Time From a Physics Standpoint is an Illusion

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your memories are physical structures within your brain that you can internally observe now.

Yes, I know. I was asking what they represent.

Time is useful for measurement, but does not cause the actual movement.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that it does.

Time does not cause anything to move, energy does. Time is used for the measurement of movement. I recommend googling energy.

Not energy, force. I know what energy is.

I personally can observe when many objects move; I would think others can too.

Yes, I'm asking you to consider how you know it is movement; i.e. the criteria.

A would get there before B because it would presumably have greater energy.

Not sufficient; one object could have more kinetic energy than the other, but still be travelling more slowly. One object gets there first because it moves faster.

The use of the word before is just semantics.

If it's just semantics, does that mean there's no need to hurry to scoop up a child about to be run over - getting there before the car is just a matter of semantics?

 

[Ohj1n37]

The article is suggesting that scientifically, time does not exist. You have stated you believe that. What exactly are you disagreeing with then?

It may be the wording, but the title suggests that time is some sort of expanse of reality by stating everything is happening now. The article also states, "The laws of physics are symmetric ultimately meaning that time could have easily moved in a backward direction as it does forward." To me this sounds like the article is suggesting that time exists as some entity that can "flow". I do not believe the article is referring to what I am suggesting, that time does not exist, neither to what you have stated in this thread.

I was asking what they represent.

Memories are structures within your brain, that you can access, to recall what you have previously experienced. The structures were created when you experienced them, and exist with you now. I do not see where you are trying to go with this. Are you suggesting that you are some how traveling to the past when remember something?

I don't recall anyone suggesting that it does.

I believe you are taking my statement out of context. I was addressing the following statement.

It seems to me that if you want to do anything useful with movement (i.e. a continuing spatial displacement) you need a concept - implicit or explicit - of time.

Time is useful for measurement, but does not cause the actual movement. "Time" recorded from clocks are useful as reference points because they change at a set pace.

I am assuming by continuing spatial displacement you were referring to the actual movement of objects, otherwise you are talking about creating mathematical models in which case time(rate of change) as a measurement is in fact needed. That is why I included the sentence about time recorded from clocks as a reference point.

Yes, I'm asking you to consider how you know it is movement; i.e. the criteria.

I can see myself moving right now. I believe movement to be a fundamental property of reality, not the math that is used to measure it. Another way of saying this is, I do not think math controls anything, but is a good way to measure things.

Not sufficient; one object could have more kinetic energy than the other, but still be travelling more slowly. One object gets there first because it moves faster.

Again that seems to be semantics. Read my reply just above this one.

If it's just semantics, does that mean there's no need to hurry to scoop up a child about to be run over - getting there before the car is just a matter of semantics?

Your statement appears to be suggesting that I do not care about children or at the very least is trying to create emotional tension. I believe it is very inconsiderate to do either.

If a child was about to be run over by car I would assume your adrenaline would kick in and you would attempt to move in a way that you would get to said child before the car.

The use of the word before is semantics because it is used to convey that you reached the point in space where the child was and the car was not yet at that point.

Again when it comes to physics it is what I have been stating the entire time, matter moves, movement causes change, and we humans perceive that change as the passage of time.

 

[sjastro]

In another thread the Energy-Time uncertainty principle ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π was discussed.
In this case ΔE can be the uncertainty in measuring the energy released in radioactive decay which occurs in time interval Δt.
By measuring a large sample size of decaying of stationary radioactive nuclei we obtain the Breit-Wigner distribution.

Here Γ is the FWHM and ΔE = Γ/2 = h/4πΔt.
In this case Δt is the half life for radioactive decay.

So what can be inferred from this.
Firstly it is clearly obvious time is not a made up parameter as there is a physical relationship between the energy released in radioactive decay and half life.
Secondly since the radioactive nuclei are stationary it eliminates the idea that "motion" plays any role.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Memories are structures within your brain, that you can access, to recall what you have previously experienced. The structures were created when you experienced them, and exist with you now. I do not see where you are trying to go with this. Are you suggesting that you are some how traveling to the past when remember something?

