The "Time" thread.

[Hans Blaster]

Wouldn't the photon just arrive at the time at the other person's position after however far away from them you were in the amount of light years/hours/minutes distance you were away from them? (cause the photon is always traveling at the speed of light, etc) regardless of whatever kind of temporary picture you could get of the other person that would change depending on if you were stationary or were in motion or not regardless?

Are you asking if the photon leaving now (t=0) would arrive at the time t that is the distance d divided by the speed of light? Because that's what I wrote (t=d/c).

I mean it doesn't change the speed at which the photon is traveling, or the distance, correct? So isn't that all you would actually need to determine when the photon would arrive there, regardless of whatever kind of temporary changing picture of the other person you were temporarily seeing?

The travel speed of a photon in a vacuum is *always* the same. It doesn't matter about the relative motion of the frames, but I deliberately chose to put both observers in the same frame. (No relative motion).

Isn't that changing picture that you could see just akin to nothing more that that of a temporary effect, or an optical illusion maybe? That would close or go away as you or the photon or whatever was traveling there maybe?

No.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

As explained the light is travelling along a null geodesic path which results in it being deflected in the gravitational field of the object.
Space-time around the object is curved and the light trajectory follows this geodesic path which is the shortest distance travelled.

In the case of the black hole, referring back to the maths in post #70.

View attachment 344348
If r₂ is the event horizon of a black hole then r₂ = 2MG/c², the denominator of the equation equals zero and the ratio of the proper time intervals dτ₁/dτ₂ becomes infinitely large.

This corresponds to a object stuck on the event horizon emitting photons away from the event horizon but taking an infinite amount of time to reach the external observer.

When an object or observer reaches a black hole’s event horizon and passes through it is curtains and can never reemerge.
This can be explained with a Minkowski space-time diagram.

The observer’s present time and location is where the observer’s past and future light cones meet.
The region inside the past light cone is where events have occurred in the observer’s past and events which will happen in the observer’s future fall inside the future light cone.

As the observer approaches the event horizon the light cones narrow due to gravitational time dilation and when it passes inside the event horizon at r = rₛ the time like and distance like terms in the Schwarzschild metric are interchanged.
Geometrically the light cones “tip over” and the singularity is in the observer’s future light cone and the event horizon is in the observer’s past light cone.

To travel back towards the event horizon requires the observer to travel back into his past which needless to say is impossible.

Thanks for that info.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[BeyondET]

No .. the human mind invented all the meanings behind all the terms you're using there. They're all our meanings. Its just what our minds do and have been doing all along .. and there's abundant evidence supporting that.
There's no objective evidence for the notion that any of those things were 'created' independently from what us humans have been doing in order to make sense of our own perceptions.

It's like nuclear fusion, time is a fabric of the universe. Humans discovered it, didn't create it and have lots of words for things in the physical universe. Rather the word is time or popcorn is used, its a physical event which can be altered like crossing an event horizon.

 

[Neogaia777]

Are you asking if the photon leaving now (t=0) would arrive at the time t that is the distance d divided by the speed of light? Because that's what I wrote (t=d/c).

Maybe we are in agreement here maybe, etc?

The travel speed of a photon in a vacuum is *always* the same. It doesn't matter about the relative motion of the frames, but I deliberately chose to put both observers in the same frame. (No relative motion).

But if you purposely chose to put both observers in the same frame (no relative motion), then the effect we are talking about here (between the man and the alien) doesn't even happen or come into place in the first place, does it? Or rather, doesn't it, etc?

And as a side note here, and it's something I don't right now currently know, and was wondering if you could just maybe tell me, etc? When we are talking about putting them in the same frame, are we talking about the same location? or can that maybe be two different locations maybe, etc?

Sorry to ask that, but it's just something I just don't right now currently know currently, and was just wondering if you could just maybe tell me real quick maybe, etc?

No.

