A really big question

[quintessentone]

Here's another thought that may very well confound you further. As you
mentioned;

In the beginning- time

God created- an interaction with-mind

The Heavens- space

and the Earth- matter

That is so in our face.

In the beginning - time...really? It seems time may just be an illusion that we manifest on our level of existence, it seems time may not exist on the quantum level. Perhaps this is where the real answer lies, so not in our face...but time is passing quickly as I wait for the electrician to do home upgrades.

---

"The question of whether time truly exists is a subject of intense debate in physics and philosophy, with no single consensus. 

Scientific and Physical Perspectives In classical and relativistic physics, time is treated as a real, measurable dimension intertwined with space as spacetime.  Einstein’s theory of relativity demonstrates that time is relative, stretching or contracting based on speed and gravity, which has been confirmed by experiments like atomic clocks and GPS satellites. However, some theoretical physicists, such as Carlo Rovelli, argue that time may be an emergent property rather than a fundamental one, suggesting that at the quantum level, the universe might be timeless. 

Philosophical and Conceptual Views Many philosophers and scientists view time as a human construct or a mental framework used to sequence events and measure change.  From this viewpoint, the "flow" of time is an illusion created by consciousness and memory, while the "block universe" theory posits that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. Without observers or physical change, some argue that time becomes irrelevant or non-existent, serving only as a useful model for understanding causality and entropy. 

Conclusion While time is undeniably real in its effects—governing causality, aging, and physical laws—its fundamental nature remains disputed.  It is likely a real phenomenon as a dimension of the universe, but the perception of a flowing, linear timeline may be an emergent illusion rather than a basic feature of reality. " (LLM)

[Randyvine]

In the beginning - time...really? It seems time may just be an illusion that we manifest on our level of existence, it seems time may not exist on the quantum level. Perhaps this is where the real answer lies, so not in our face...but time is passing quickly as I wait for the electrician to do home upgrades.

---

"The question of whether time truly exists is a subject of intense debate in physics and philosophy, with no single consensus. 

Scientific and Physical Perspectives In classical and relativistic physics, time is treated as a real, measurable dimension intertwined with space as spacetime.  Einstein’s theory of relativity demonstrates that time is relative, stretching or contracting based on speed and gravity, which has been confirmed by experiments like atomic clocks and GPS satellites. However, some theoretical physicists, such as Carlo Rovelli, argue that time may be an emergent property rather than a fundamental one, suggesting that at the quantum level, the universe might be timeless. 

Philosophical and Conceptual Views Many philosophers and scientists view time as a human construct or a mental framework used to sequence events and measure change.  From this viewpoint, the "flow" of time is an illusion created by consciousness and memory, while the "block universe" theory posits that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. Without observers or physical change, some argue that time becomes irrelevant or non-existent, serving only as a useful model for understanding causality and entropy. 

Conclusion While time is undeniably real in its effects—governing causality, aging, and physical laws—its fundamental nature remains disputed.  It is likely a real phenomenon as a dimension of the universe, but the perception of a flowing, linear timeline may be an emergent illusion rather than a basic feature of reality. " (LLM)

With everything in a state of decay aren't the degrees of decay measured by time?
If time allows us to understand, know, measure effects in increments over time then
I would argue for the existence of time as the progression towards an end maybe.

If there is a time for peace and a time for war. I think time is a fact because the
movement in the heavens declares it to be. Only if everything in the universe
were frozon in place. Time would also be stationary I would think. So without
animation everything is of course deader than a doornail. Time gives me a 
birthday every year. Lately only to remind of the decay but it was once a
little fun. None of that happens without time.

[Byrd]

With everything in a state of decay aren't the degrees of decay measured by time?
If time allows us to understand, know, measure effects in increments over time then
I would argue for the existence of time as the progression towards an end maybe.

If there is a time for peace and a time for war. I think time is a fact because the
movement in the heavens declares it to be. Only if everything in the universe
were frozon in place. Time would also be stationary I would think. So without
animation everything is of course deader than a doornail. Time gives me a 
birthday every year. Lately only to remind of the decay but it was once a
little fun. None of that happens without time.

