ekam oT.

?mean I what know you do now

[uwot]

="uwot"Who knows what science will discover? But given the staggering accuracy demanded of GPS, a clock on a satellite is sensitive to the influence of the topology of the landscape it is passing over, the gravity of every other body in the solar system, including passing near Earth meteorites and asteroids, even space junk. Eliminating all that and discovering some new phenomenon isn't going to be easy.

Actually it appears the clocks are corrected to account for the time dilation effects of both special relativity (relative speed) and general relativity (gravity) and the corrections are not arbitrary but built into the system.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

Well, the article says "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system." At a known altitude and relative velocity, the dilatory effects of special and general relativity are easy enough to calculate. What I understood Spheres to be saying was that even with the effect of the Earth's gravity taken into account, the clocks still need to be adjusted periodically. This would be because the gravity of the sun and moon are not negligible and, of course, the Earth, Moon and Sun are the original three body problem, making the combined gravitational effect practically impossible.
Incidentally, Spheres apologised for not finishing my blog. That is entirely excusable, as I haven't finished writing it, but there is a page that tries to show why time slows down according to SR: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

[prothero]

What I understood Spheres to be saying was that even with the effect of the Earth's gravity taken into account, the clocks still need to be adjusted periodically. This would be because the gravity of the sun and moon are not negligible and, of course, the Earth, Moon and Sun are the original three body problem, making the combined gravitational effect practically impossible.
Incidentally, Spheres apologised for not finishing my blog. That is entirely excusable, as I haven't finished writing it, but there is a page that tries to show why time slows down according to SR: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

Perhaps you could provide a reference as the main issue appears to be taking into account the effects of relativity. In fact the system would rapidly become useless if these corrections were not built in. I am unable to find a reference to any kind of frequent arbitrary corrections.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys217 ... 02002).pdf

I objected to Spheres seeming to deny the truth of the "time dilation" effects of relativity and attributing the problem to a host of other factors (solar wind, etc.) whereas in truth the main effects seem to be relativistic.

The main point is there is no fixed absolute universal time in the sense of Newton. One can declare a reference and measure all things from that point of view but it has no more validity than any other arbitrary reference except for convention.

The other point is that the rate of all processes physical, chemical, biological vary depending on relative speed and gravitational fields and so the "twin paradox" of relativity is a real phenomena and we have evidence to confirm these effects. it is hard to see how time has any reality or meaning except as an abstraction from change (process).

[Noax]

What I understood Spheres to be saying was that even with the effect of the Earth's gravity taken into account, the clocks still need to be adjusted periodically. This would be because the gravity of the sun and moon are not negligible and, of course, the Earth, Moon and Sun are the original three body problem, making the combined gravitational effect practically impossible.

Perhaps you could provide a reference as the main issue appears to be taking into account the effects of relativity. In fact the system would rapidly become useless if these corrections were not built in. I am unable to find a reference to any kind of frequent arbitrary corrections.

The three body problem is real: A chaotic system that requires periodic adjustment. GPS calculations have all effects of the major bodies (Earth/sun/moon) built into velocity and gravity well calculation. No, not asteroids and satellites which just don't mass enough to make a difference. But there are more bodies, and all the other major objects (Jupiter and Venus primarily) add a lot of complexity to the chaotic function that predict the path of the primary three objects. Not sure how much those effects are built into the software that does the GPS computations.

I objected to Spheres seeming to deny the truth of the "time dilation" effects of relativity and attributing the problem to a host of other factors (solar wind, etc.) whereas in truth the main effects seem to be relativistic.

The relativity effects are computed and verified to far too much precision for this to be waved off as 'possibly due to other effects'. Keeping an open mind for improvements in models is good, but denial of current views without producing a model that produces better predictions is just pseudo-physics.

The main point is there is no fixed absolute universal time in the sense of Newton. One can declare a reference and measure all things from that point of view but it has no more validity than any other arbitrary reference except for convention.

There is always comoving time which is the closest we can get to an absolute reference for time. Using that, a moment can be specified for a star 30 billion LY away that is 'now', something that cannot be done with any inertial frame. No IRF contains both us and that star, but each location can note a moment when the universe appears X years old in the frame that maximizes X. The frame of our solar systems is unusually close to that comoving frame since we're on the side of the galaxy that cancels out most of the comoving velocity of the galaxy itself. And no, this is not in any way 'time in the sense of Newton'.

[prothero]

Noax, Did we fundamentally disagree somewhere?
The three body problem is indeed real and unsolvable (although perhaps not of much effect on the GPS). It is in fact an argument against both practical and metaphysical determinism.

[Luke]

Existence presupposes spatiotemporality; time is a precondition of existence. Therefore, in a sense, time itself cannot exist.

At least, I reckon the problem lies in the juxtaposition of the concepts of time and existence, or of applying the concept of existence to time itself.

Shit happens, obviously.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Existence presupposes spatiotemporality; time is a precondition of existence. Therefore, in a sense, time itself cannot exist.
y.

This is so obviously a false conclusion. Space and Time, although human conceits about the universe and so neither exist in a perfectly objective sense, that which characterises the ideal of them is the ground of existence we call space/time.
Though this shall always be imperfectly understood that is not a warrant for saying "time cannot exist", since you cannot utter such a phrase were it not for you being able to do it at a particular time, and in the sequence of letters and words that allow it to have meaning.

Sequence implies time, and so does any action.

[Terrapin Station]

Existence presupposes spatiotemporality; time is a precondition of existence. Therefore, in a sense, time itself cannot exist.

I'd agree with that, adding that the sense in question is the false or poorly-reasoned sense.

[Luke]

I don't wish to deny that things happen. Shit happens, obviously.

Perhaps I misspoke in saying that time itself cannot exist. Time neither exists nor doesn't exist. Existence is not something you can apply to time.

Objects exist - at some time or other. But when does time exist? Now? At some time? At all times? This is a clunky expression.

Time is not an object; some thing which endures or perdures. Time is a pre-condition of existence. The existence of anything relies on time.

[Noax]

Noax, Did we fundamentally disagree somewhere?
The three body problem is indeed real and unsolvable (although perhaps not of much effect on the GPS). It is in fact an argument against both practical and metaphysical determinism.

Sorry, didn't see this post. I grow to rely on the notificiations.

Did I disagree with something? At most I said I was unsure of what all they attempt to include in GPS calculations and what requires periodic corrections for cumualtive error. The unsolvability of the 3 body problem doesn't mean we can't predict the location of the moon and the satellites for a reasonable amount of time. The function is nowhere near as chaotic as the weather for instance.

How do you see it as an argument against metaphysical determinism? There is no practicality problem to that. Perhaps we differ on this point.

On another note, I will add my voice to the disagreement with Luke that existence presupposes spatiotemporality. It implies the nonexistence of our universe for one.

[Terrapin Station]

Objects exist

So do relations and processes.

at some time or other. But when does time exist?

Time is the relative, existent when. It's motion or processual change. Processes exist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Time is not an object; some thing which endures or perdures. Time is a pre-condition of existence. The existence of anything relies on time.

you can level exactly the same objection to space. Does space exist?
Space in not a object either.