Sorry, but I still disagree with you on this part, sorry. That effect is because the alien is at a distance, and it instantly changes when he decides to change direction, or is at rest, and the effect only applies temporarily to what he can see at a distance, etc, eliminate or close that distance, and I think the effect would no longer be there, or would disappear, or would start to go away, as you (or a/the photon) were going there, etc. So for that reason, I think it's a lot like a kaleidoscopic effect, or temporary optical illusion that is dependent on being at a distance, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe we are in agreement here maybe, etc?

I live in hope.

But if you purposely chose to put both observers in the same frame (no relative motion), then the effect we are talking about here (between the man and the alien) doesn't even happen or come into place in the first place, does it? Or rather, doesn't it, etc?

The effect of having different "now"s, yes, that goes away without relative motion. The two participants agree on the same "now" slice.

And as a side note here, and it's something I don't right now currently know, and was wondering if you could just maybe tell me, etc? When we are talking about putting them in the same frame, are we talking about the same location? or can that maybe be two different locations maybe, etc?

Not in the same place, but having the same motion (for an inertial frame, the kind I was writing of).

Sorry to ask that, but it's just something I just don't right now currently know currently, and was just wondering if you could just maybe tell me real quick maybe, etc?

Sorry, but I still disagree with you on this part, sorry. That effect is because the alien is at a distance, and it instantly changes when he decides to change direction, or is at rest, and the effect only applies temporarily to what he can see at a distance, etc, eliminate or close that distance, and I think the effect would no longer be there, or would disappear, or would start to go away, as you (or a/the photon) were going there, etc. So for that reason, I think it's a lot like a kaleidoscopic effect, or temporary optical illusion that is dependent on being at a distance, etc.

Not an optical illusion or kaleidoscope effect. The same effects would happen at smaller scales if they involved an experiment on a lab table. The times would get very tiny. Brian Greene chose to put the alien 10 billion light years away so that relative motion from a bicycle would result in differences of centuries in the respective "now"s.

(We are a ways from accelerating [non-inertial] reference frames. Let's stick with uniform motion for now.)

 

[Neogaia777]

As explained the light is travelling along a null geodesic path which results in it being deflected in the gravitational field of the object.
Space-time around the object is curved and the light trajectory follows this geodesic path which is the shortest distance travelled.

So the light that we are receiving, or that arrives at us, it's courses were not straight through spacetime?

Do the people who put together pictures of our galaxy, or our universe, compensate for this, or do they have ways for compensating for this?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

It's like nuclear fusion, time is a fabric of the universe.

Nope .. at best, time is a dimension we add to the description we have for what the universe is.

Humans discovered it, didn't create it and have lots of words for things in the physical universe.

Humans distilled data from observations and updated our knowledge of the universe with meanings from that data. There is abundant evidence supporting this notion.
The idea that it was always 'a something' existing independently from our minds, that we uncovered, is just an untestable belief, having no supporting objective evidence.

Rather the word is time or popcorn is used, its a physical event which can be altered like crossing an event horizon.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

 

[Neogaia777]

The same effects would happen at smaller scales if they involved an experiment on a lab table. The times would get very tiny.

I thank you for putting up with me, and my bothersome questions/natures/ways sometimes, and would ask you to put up with me just a little bit further, ok.

I also thank you for the rest of your responses in this post that I'm now going to reply to, etc, but am only going to reply to just only parts of it now, ok. The rest I found no disagreement with, and so see no real reason to reply to them, etc, but just wanted you to know that that is the reason I'm not replying to them, ok.