Not everything is in a state of decay.  A state of change, yes, but if everything was in a state of decay we couldn't make salt water (because that involves adding salt to water and inducing something that is more than what was there originally.)  We couldn't make coffee or grow from fertilized egg to adult.  Supernovas couldn't produce new elements.  You couldn't combine carbon atoms into Bucky Balls because that's building something new and not breaking things down.

Even shifts so tiny we can't measure them cause changes that show up later (basic Chaos theory.)

[BeyondKnowledge]

Time is the property of the universe that keeps everything from happing in a single instant. It was around long before humans and will be around long after them. 

Time doesn't care if you believe it exists.

[Randyvine]

Not everything is in a state of decay.  A state of change, yes, but if everything was in a state of decay we couldn't make salt water (because that involves adding salt to water and inducing something that is more than what was there originally.)  We couldn't make coffee or grow from fertilized egg to adult.  Supernovas couldn't produce new elements.  You couldn't combine carbon atoms into Bucky Balls because that's building something new and not breaking things down.

Even shifts so tiny we can't measure them cause changes that show up later (basic Chaos theory.)

Byrd so nice to have you post here in. I may have been shooting from the hip 
on this one. My knowledge limited to what I've read thru many years may yield
out dated information. But to push back mildly would you agree the Earth is in
a state of decay? The universe?

And would you agree that without time there would be no way to measure 
the degrees of decay for all that is breaking down?

[chr0naut]

Sure. But my metre is still longer than the fast guy's metre.

It may appear longer to you, but it isn't physically longer.

How far does a photon travel between (1) the forepart of a large relativistically moving object and your detector compared with (2) a photon from the rear end of the same object, and what does that tell us about the above definintion?

Are you, the observer and your detectors, travelling parallel and at the same relativistic speed as what you are observing? Then you are in the same reference frame and the metre will appear to be a metre, and there will be no Lorentz contraction apparent, nor any Terrell distortion apparent.

But if the object is moving at relativistic speed past you, and you are at a comparative standstill, then there will be Lorentz contraction apparent and Terrell distortion apparent.

I remember our lecturer trying to explain Terrell rotation to our class; it was a bit counterintuitive to say the least. It should comfort both of us to know this is a subject that tied some of the best minds of humanity into knots for more than fifty years; Lorentz himself never properly grasped it.

Terrell distortion occurs because of the amount of Lorentz contraction differs for different photon paths. Kind of like moving a fish-eye lens over some graph paper. The distortion at the edges of the lens is quite different to the distortion in the center of the lens, and as you move the lens, the optical 'ball' of the image produced appears to rotate. But in truth, the underlying graph remains with the same dimensions, only the apparent image looks like it is rotating as the lens is moved.
 

Nietzsche called philosophy the gay science, remember?

How self effacing of him.

But in truth, he called it "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft", because he was German. That also translates into 'the joyful science'. He wasn't suggesting that it was homosexual.

Better not tell our MAGA friends or they’ll be lynching philosophers along with scientists.
 

I think it is far more likely that they would puzzle over it, with dull incomprehension.

Because they are professional truth-fudgers and double-talkers. They can’t help it, poor fellows. Theology is an attempt at the intellectual study of something that is acknowledged to be rationally incomprehensible

Who are saying that? The ones who don't comprehend such things are stating that they don't comprehend comprehend such things? - Surely argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy and hardly robust reasoning.

, so it would be foolish to expect either logical rigour or fidelity to empirical evidence from a theologian.

In their different ways, philosophers and scientists each make honest efforts to discover the truth and explain it; theologians try to make reality conform to a predetermined set of beliefs.

They all make assumptions about things they cannot hope to fully conceive or prove, and build a 'house of cards' of hierarchical 'knowledge' based upon the vapor of very many unknowns.

