With the advent of the physical universe, it became possible for time to be measured. It wasn’t until a 100th of a tick before midnight on the clock of the universe did it become a construct of man.

Time is an abstract parameter derived from change. This is because a time axis does not exist.

This is also why spacetime is not real. An evolution parameter cannot be it’s own evolution parameter.

Only relatively. Because physicists find that particles don’t move in the sense we believe they do. We can’t abstract time as we experience it (psychologically) from electrical impulses along neurons. So time is in a sense a 4th dimension that exists relatively to the other 3 spatial ones. In other words, it doesn’t exist in the Newtonian sense, but does in the Einsteinian. Another way of looking at it is that Now as we experience it is where consciousness is, not where our physical body is.

So I guess that’s both ‘yea’ and ‘nay’. There’s no distinction.

Someone please explain to me how an evolution parameter can be it’s own evolution parameter???

First you have to explain to us what an evolution parameter is

I showed you.

The evolution parameter would be spacetime. Moving in spacetime (what most think of as time) would require motion in time, which is self-referential. This is why spacetime is wrong.

v=dx/dt, the problem is that it is impossible for the t coordinate of an object to change because the change is self-referential.

Spacetime is a mathematical without any counterpart in nature itself.

I don’t see the problem. Also, how is space not self-referential?

You don’t see the problem with ‘motion in time’? A change in time would require a second time dimension orthogonal to the first, on and on.

If a path in spacetime, or world-line, of a moving particle is parametized, meaning- (t,x(t),y(t),z(t)), we obtain the 4 velocity of the particle-

(1,dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt)

The time axis component is 1, a dimensionless number. This has no meaning in expressing velocity or change. Velocity must be given units of velocity like meters per second or whatever units you want to use. So you have no motion in spacetime.

Motion in spacetime is impossible.

Time is the abstract inverse of change, no time axis exists.

What exists is, well, you know the deal about the non-spatial’s movement…

Space is not self-referential because it is the result of…well, same thing as the sentence above…

Does change in y depend on having x and z? If you follow that out, don’t you need an infinite number of dimensions? Isn’t existence self-referential?

Human invention.

Time was invented with the sundial.

The “wave” that stimulated the brain to see “now”, is at this moment racing through space. That “now” is moving and the next “now” in the wave that produced it, is right behind it. If one could keep up with the wave, “time” will stand still. If one could travel faster then the wave “time” will run in reverse.

Why would existence be self-referential?

Why would existence be self-referential?

What does existence have to reference itself by other than itself? There’s only existence. Even if you were to say the spatial refers to the non-spatial, they’re both of existence. Existence is self-contained; it can’t ‘refer’ to non-existence because non-existence has no influence on existence. If it did, it would exist.

Muscular philosopher:Why would existence be self-referential?

What does existence have to reference itself by other than itself? There’s only existence. Even if you were to say the spatial refers to the non-spatial, they’re both of existence. Existence is self-contained; it can’t ‘refer’ to non-existence because non-existence has no influence on existence. If it did, it would exist.

Existence doesn’t reference itself. Motion in time is self-referential, as GR makes motion and time the same yet has them ‘co-existing’.

Motion in time.

Spacetime requires motion in time. Spacetime is wrong, the math doesn’t fit reality.

The reason Einstein let this go on is because he listened to Kurt Godel, who was wrong. Long story there.

As far as ‘non-existence’ goes, I’m not sure where you got that. Non-spatial is not non-existence.

As far as ‘non-existence’ goes, I’m not sure where you got that. Non-spatial is not non-existence.

I wasn’t saying that.

I’m saying non-spatial and spatial are both elements of existence. To what does existence refer? Itself.

Anthem:I don’t see the problem. Also, how is space not self-referential?

You don’t see the problem with ‘motion in time’? A change in time would require a second time dimension orthogonal to the first, on and on.

If a path in spacetime, or world-line, of a moving particle is parametized, meaning- (t,x(t),y(t),z(t)), we obtain the 4 velocity of the particle-

(1,dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt)The time axis component is 1, a dimensionless number. This has no meaning in expressing velocity or change. Velocity must be given units of velocity like meters per second or whatever units you want to use. So you have no motion in spacetime.

Motion in spacetime is impossible.

Time is the abstract inverse of change, no time axis exists.

What exists is, well, you know the deal about the non-spatial’s movement…

Space is not self-referential because it is the result of…well, same thing as the sentence above…

Ok your defination of 4 velocity is wrong

its not 1, dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt

its (cdt/ds dx/ds dy/ds dx/ds)

or (c, u)* (the lorentz factor)

where s is proper time. u is the classical 3 velocity and c is the speed of light.

the 4 velocity of a particle at rest with respect to the observer would be

(c, 0, 0, 0)

thus it has a velocity in the time direction. (this goes someway to expain why its E=mc^2 as the particle at rest still has energy related to its motion in time)

If you take the magnitude of the 4 velocity you will find its invariant; its always c. So we interpret this to mean particles that non-accelerating particles always move at c through spacetime. But depending on the relative speed or angle of the observer the 3-velocity will be different.