Yes, they would be very, very tiny, but whether it's at a large or small scale for either of these, but let's take the small one for now, etc, you once told me that light a foot away takes one nanosecond to reach you from whatever is one foot away from you, correct? Well, if you started moving toward whatever was one foot (or just pick any distance, etc) away from you, do you think this other effect would ever change the time you arrive at that place one foot away from you ever, etc? Or how about 100 feet, etc, 100 nanoseconds for the light to reach you, etc, and let's say the moment you started moving towards that position, you could see 1-10 nanoseconds toward that positions future, but only from your current picture that was 100 nanoseconds old in that other positions past/old/away from you, etc. Do you ever think that would change the time that you would ever arrive there ever? Or do you ever think it would change when you would arrive there in that other position's "now" there ever? Or would that temporary picture or effect just begin to become less and less as you were moving towards it maybe, etc? To where when you got there, it didn't ever change the time that you arrived, or would arrive there ever, etc, but only slightly altered what you could see on your way there temporarily maybe ever, etc?

Yes? No?

Brian Greene chose to put the alien 10 billion light years away so that relative motion from a bicycle would result in differences of centuries in the respective "now"s.

Yes, I can most definitely see why he did that, etc. Much, much easier to understand or see this effect at those distances, as it's much, much more drastic/pronounced/profound, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[BeyondET]

Nope .. at best, time is a dimension we add to the description we have for what the universe is.

Yes the description is something that is happening and the dimension isn't infinite thus time.

Humans distilled data from observations and updated our knowledge of the universe with meanings from that data. There is abundant evidence supporting this notion.

Got any examples?

The idea that it was always 'a something' existing independently from our minds, that we uncovered, is just an untestable belief, having no supporting objective evidence.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

No you are complete mind body and soul. Except for the 10,000 species or so that humans host and some pertain to just the humanbody other than your mind.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't know if this needs to be said or not again, but there may still be some people on here still that still don't know this yet, etc.

Here it is:

The nearest star system to us is four light years away, right? Alpha Centauri, correct? Well, let's use that here, but it could also be for any and all distances everywhere, etc.

What we are right now seeing of Alpha Centauri is 4 years old, etc. If we to try and travel there at any kind of speed, but especially with the faster speeds, etc, and if we were to have or mount a camera on top of our theoretical spaceship always pointed at or always recording Alpha Centauri the whole way, etc, then we would see pictures or images from there going between 1 and 2 times the normal passage of time or recording speed on our way there the whole way, etc. Or, at least, 1 to 2 times normal recording speed if the speed of light was as fast as we could go, or was our top speed, etc.

But let's say we were going to be traveling there at the speed of light. On our way there, or as we started heading there, etc, we would start seeing 8 years worth of images over our four years worth of travel time, etc, or we would start seeing images start being recorded by our camera at 2 times normal speed over our four years of travel time, or our recording time, etc. And this is because you started out already seeing it four years in the past when you originally set out, but as you were going to be going there at the speed of light, etc, you also have to add another four years worth of images into what you or your camera would also have to be seeing or recording during that time, etc.

So that at the end of your journey there, etc, you'd arrive at it four years from when you originally set out, but 8 years after what you could originally see of it from when you originally first left earth in the first place, etc.

If you were to turn your camera back around back at earth at any time during that journey, or travel time, etc, you would see time on earth freeze, or stay totally still while you were traveling at the speed of light away from there temporarily, etc. But when you finally arrived at Alpha Centauri, and you turned your camera back at earth once you were stopped at Alpha Centauri, etc, you'd see earth back in the normal flow rate of time again, but you'd see it four years in the past, just like how you were originally seeing Alpha Centauri when you set out towards it from earth originally, etc. And on your return trip back to earth from Alpha Centauri, it would then just be a repeat that would also be a reverse of what you just did, or what just happened with you and your camera originally from when you first originally left earth or set out for Alpha Centauri, etc.

