trial number one.

[Sophus]

Time is just a tool we forged to measure existence itself. The concept of time does exist.

History, in terms of study of the past does exist. The past does not exist, it existed.

As I've said before, God cannot exist before or outside of time and claim to have always existed because always is a measurement of time.

[Whitney]

A lot of people seem to think time is a thing that can exist.   I agree that is it just a concept we developed to measure/define change.

[Tom62]

If time doesn't exist then why does it run slower when you are doing a menial task and too fast when you are having fun
Just kiddin'. As far as I know  the further and faster you travel away from our planet the slower time moves for you in comparison with the people remained behind. When you return your friends and family are older than you. If time would not exist then there should not have been a difference isn't it?

[Wechtlein Uns]

tom62, I believe my definition of time as the separation of particles into the cloudlike state and particlelike state, when scaled over millions of light years, has the effect of general relativity. The quantum scaling then, could adequately account for the proposed "difference" in time between two distant planets.

[Sophus]

A lot of people seem to think time is a thing that can exist.   I agree that is it just a concept we developed to measure/define change.

All it is is a concept, thus it exists. Would you say an inch exists? An inch of some material is real but the inch itself is not exactly tangible. It's a tool of measurement. Time, being similar to other systems of measurement, is intangible but its suggested theory functions to meet its purpose.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Sophus, there still would have to be a physical mechanism in reality that would explain our concept of time. The only reason we use inches is because no two things can occupy the same physical space. That's a physical law. There should be a similar physical law with respect to time.

[curiosityandthecat]

There should be a similar physical law with respect to time.

Why?  Consider wormhole theory. At one end of the wormhole it is a different time than at the other end. The only thing separating those two ends is distance inside the wormhole. How do you account for that?

[Sophus]

Sophus, there still would have to be a physical mechanism in reality that would explain our concept of time. The only reason we use inches is because no two things can occupy the same physical space. That's a physical law. There should be a similar physical law with respect to time.

Thank you for saving me the time of inventing an original solution. Your post answers itself.

[none]

space is to time as length is to duration.
just as I am a length from you I am a duration from you.
Consider Einstien's model of two parrallel mirrors with a beam of light going perpendicular between the two being observered.
Accelerate the apparatus of mirrors, light, and the observer and the light travels at an angle from mirror to mirror creating somewhat of a triangle to a second observer who is stationary.
Considering the distance and the constant velocity of the light, duration is slowed for the moving observer whereas duration accelerates for the stationary observer.

[Messenger]

ok, Messenger, the logic of now not existing eludes me, if that is what you said.
please clarify.

I did not say that, I just said that this statement add nothing as time is a frame of measure not a tangible object

I propose : before history there was history, but not god; god is not independent of belief or believed.

We (science) know that time varies according to speed (maybe other things as well)
For a photon of light traveling with speed C, time stops
So we can assume that time does not pass for God as well (We don't know how)

About the big bang particle, that is the whole issue with wave-particle duality; wave-particle duality always exists.
I will reiterate, since the particle existed at a specific time its density and mass were were known as infinite (mainly because it had no direction; no refrence to duration i.e. time)

Nothing real (In the universe) can be infinite, infinity is just an imaginary term

[bowmore]

Nothing real (In the universe) can be infinite, infinity is just an imaginary term

Any proof for this assertion?

[Messenger]

Nothing real (In the universe) can be infinite, infinity is just an imaginary term

Any proof for this assertion?

That is easy
Infinity

My proof:
Assuming that we have a real infinite number of objects K
K is either 1-constant or 2-Increasing or 3-Decreasing (By definition)
As K exist at time t1, t2, t..., then it must be constant
If we start to remove objects from K then it will be k-1, k-2, ... till zero
which means it is not infinite
If it does not decrease it means it is not constant (which contradicts with the assumption i.e. Paradox)

[bowmore]

My proof:
Assuming that we have a real infinite number of objects K
K is either 1-constant or 2-Increasing or 3-Decreasing (By definition)
As K exist at time t1, t2, t..., then it must be constant
If we start to remove objects from K then it will be k-1, k-2, ... till zero

this is where you fail. If k = infinity, then k-1 = k-2 = k = infinity. You'll never reach zero.

which means it is not infinite
If it does not decrease it means it is not constant (which contradicts with the assumption i.e. Paradox)

I guess you meant "If it decreases it means it is not constant".
Unfortunately for your argument, infinity does not decrease by subtracting finite numbers from it.

On a lesser note : you have a tendency to mix mathematical fields : constant, increasing and decreasing are calculus terms applied to functions, not numbers.

[karadan]

Sophus, there still would have to be a physical mechanism in reality that would explain our concept of time.

A clock?

 

[Messenger]

this is where you fail. If k = infinity, then k-1 = k-2 = k = infinity. You'll never reach zero.

Prove it?  (on real objects)