Its pretty obvious that things have motion in time. If they didn’t how does something get from one point in time to the next. Its so trival that things move in time. The only non-trival bit is that they have different 4-velocitys in time.

Your lack of understanding in relativity is creeping through muscular!!!

Maybe you should read some books on the subject before you slate it!

any doubts

Muscular philosopher:As far as ‘non-existence’ goes, I’m not sure where you got that. Non-spatial is not non-existence.

I wasn’t saying that.

I’m saying non-spatial and spatial are both elements of existence. To what does existence refer? Itself.

The spatial and non-spatial are part of singularity. I don’t see any self-reference there. Elements are in multiples of one, from a singularity. Spacetime isn’t, it’s defined as I said.

There’s the fallacy of motion in time, no existence in existence.

Muscular,

Did you read my last post?

I think I showed quite clearly what is ment by 4-velocity and hence what motion in time is. Theres no fallacy here. all motion in time means is that a particle at time t1 moves to t2 in spacetime. If there was no motion then the particle couldn’t be found at a later time. If there was no motion in time things would just disapear. Its so trivial.

If we take the non relatiistic limit we can just say motion in time is

dt/dt*c= c.

Muscular philosopher: Anthem:I don’t see the problem. Also, how is space not self-referential?

You don’t see the problem with ‘motion in time’? A change in time would require a second time dimension orthogonal to the first, on and on.

If a path in spacetime, or world-line, of a moving particle is parametized, meaning- (t,x(t),y(t),z(t)), we obtain the 4 velocity of the particle-

(1,dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt)The time axis component is 1, a dimensionless number. This has no meaning in expressing velocity or change. Velocity must be given units of velocity like meters per second or whatever units you want to use. So you have no motion in spacetime.

Motion in spacetime is impossible.

Time is the abstract inverse of change, no time axis exists.

What exists is, well, you know the deal about the non-spatial’s movement…

Space is not self-referential because it is the result of…well, same thing as the sentence above…

Ok your defination of 4 velocity is wrong

its not 1, dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt

its (cdt/ds dx/ds dy/ds dx/ds)

or (c, u)* (the lorentz factor)

where s is proper time. u is the classical 3 velocity and c is the speed of light.

the 4 velocity of a particle at rest with respect to the observer would be

(c, 0, 0, 0)

thus it has a velocity in the time direction. (this goes someway to expain why its E=mc^2 as the particle at rest still has energy related to its motion in time)

If you take the magnitude of the 4 velocity you will find its invariant; its always c. So we interpret this to mean particles that non-accelerating particles always move at c through spacetime. But depending on the relative speed or angle of the observer the 3-velocity will be different.

Its pretty obvious that things have motion in time. If they didn’t how does something get from one point in time to the next. Its so trival that things move in time. The only non-trival bit is that they have different 4-velocitys in time.

Your lack of understanding in relativity is creeping through muscular!!!

Maybe you should read some books on the subject before you slate it!

any doubts

No, you misunderstand-

v=dx/dt. This is saying that if an object moves over any distance d x, there is an elapsed time d t. Since time is defined as for denoting change (evolution), the equation for velocity over the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt, which is self-referential. You are dividing dt by itself.

dt/dt always equals one because the units cancel out. As far as velocity is concerned, this is meaningless.

So the t coordinate of an object cannot change because this change is self-referential.

Your ‘point’ you use is a misleading term. A point conveys a location in space, this corresponds to a line in spacetime (worldline).

An object exists along only one worldline, so it exists at only one ‘point’.

A ‘motion’ conveys a changing location in space. So in spacetime this corresponds to the worldline again. So we have point and motion meaning the same thing.

So motion is an object in spacetime, the verb is a noun.

So the typical relativist response in that time does not have to be used to describe motion. They parametertize motion in spacetime as a function of an arbitrary variable, thinking this gets rid of dt/dt=1.

They use variable p to express 4-velocity spacetime-

(dt/dP, dx/dP, dy/dP, dz/dP)

This is fine in calculus but not in physics. The coordinates of the points are numbers, nothing of physical relevance. The axes could represent anything, temperature to loudness, you name it.

Saying that one coordinate is a function of another does not express change or motion. Time is the dependant function of motion or change.

Motion and change are observed while time intervals are abstractly derived.

This why I say the mathematics of spacetime have no natural counterpart. Show me the natural counterpart.