Now, what if you could way exceed the speed of light, etc? What if the whole trip only took you ten minutes, etc? In that case, it still doesn't change a thing, and nothings now still ever changes, just like in the previous example, etc. On your way there, it would be 4 years 10 minutes worth of images in the space of ten minutes, still be seing earth 4 years minus ten minutes in the past (and time going back to flowing normally for it (earth) once you arrived at Alpha Centauri and stopped and pointed your camera back at earth from Alpha Centauri, etc) and in your return trip back to earth, or home, etc, 4 years 20 minutes worth of images from earth in the space of ten minutes still, just like when you originally left earth for Alpha Centauri, etc. (Or four years plus the ten minutes travel there and however much time you chose to spend at Alpha Centauri before heading back, etc)

If you could go faster than the speed of light though, it's interesting to note that you could actually record or witness things going backward, or in reverse at a certain rate temporarily as you were leaving it, or were moving away from it, etc, and wouldn't that be a sight to see, etc. It would happen at least until you stopped and then things would go back to appearing to be flowing normally for them again, but it would be well into that locations (earth's or Alpha Centauri's) past again at that point, until you went back there again, and then it would catch back up to the present "now" again at that point, etc.

But notice that nothings now ever changes, and can't ever change, or ever be any different with any if this, etc. No matter how fast or slow you go, all locations are still always at the same equal age/equal now equally everywhere, etc. And traveling or going or sending anything there, or whatever, etc, traveling there, etc, never ever changes any of that/this ever at all ever by any means for any of these anywhere, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't know if this needs to be said or not again, but there may still be some people on here still that still don't know this yet, etc.

Here it is:

The nearest star system to us is four light years away, right? Alpha Centauri, correct? Well, let's use that here, but it could also be for any and all distances everywhere, etc.

What we are right now seeing of Alpha Centauri is 4 years old, etc. If we to try and travel there at any kind of speed, but especially with the faster speeds, etc, and if we were to have or mount a camera on top of our theoretical spaceship always pointed at or always recording Alpha Centauri the whole way, etc, then we would see pictures or images from there going between 1 and 2 times the normal passage of time or recording speed on our way there the whole way, etc. Or, at least, 1 to 2 times normal recording speed if the speed of light was as fast as we could go, or was our top speed, etc.

But let's say we were going to be traveling there at the speed of light. On our way there, or as we started heading there, etc, we would start seeing 8 years worth of images over our four years worth of travel time, etc, or we would start seeing images start being recorded by our camera at 2 times normal speed over our four years of travel time, or our recording time, etc. And this is because you started out already seeing it four years in the past when you originally set out, but as you were going to be going there at the speed of light, etc, you also have to add another four years worth of images into what you or your camera would also have to be seeing or recording during that time, etc.

So that at the end of your journey there, etc, you'd arrive at it four years from when you originally set out, but 8 years after what you could originally see of it from when you originally first left earth in the first place, etc.

If you were to turn your camera back around back at earth at any time during that journey, or travel time, etc, you would see time on earth freeze, or stay totally still while you were traveling at the speed of light away from there temporarily, etc. But when you finally arrived at Alpha Centauri, and you turned your camera back at earth once you were stopped at Alpha Centauri, etc, you'd see earth back in the normal flow rate of time again, but you'd see it four years in the past, just like how you were originally seeing Alpha Centauri when you set out towards it from earth originally, etc. And on your return trip back to earth from Alpha Centauri, it would then just be a repeat that would also be a reverse of what you just did, or what just happened with you and your camera originally from when you first originally left earth or set out for Alpha Centauri, etc.

Now, what if you could way exceed the speed of light, etc? What if the whole trip only took you ten minutes, etc? In that case, it still doesn't change a thing, and nothings now still ever changes, just like in the previous example, etc. On your way there, it would still be 8 years worth of images in the space of ten minutes, still be seing earth 4 years minus ten minutes in the past and time going back to flowing normally for it (earth) once you arrived at Alpha Centauri and stopped and pointed your camera back at earth from Alpha Centauri, etc, and in your return trip back to earth, or home, etc, 8 years worth of images from earth in the space of ten minutes still, just like when you originally left earth for Alpha Centauri, etc.

If you could go faster than the speed of light though, it's interesting to note that you could actually record or witness things going backward, or in reverse at a certain rate temporarily as you were leaving it, or were moving away from it, etc, and wouldn't that be a sight to see, etc. It would happen at least until you stopped and then things would go back to appearing to be flowing normally for them again, but it would be well into that locations past at that point, until you went back there again, and then it would catch back up to the present "now" again, etc.