For example, I am trying to discover exactly what spatiotemporal dimensions are, and give clear mathematical definition compliant with what we know about the nature of 'the arrow of time', vector descriptions, flexible spacetime, at least 11 dimensions (mathematically apparent dimensions relevant to observed physics) and the 'curled up at the Planck scale' non-reasoning excuse for why we can't see 7 of the dimensions.

These things are at the very basis of all physics and measurement, and underlie all reality, and yet we have so many conflicting definitions, and with no integrated or rigorous framework for them.

[quintessentone]

It may appear longer to you, but it isn't physically longer.


Are you, the observer and your detectors, travelling parallel and at the same relativistic speed as what you are observing? Then you are in the same reference frame and the metre will appear to be a metre, and there will be no Lorentz contraction apparent, nor any Terrell distortion apparent.

But if the object is moving at relativistic speed past you, and you are at a comparative standstill, then there will be Lorentz contraction apparent and Terrell distortion apparent.


Terrell distortion occurs because of the amount of Lorentz contraction differs for different photon paths. Kind of like moving a fish-eye lens over some graph paper. The distortion at the edges of the lens is quite different to the distortion in the center of the lens, and as you move the lens, the optical 'ball' of the image produced appears to rotate. But in truth, the underlying graph remains with the same dimensions, only the apparent image looks like it is rotating as the lens is moved.
 

How self effacing of him.

But in truth, he called it "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft", because he was German. That also translates into 'the joyful science'. He wasn't suggesting that it was homosexual.


I think it is far more likely that they would puzzle over it, with dull incomprehension.


Who are saying that? The ones who don't comprehend such things are stating that they don't comprehend comprehend such things? - Surely argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy and hardly robust reasoning.


They all make assumptions about things they cannot hope to fully conceive or prove, and build a 'house of cards' of hierarchical 'knowledge' based upon the vapor of very many unknowns.

For example, I am trying to discover exactly what spatiotemporal dimensions are, and give clear mathematical definition compliant with what we know about the nature of 'the arrow of time', vector descriptions, flexible spacetime, at least 11 dimensions (mathematically apparent dimensions relevant to observed physics) and the 'curled up at the Planck scale' non-reasoning excuse for why we can't see 7 of the dimensions.

These things are at the very basis of all physics and measurement, and underlie all reality, and yet we have so many conflicting definitions, and with no integrated or rigorous framework for them.

More guesses, more theories...we do no5 know reality outside of our perceived state.

[quintessentone]

Isn't the big question, is how you are getting fucked?

[Astyanax]

It may appear longer to you, but it isn't physically longer.

I beg to differ. No frame of reference is privileged – which means you can’t say it only appears longer (or shorter) just because that's how it appears to an observer in some given FoR.
 

Are you, the observer and your detectors, travelling parallel and at the same relativistic speed as what you are observing?

No. We are considering general cases here.
 

But in truth, the underlying graph remains with the same dimensions, only the apparent image looks like it is rotating as the lens is moved.

The underlying graph? There are no privileged frames of reference.
 

He wasn't suggesting that it was homosexual.

Obviously. It was a j-o-k-e. Don’t you have them in New Zealand?
 

Who are saying that? The ones who don't comprehend such things are stating that they don't comprehend comprehend such things? - Surely argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy and hardly robust reasoning.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here, but since it isn’t strictly on topic I’ll let it rest. Philosophy clearly isn’t your cup of tea, though I remind you, with Mr Knopfler’s endorsement, that if

Philosophy is useless,
Theology is worse.
 

These things are at the very basis of all physics and measurement

Only if you embrace string theory.
 

They all make assumptions about things they cannot hope to fully conceive or prove, and build a 'house of cards' of hierarchical 'knowledge' based upon the vapor of very many unknowns.

When you find an example of any type or style of human thought that does not manifest these features, let me know.

A bit disappointing, your reply – I was hoping for something less pedantic and more sophisticated. Ah well, courses for horses, as they don’t say but should.

[Astyanax]

Isn't the big question, is how you are getting fucked?

Perhaps that’s a different big question. We’re just talking about size here.