No, I'm not suggesting time travel. I was wondering how you'd avoid a reference to time; but you didn't: "...recall what you have previously experienced...". I guess it's just semantics, right?

Again that seems to be semantics.

No, it's physics.

Your statement appears to be suggesting that I do not care about children or at the very least is trying to create emotional tension. I believe it is very inconsiderate to do either.

Spare me the passive-agressive victimhood, it's not about you, it's about your claim. A hypothetical, a thought experiment, with emotional & moral bite, like the trolley problems.

If a child was about to be run over by car I would assume your adrenaline would kick in and you would attempt to move in a way that you would get to said child before the car.

The use of the word before is semantics because it is used to convey that you reached the point in space where the child was and the car was not yet at that point.

Ah, OK - so we can carry on using the concept of time just as long as we remember it's just semantics.

Again when it comes to physics it is what I have been stating the entire time, matter moves, movement causes change, and we humans perceive that change as the time.

And we perceive the change in position as space. You're right, it's all just semantics

 

[Ohj1n37]

Firstly it is clearly obvious time is not a made up parameter as there is a physical relationship between the energy released in radioactive decay and half life.

As stated previously I am not any kind of mathematician or scientist, but what it appears you are referring to are mathematical measurements used to create a mathematical model of something that is actually happening.

By measuring a large sample size of decaying of stationary radioactive nuclei we obtain the Breit-Wigner distribution.

Secondly since the radioactive nuclei are stationary it eliminates the idea that "motion" plays any role.

I am pretty sure the process of radiation is essentially matter moving through space.

Google the phrase, define radioactivity, here is what it says, "the emission of ionizing radiation or particles caused by the spontaneous disintegration of atomic nuclei."

I would guess that the particles that the nuclei is emitting are moving and this is causing the atomic structure of the atom to change.

As I stated before matter moves, movement causes change, and we perceive change as the passage of time.

No, I'm not suggesting time travel. I was wondering how you'd avoid a reference to time; but you didn't: "...recall what you have previously experienced...". I guess it's just semantics, right?

It does not matter if I reference time in a sentence or not. I ask that you please attempt to understand the concept instead of trying to catch me in a "trap". I called time an illusion for a reason. Here is google's definition of an illusion, "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses." Time is sort of a logic illusion.

Concerned to something that was previously experienced, memories, here is what I said.

The structures were created when you experienced them, and exist with you now.

No, it's physics

Not sufficient; one object could have more kinetic energy than the other, but still be travelling more slowly. One object gets there first because it moves faster.

In the context of that particular statement it is semantics.

"One object gets there first because it moves faster."

We know that it moves faster because we can either observe it moving faster or we can use math to calculate how fast it moves.

Where do the variables come from to do said math?

Measurements taken from the actual movement of said object.

How does said object move?

The object moves via energy.

Spare me the passive-agressive victimhood, it's not about you, it's about your claim. A hypothetical, a thought experiment, with emotional & moral bite, like the trolley problems.

I admit that I have autism and I often unintentionally make others mad, but I am not trying to be passive-aggressive or mean to you in any way. I apologize if I am coming off to you that way. Although, I do believe it is you that is being rude to me.

Ah, OK - so we can carry on using the concept of time just as long as we remember it's just semantics.

And we perceive the change in position as space. You're right, it's all just semantics

I believe that you are now currently just trying to insult me?

 

[sjastro]

As stated previously I am not any kind of mathematician or scientist, but what it appears you are referring to are mathematical measurements used to create a mathematical model of something that is actually happening.

It certainly is not based on "mathematical measurements" which is a nonsensical term.
A mathematical model can make quantitative predictions which are not measurements.
Statistical distributions such as Breit-Wigner distribution illustrated on the other hand are based on actual physical measurements and clearly show a physical relationship between energy and time with or without the aid of a mathematical model.

I am pretty sure the process of radiation is essentially matter moving through space.

Google the phrase, define radioactivity, here is what it says, "the emission of ionizing radiation or particles caused by the spontaneous disintegration of atomic nuclei."

I would guess that the particles that the nuclei is emitting are moving and this is causing the atomic structure of the atom to change.

As I stated before matter moves, movement causes change, and we perceive change as the passage of time.

The ΔE term is not a measurement of kinetic energy which is the energy of motion.
It is the energy liberated through radioactivity and equals the difference in the mass between parent and daughter atoms multiplied by the speed of light squared (ie E=mc²)
The energy values are based on the parent atom's rest frame.

The physical data and the maths clearly shows that the energy of radiation and time are inextricably linked.
The larger the value of ΔE the shorter the half life and vice versa.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Let me know if this is wrong. Are you suggesting that just because clocks tick they have some special connection with the "entity of time", and that this special connection causes them to be affected by time dilation while other matter is not?

The question is too incoherent to be not even wrong.
Clicks tick. A tick is a change from a starting state to another state and back again. Protons have no such transitions and so are not clocks. Thus all matter being clocks is wrong.

Time dilation (yet again )

According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock.

Time dilation is a measurement.
That measurement is of elapsed time on a clock.
No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.

18 May 2018 Ohj1n37: How do we measure the milliseconds age difference in your astronaut time dilation example?
Or
18 May 2018 Ohj1n37: How do we measure the difference between clocks without clocks in any time dilation example?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It does not matter if I reference time in a sentence or not.

It matters if you want to be understood.

How does said object move?

The object moves via energy.

No, it moves via force; and once it's moving, no further force is required (except to counter opposing forces). It has energy by virtue of its motion - kinetic energy.

A reasonable understanding of the physics involved would help to avoid confusion.

.. I do believe it is you that is being rude to me.

That is not my intent. Suggesting a thought experiment to test your hypothesis is not being rude. However, what you believe is up to you.

I believe that you are now currently just trying to insult me?

No, that was sarcasm, to point out that I think your argument is inconsistent.

Don't forget that these are the Physical & Life Sciences forums. If you post an unusual, radical, fringe, or otherwise 'different' hypothesis, you should expect it to be challenged.

 

[Ohj1n37]

It certainly is not based on "mathematical measurements" which is a nonsensical term.

In this case ΔE can be the uncertainty in measuring the energy released in radioactive decay which occurs in time interval Δt.
By measuring a large sample size of decaying of stationary radioactive nuclei we obtain the Breit-Wigner distribution.

I made bold the measuring parts for you. Also make sure you read the following reply.

A mathematical model can make quantitative predictions which are not measurements.

Quantiative, "relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality."

Predict, "say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something."

Estimate, "roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of."

Calculate, "determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically."

You are using math based on measurements to extrapolate what might happen.

The ΔE term is not a measurement of kinetic energy which is the energy of motion.
It is the energy liberated through radioactivity and equals the difference in the mass between parent and daughter atoms multiplied by the speed of light squared (ie E=mc²)

Essentially energy in one way or another is a form of matter and movement. Radioactive decay is caused by an imbalance between protons and neutrons. Look up what is inside a proton and neutron, it is quarks, gluons, and energy moving around. I believe the radiation that an unstable atom emits sends particles flying around that can mess with other atom's atomic structures. I think this is called irradiation.

The physical data and the maths clearly shows that the energy of radiation and time are inextricably linked.
The larger the value of ΔE the shorter the half life and vice versa.

I believe you need to measure the actual radioactive element to gather the variables needed to calculate the half life.

Clicks tick. A tick is a change from a starting state to another state and back again. Protons have no such transitions and so are not clocks. Thus all matter being clocks is wrong.

I do not see where you are trying to go with this. The ticking of clock is just movement. Look up what is inside a proton. A proton has particles and energy moving around in it. How would the phenomenon of time dilation differentiate between the movement inside a proton versus the movement of a clock ticking?

Also you are taking what I said out of context I was replying to this statement.

Time dilation affects only clocks.

But everything is clock

My entire reply to this statement was as follows.

Everything could be thought of as clock in a way because everything changes, but the term clock is commonly used to refer to an object that continually changes at a set pace, so that it can be used as a reference point.

Time dilation is a measurement.
That measurement is of elapsed time on a clock.
No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.

I have read otherwise. I recommend to youtube some videos on time dilation or do some more google searches.

It matters if you want to be understood.

I am attempting to be clear as I possibly can.

No, it moves via force; and once it's moving, no further force is required (except to counter opposing forces). It has energy by virtue of its motion - kinetic energy.

A reasonable understanding of the physics involved would help to avoid confusion.

This again appears to be semantics.

Force, "strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement."

Energy, "the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules)."

Kinetic energy, "energy that a body possesses by virtue of being in motion."

Otherwise to me it seems that you are suggesting that time works in frames. If this is the case I refer to my previous statements.

Google astronauts come back from space younger. Time dilation does not just affect clocks, but all matter.

To better explain my viewpoint at 1:00 in the video Petros2015 posted, the narrator states it can also be helpful to think of time as a series of snap shots. My question is that at the moment astronauts start going back in "time" due to time dilation, why don't they collide with their previous snap shot?

That is not my intent. Suggesting a thought experiment to test your hypothesis is not being rude. However, what you believe is up to you.

Don't forget that these are the Physical & Life Sciences forums. If you post an unusual, radical, fringe, or otherwise 'different' hypothesis, you should expect it to be challenged.

A trolley problem is an ethics problem, not a physics one. I also stated at the start of the thread I wish to discuss not debate. This thread is also in the discussion and debate section.

No, that was sarcasm, to point out that I think your argument is inconsistent.

Thank you for letting me know that was sarcasm. I was unsure if it was.

Sarcasm, "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."

I do not believe that the idea is logically inconsistent. I feel that I have been able to answer any other ideas that are contradictory.

I would ask that you to think on this.

Another way to think about what I am trying to convey is as follows.

Do not even think about time. Just assume that everything is just matter moving through space.

Now does that change anything that we already can observe to be true?

To my understanding it does the exact opposite, it removes all time paradoxes which contradict causality. I believe causality is what pretty much all our understanding of physics is based upon.

 

[sjastro]

I made bold the measuring parts for you. Also make sure you read the following reply.

I suggest you brush up on your internet etiquette or you are going to end up on many individuals ignore list.

Quantiative, "relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality."

Predict, "say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something."

Estimate, "roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of."

Calculate, "determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically."

You are using math based on measurements to extrapolate what might happen.

This is the classic cherry picking argument.

Rather than addressing the term “quantative prediction” all you have done is to define each word separately which completely distorts the meaning of the term itself.
You are demonstrating either a lack of understanding of the term or are being intellectually dishonest.

An example of “quantitative prediction” will suffice.
Einstein predicted the gravitational bending of light and used maths to calculate the amount of bending of star light near the Sun’s limb.
This is a quantitative prediction which is not based on the extrapolation of measurements because the scientific consensus at the time was the phenomena was not possible let alone measure it.
The measurements came after and were used to support the calculation.

Essentially energy in one way or another is a form of matter and movement. Radioactive decay is caused by an imbalance between protons and neutrons. Look up what is inside a proton and neutron, it is quarks, gluons, and energy moving around. I believe the radiation that an unstable atom emits sends particles flying around that can mess with other atom's atomic structures. I think this is called irradiation.

And I think you should educate yourself on the subject matter rather than being wilfully ignorant and giving a nonsensical kindergarten explanation to what is a complex subject.

With regards to your definition of energy, the closest that comes to that definition is kinetic energy.
There are other forms of energy that do not relate to movement such as potential energy or binding energy.
Radioactive decay energy is an example of binding energy.