But notice that nothings now ever changes, and can't ever change, or ever be any different with any if this, etc. No matter how fast or slow you go, all locations are still always at the same equal age/equal now equally everywhere, etc. And traveling or going or sending anything there, or whatever, etc, traveling there, etc, never ever changes any of that/this ever at all ever by any means for any of these anywhere, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

And none of this ever changes, whether it's 4 light years, or 4 billion, or you go there at or under light speed, or very, very much more faster than the speed of light, etc.

None of this ever changes, etc, and nobody or nothing's now ever changes no matter what, etc. You can't time travel, and nothing can ever get or go or arrive anywhere in anything's future, or anything's past ever, etc, but only ever in it's "now" only no matter what, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't know if this needs to be said or not again, but there may still be some people on here still that still don't know this yet, etc.

Here it is:

The nearest star system to us is four light years away, right? Alpha Centauri, correct? Well, let's use that here, but it could also be for any and all distances everywhere, etc.

What we are right now seeing of Alpha Centauri is 4 years old, etc. If we to try and travel there at any kind of speed, but especially with the faster speeds, etc, and if we were to have or mount a camera on top of our theoretical spaceship always pointed at or always recording Alpha Centauri the whole way, etc, then we would see pictures or images from there going between 1 and 2 times the normal passage of time or recording speed on our way there the whole way, etc. Or, at least, 1 to 2 times normal recording speed if the speed of light was as fast as we could go, or was our top speed, etc.

But let's say we were going to be traveling there at the speed of light. On our way there, or as we started heading there, etc, we would start seeing 8 years worth of images over our four years worth of travel time, etc, or we would start seeing images start being recorded by our camera at 2 times normal speed over our four years of travel time, or our recording time, etc. And this is because you started out already seeing it four years in the past when you originally set out, but as you were going to be going there at the speed of light, etc, you also have to add another four years worth of images into what you or your camera would also have to be seeing or recording during that time, etc.

So that at the end of your journey there, etc, you'd arrive at it four years from when you originally set out, but 8 years after what you could originally see of it from when you originally first left earth in the first place, etc.

If you were to turn your camera back around back at earth at any time during that journey, or travel time, etc, you would see time on earth freeze, or stay totally still while you were traveling at the speed of light away from there temporarily, etc. But when you finally arrived at Alpha Centauri, and you turned your camera back at earth once you were stopped at Alpha Centauri, etc, you'd see earth back in the normal flow rate of time again, but you'd see it four years in the past, just like how you were originally seeing Alpha Centauri when you set out towards it from earth originally, etc. And on your return trip back to earth from Alpha Centauri, it would then just be a repeat that would also be a reverse of what you just did, or what just happened with you and your camera originally from when you first originally left earth or set out for Alpha Centauri, etc.

Now, what if you could way exceed the speed of light, etc? What if the whole trip only took you ten minutes, etc? In that case, it still doesn't change a thing, and nothings now still ever changes, just like in the previous example, etc. On your way there, it would be 4 years 10 minutes worth of images in the space of ten minutes, still be seing earth 4 years minus ten minutes in the past (and time going back to flowing normally for it (earth) once you arrived at Alpha Centauri and stopped and pointed your camera back at earth from Alpha Centauri, etc) and in your return trip back to earth, or home, etc, 4 years 20 minutes worth of images from earth in the space of ten minutes still, just like when you originally left earth for Alpha Centauri, etc. (Or four years plus the ten minutes travel there and however much time you chose to spend at Alpha Centauri before heading back, etc)

If you could go faster than the speed of light though, it's interesting to note that you could actually record or witness things going backward, or in reverse at a certain rate temporarily as you were leaving it, or were moving away from it, etc, and wouldn't that be a sight to see, etc. It would happen at least until you stopped and then things would go back to appearing to be flowing normally for them again, but it would be well into that locations (earth's or Alpha Centauri's) past again at that point, until you went back there again, and then it would catch back up to the present "now" again at that point, etc.

But notice that nothings now ever changes, and can't ever change, or ever be any different with any if this, etc. No matter how fast or slow you go, all locations are still always at the same equal age/equal now equally everywhere, etc. And traveling or going or sending anything there, or whatever, etc, traveling there, etc, never ever changes any of that/this ever at all ever by any means for any of these anywhere, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

And none of this ever changes, whether it's 4 light years, or 4 billion, or you go there at or under light speed, or very, very much more faster than the speed of light, etc.

None of this ever changes, etc, and nobody or nothing's now ever changes no matter what, etc. You can't time travel, and nothing can ever get or go or arrive anywhere in anything's future, or anything's past ever, etc, but only ever in it's "now" only no matter what, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

50% light speed, 12 years worth of images in 8 years for what's in front of you, or where you are going at/heading toward (earth or Alpha Centauri) 1.5 times camera recording speed for what you are going at/heading toward. 1/2 speed for where you left or what's behind you (until you stop, etc) (earth or Alpha Centauri).

25% light speed, 20 years worth of images in 16 years for what's in front of you, or where you are going at/heading toward (earth or Alpha Centauri) 1.25 times camera recording speed for what you are going at/heading toward. 3/4 speed for where you left or what's behind you (until you stop, etc) (earth or Alpha Centauri).

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

There could be beings that could go anywhere in this universe in an instant possibly, but could still be locked into this time maybe, etc?

But that is all I will say about that in this thread here for now, etc.

Don't want to derail it or sidetrack it, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thank you for putting up with me, and my bothersome questions/natures/ways sometimes, and would ask you to put up with me just a little bit further, ok.

I also thank you for the rest of your responses in this post that I'm now going to reply to, etc, but am only going to reply to just only parts of it now, ok. The rest I found no disagreement with, and so see no real reason to reply to them, etc, but just wanted you to know that that is the reason I'm not replying to them, ok.

OK.

Yes, they would be very, very tiny, but whether it's at a large or small scale for either of these, but let's take the small one for now, etc, you once told me that light a foot away takes one nanosecond to reach you from whatever is one foot away from you, correct? Well, if you started moving toward whatever was one foot (or just pick any distance, etc) away from you, do you think this other effect would ever change the time you arrive at that place one foot away from you ever, etc? Or how about 100 feet, etc, 100 nanoseconds for the light to reach you, etc, and let's say the moment you started moving towards that position, you could see 1-10 nanoseconds toward that positions future, but only from your current picture that was 100 nanoseconds old in that other positions past/old/away from you, etc.

If we just do a rough calculation based on Brian Greene's caclulation but for 100 feet (or 100 light-nanoseconds). The shift in the definitions of "now" for the slow (bicycle) motion in the original example was about 2 parts per million. For walking it would be similar (let's make it 1 ppm), so the difference in "now"s at 100 feet apart and walking would be somewhere around 200 ns/1000000, or about 200 fs. That is a very short time and only refers to the difference in the definition of "now".

Do you ever think that would change the time that you would ever arrive there ever? Or do you ever think it would change when you would arrive there in that other position's "now" there ever? Or would that temporary picture or effect just begin to become less and less as you were moving towards it maybe, etc? To where when you got there, it didn't ever change the time that you arrived, or would arrive there ever, etc, but only slightly altered what you could see on your way there temporarily maybe ever, etc?

As the two objects got closer, the "now" difference would get smaller.

Yes? No?


Yes, I can most definitely see why he did that, etc. Much, much easier to understand or see this effect at those distances, as it's much, much more drastic/pronounced/profound, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

@Neogaia777:

You've gone all science-fictiony (ie: your posts #90-92) .. starting out from the belief that events from the past and future exist, (ie: are real). See my post #59 for my comments on that.