I believe you need to measure the actual radioactive element to gather the variables needed to calculate the half life.

If the half life is short enough it is directly measured in particle accelerators.
For example beta decay half lives vary from 10 ̄ ² seconds up to 2 X 10¹⁵ years depending on the nucleus which surprise surprise depends on the uncertainty ΔE.

 

[Ohj1n37]

I suggest you brush up on your internet etiquette or you are going to end up on many individuals ignore list.

I made bold the measuring parts for you. Also make sure you read the following reply.

I was not trying to insult you in any way. I was literally trying to help you. Making things bold helps me read the points of interest better and I was trying to help you in a similar fashion. I apologize for appearing to be confrontational. I just want to have a discussion.

It certainly is not based on "mathematical measurements" which is a nonsensical term.
A mathematical model can make quantitative predictions which are not measurements.

I was trying to convey that I believe math and numbers to be way to interpret reality, but is not reality itself.

This is the classic cherry picking argument.

I broke down the definitions to try to further make the point in the reply above this one and ultimately explain my definition of quantitative prediction in the reply below. I was not trying to cherry pick. It seems that you are assuming I am trying to do something nefarious. I want to have an honest discussion.

Rather than addressing the term “quantative prediction” all you have done is to define each word separately which completely distorts the meaning of the term itself.

A mathematical model can make quantitative predictions which are not measurements.

I believe I addressed the term quantitative prediction with my previous statement as seen below.

You are using math based on measurements to extrapolate what might happen.

Extrapolate, "extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable."

Where did Einstein get the variables or statistics to do the math to make the quantitative prediction?

And I think you should educate yourself on the subject matter rather than being wilfully ignorant and giving a nonsensical kindergarten explanation to what is a complex subject.

With regards to your definition of energy, the closest that comes to that definition is kinetic energy.
There are other forms of energy that do not relate to movement such as potential energy or binding energy.
Radioactive decay energy is an example of binding energy.

I am just stating what e equals m c squared means. Energy is very fast matter and matter is slower energy. Pretty much all physics including the forms of energy you listed above boil down to matter and movement.

Essentially energy in one way or another is a form of matter and movement.

If the half life is short enough it is directly measured in particle accelerators.

That is cool. Basically you would not even have to do the math to get the measurements.



The point that I am trying to make is that math and numbers are an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. Ultimately the numbers hold meaning because they are based on reality, not the other way around.

 

[SelfSim]

... The point that I am trying to make is that math and numbers are an interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

That depends on what you mean by 'reality' .. oh .. and where did that meaning come from by the way?

Ultimately the numbers hold meaning because they are based on reality, not the other way around.

The numbers hold meaning, otherwise there would be no purpose in using them to communicate amongst us humans!
There is no evidence that numbers hold the same meaning for all other species, therefore we can conclude there is evidence that humans create reality in the meanings we give to things like numbers.

 

[Ohj1n37]

And I think you should educate yourself on the subject matter rather than being wilfully ignorant and giving a nonsensical kindergarten explanation to what is a complex subject.

I suggest you brush up on your internet etiquette or you are going to end up on many individuals ignore list.

Suggesting I am purposely misleading someone or that I am kindergartner is not polite.

That depends on what you mean by 'reality' .. oh .. and where did that meaning come from by the way?

As I stated before.

I believe that when it comes to our understanding of God's creation, the universe around us, it is logical that the foundation of said understanding should be based on what can be observed.

The numbers hold meaning, otherwise there would be no purpose in using them to communicate amongst us humans!

The point that I am trying to make is that math and numbers are an interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

Math requires reality(what can be observed). Reality(what can be observed) does not require math.




In conclusion, matter moves, 1)movement causes 2)change, we humans perceive change as 3)time.

Time is not an entity. The past in fact did happen, but does not exist in some sort of continuum other than in record which exists now.

We can observe space, we can observe movement, time is only observed as change.

Thinking of time as a series of snapshots is inconsistent with reality(what can be observed).

Time keeping devices measure time by changing at a set pace.

Time dilation has been observed as the slow of change not the "entity of time".

In reality or real life an object's "time" is always determined in reference to something else and that is why by default "time" or rate of change is relative. An objects location within space can be just that, its absolute location within the vastness of space, not needing any reference other than space, which is observable.


I take my leave from the forums. I have become too obsessed with this discussion. The obsession is causing me to become manic and mania is very dangerous for me. I thank everyone who was kind to me. To those who were rude to me, I hold no resentment as the Lord Jesus has taught me to forgive. I do suggest to those who were rude to me to remember that they are in fact talking to real people. Please be kind to others. Thank you all, have a good one.

 

[sjastro]

OK I accept the fact you are not being nefarious or rude but it doesn’t change the fact that many of your definitions are comprehensively wrong.

Here are the examples.

I believe I addressed the term quantitative prediction with my previous statement as seen below.

Extrapolate, "extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable."

Where did Einstein get the variables or statistics to do the math to make the quantitative prediction?

You seem to think theoretical physicists have the benefit of having data on tap which is extrapolated into the unknown.
In many cases this is not true and a theory starts off as a scientific hypothesis where there is little or no data to start with but is falsifiable by making predictions which are testable.

This is the example I gave with Einstein.
Einstein had no variables or statistics to work with but used mathematics to derive a theoretical value for gravitational bending of light that could tested for by measuring the angular displacement of the position of stars near the Sun’s limb.

I am just stating what e equals m c squared means. Energy is very fast matter and matter is slower energy. Pretty much all physics including the forms of energy you listed above boil down to matter and movement.

E = mc² doesn’t mean that at all.
The equation tells you that in a rest frame, energy and mass are equivalent but in different units where the conversion factor is c².
It’s analogous to using yards or metres, the units might be different but both are measurements of the same distance.

Did you read the Wiki link I provided on binding energy on which ΔE from by previous posts is based on?

If the energy supplied is more than the binding energy, then the disassembled constituents possess non-zero kinetic energy.

In other words binding energy is the minimum amount of energy where the disassembled constituents have zero kinetic energy or movement which is a complete contradiction of your definition of energy.

The point that I am trying to make is that math and numbers are an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. Ultimately the numbers hold meaning because they are based on reality, not the other way around.

This is not correct either as it works both ways.
An example is the Balmer equation for the wavelengths for the emission lines in the hydrogen spectrum.
The equation was developed in 19th century in an ad hoc way.
It fits your definition of using maths and numbers to describe reality but it didn’t explain why the equation works.

It took far more advanced mathematics using Hilbert spaces which forms the basis of quantum mechanics to explain why the equation works by deriving it from fundamental principles.
By deriving the equation the maths gave us a deeper insight into reality rather than simply providing an interpretation or description of reality.

There are many other examples in the history of science such as Einstein and Newton using mathematics to change our concept of reality.

 

[RealityCheck01]

18 May 2018 Ohj1n37: How do we measure the milliseconds age difference in your astronaut time dilation example?
Or
18 May 2018 Ohj1n37: How do we measure the difference between clocks without clocks in any time dilation example?

What I wrote

Clicks tick. A tick is a change from a starting state to another state and back again. Protons have no such transitions and so are not clocks. Thus all matter being clocks is wrong.

Non-science that a clock is movement does not address that fact that protons are not clocks.

21 May 2018 Ohj1n37: "The ticking of clock is just movement" and quark ignorance.
The ticking of a clock is repeated, observed movement. Quarks do not have repeated movement. We cannot see quarks moving. Protons are not clocks.

 

[now faith]

I disagree. As stated before,





Only the measurement of movement requires time. The actual movement of an object requires space.

Time is a invariable constant, no matter if there are no means to measure it.
Time, Space,and Matter cannot exist independently.

 

[now faith]

OK I accept the fact you are not being nefarious or rude but it doesn’t change the fact that many of your definitions are comprehensively wrong.

Here are the examples.

You seem to think theoretical physicists have the benefit of having data on tap which is extrapolated into the unknown.
In many cases this is not true and a theory starts off as a scientific hypothesis where there is little or no data to start with but is falsifiable by making predictions which are testable.

This is the example I gave with Einstein.
Einstein had no variables or statistics to work with but used mathematics to derive a theoretical value for gravitational bending of light that could tested for by measuring the angular displacement of the position of stars near the Sun’s limb.

E = mc² doesn’t mean that at all.
The equation tells you that in a rest frame, energy and mass are equivalent but in different units where the conversion factor is c².
It’s analogous to using yards or metres, the units might be different but both are measurements of the same distance.

Did you read the Wiki link I provided on binding energy on which ΔE from by previous posts is based on?

In other words binding energy is the minimum amount of energy where the disassembled constituents have zero kinetic energy or movement which is a complete contradiction of your definition of energy.

This is not correct either as it works both ways.
An example is the Balmer equation for the wavelengths for the emission lines in the hydrogen spectrum.
The equation was developed in 19th century in an ad hoc way.
It fits your definition of using maths and numbers to describe reality but it didn’t explain why the equation works.

It took far more advanced mathematics using Hilbert spaces which forms the basis of quantum mechanics to explain why the equation works by deriving it from fundamental principles.
By deriving the equation the maths gave us a deeper insight into reality rather than simply providing an interpretation or description of reality.

There are many other examples in the history of science such as Einstein and Newton using mathematics to change our concept of reality.

Light contains particles,that are subject to gravity.
Gravity is the source of energy, not the light.
If you had pure light void of any particulate, it could appear curved due to a reflective mass.

 

[Inkfingers]

I do not wish to debate, but only want to discuss with anyone who may know more than me on the existence of time from a physics perspective. To my understanding time as a force of nature does not exist. Matter moves, this movement causes change, and we humans perceive this change as the passage of time. Change requires nothing other than movement; there is no need for time. The phenomenon known as time dilation to my understanding is just the slowing of change not time. That's how time can be relative because it's not time that is being slowed by gravity or acceleration, but change. Does anyone have any insight on this matter?

Cause and effect show that time exists.

 

[now faith]

Time is not needed for the actual movement of matter, but just the measurement.






Yes thank you, I have read that.





The "dilating" of time causes the matter that is being affected by the gravitational or accelerative force to change more slowly relative to any other matter that is being affected by a lesser degree of gravitational or accelerative force.





I can observe space; I can observe movement. I believe others may be able to do so as well. Are you questioning this observation? If so could you explain why these observations may not true? By fundamental I mean that I can assume both space and movement are real because I can observe them.





I believe the experience of the flow of time is an illusion. My explanation is below.



I think RockyMidnight1 did a good job explaining this illusion, as stated below. Keep in mind it doesn't matter if there is "delay" in "when" one experiences awareness. I recommend rereading what I have posted if it is still unclear.














Be sure to think on the bold text below.





The period of time described in the delay in the context of your brain awareness example is caused by the transfer of matter and energy through the various processes the human body uses to perceive its surroundings. The actual processes have nothing to do with time, but everything to do with matter moving in space.







In my quote above by mass I mean some form matter or some object.

The change of the matter being affected by the gravitational or accelerative force will be slowed. When it comes to the actual matter, time is irrelevant, it is the change of said matter that is the focus.

If the observer's change is also being affected by the same gravitational or accelerative force of what they are observing then the observer's change will be the same relative to what they are observing. This means the observer will observe no difference.

Movement no matter the means, will require time to go between 2 points.

 

[now faith]

Cause and effect show that time exists.

True, because you cannot have cause and effect without space and matter.

This discussion is pointing to the theory of singularly in a black hole.
We have no reasonable means to know what the possibilities of a black hole are.