The second belief I think you've adopted, is that time either exists independently from, (or is totally attached to?), the universe and is totally independent from our perceptions. Either way, those are untestable beliefs. Its more realistic to think of time as a dimension we associate with our model of the universe. A dimension of a model is what an experimenter intends to measure, so its the experimenter's mind making that choice, and not something which is, in any way, independent from that mind. Its a natural choice for us humans to do that, because we need our concept of time in order to make sense of our observations/perceptions which, in this case, end up being what we label: 'the Universe'.

Any reality of your hypothetical observations, is based on both of those beliefs. It is thus purely speculative.

 

[eleos1954]

So death or aging is just an illusion of a period of time? My body seems to tell me differently.

If planet earth was non existent ... what time is it? If man is non extent what time is it? Time can not be measured without our existence as there is nothing to comprehend it.

Our conception of time is reliant on earth ... anything outside of that represents eternity. Planet earth was not "ground zero" for time in relationship to the universe and we shouldn't apply our conception of time to it (the universe).

To think that “we age” is an illusion in itself because it relies on time. Age is a currency of time, and time is something that humans made up (or God created - depends on what you believe). Before humans existed, the concept of time didn’t exist.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes the description is something that is happening and the dimension isn't infinite thus time.

I think we might be using the term 'dimension' in different senses here(?)
When I say 'dimension', I mean a single axis of a graph.

Got any examples?

Sure .. any instance of objective testing which became include in the various standard (mainstream) universal models.

No you are complete mind body and soul. Except for the 10,000 species or so that humans host and some pertain to just the humanbody other than your mind.

Well thank you for your idea .. but you'll find that the 'other species humans host' there, is a model you observably just described using your mind.
Please provide some other way of achieving that goal independently from your mind .. after all , that's what 'existing independently from our minds' means doesn't it?

 

[BeyondET]

If planet earth was non existent ... what time is it? If man is non extent what time is it? Time can not be measured without our existence as there is nothing to comprehend it.

That's like saying nuclear fusion can't happen without mankind. Can you comprehend how the first atom appeared. The stuff that started it all? Certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist because humans can't comprehend.

Our conception of time is reliant on earth ... anything outside of that represents eternity. Planet earth was not "ground zero" for time in relationship to the universe and we shouldn't apply our conception of time to it (the universe).

I agree earth isn't ground zero for 24 hours a day. Everything in the universe is in its own time bubble in relation to light.

To think that “we age” is an illusion in itself because it relies on time. Age is a currency of time, and time is something that humans made up (or God created - depends on what you believe). Before humans existed, the concept of time didn’t exist.

If you believe in God can't He comprehend time or just humans?

 

[BeyondET]

I think we might be using the term 'dimension' in different senses here(?)
When I say 'dimension', I mean a single axis of a graph.

Do you have a example of one dimensional. Even a straight line drawn in ink on paper has more than one dimension. The raised ink on the paper has height.

Sure .. any instance of objective testing which became include in the various standard (mainstream) universal models.

So has mainstream models tested when or where the first atoms became to kick things off?.

Well thank you for your idea .. but you'll find that the 'other species humans host' there, is a model you observably just described using your mind.
Please provide some other way of achieving that goal independently from your mind .. after all , that's what 'existing independently from our minds' means doesn't it?

Ok life in your body is totally independent of your mind. As a matter of fact the first thing to go is the brain cells, flesh and bone can live on for days or weeks.

 

[SelfSim]

Do you have a example of one dimensional. Even a straight line drawn in ink on paper has more than one dimension. The raised ink on the paper has height.

I don't understand the relevance of your point there?
The thread is about time. There are 3+1 dimensions for spacetime included in our universe models.

So has mainstream models tested when or where the first atoms became to kick things off?.

Different topic .. for a different thread.

Ok life in your body is totally independent of your mind. As a matter of fact the first thing to go is the brain cells, flesh and bone can live on for days or weeks.

My mind/brain is totally dependent on my body.
What does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway?