Nothing can truly exist outside of this personal NOW.

Another product of perception.

It is funny that the process of aging is thought related to the passing of time. If we had no calendars nor celebrated any birthdays, our perception of 'Time' would drastically change.

"What you are now, you are becoming."

Time is relative to the observers point of view. To say that's a fact that there is only one reality...is strictly your point of view, and there may be billions like you.........how many people in the world?....then there are at least that many universes....our worlds may seem alike..but no more than were alike. your past exists now as you think of it, your future exists now as you think of it...the moment point is now as you think of it....everything is relative to the observers point of view..who's to say the color blue is the same for you and me...we may agree as a basis point on an what we perceive as an object or event but that's all we can do...and what we agreed on is how the sciences started....outside of those "sciences" time only has meaning when we think of our own individual perception of it..... your basically "all" right!

And to think that the universe fits into the palm of Gods hand according to the Hebrew Bible. My God is a BIG GOD ! And if you believe in God then you know time is Irrelevant because the end was known before the beginning.So that's my stance on the subject.

Something being relative does not make it arbitrary, the relationship is a direct correlation between velocity and time.

"Time has been cleaved out of eternity"
.
"Time is Circumference"
.
"Time is a Sequence of Circles"
.
"A Wormhole is a Diameter in Time"
.
"The Universe is atemporal"
.
"Time Is Now"

"Time is a Synthetic illusion"

Time, in fact, is geometry in motion because time, as we measure it, is based upon two geometric cycles (circles). The first cycle is the daily rotation of the Earth on her axis. The second cycle is the annual excursion of the Earth around the sun; a year.

An hour is a geometric creature. An hour, like a degree of arc, is founded upon a numbering scheme called " a decimal base 60 system " (60 seconds of time makes a minute, 60 minutes make an hour - 6 increments of 10). This method is just like geometry where 60-seconds-of-arc make a minute-of-arc and 60 minutes-of-arc make a degree-of-arc. Your wrist watch operates on an identical base 60 principle.
.
Believe it or not, the "hour" was devised by the Chaldeans (pre-Egyptians) but made popular by the Greeks (331 BC) to enable them (the Greeks) to fashion more accurate astrological charts (hour - horo-scope - the celestial bodies that were rising at the hour of one's birth).
.
The day was initially divided (Early Man & pre-geometry) into two obvious parts: daytime and nighttime. Daytime was then divided into two parts (AM & PM). The daytime portion (and night by default) was further divided into two parts each - the first part is the Sun rising to the Mid-heaven (noon) and the second as the Sun descends to the western horizon (sunset).
O.K., now we have the day divided into 4 parts. (Sunrise to Noon - Noon to Sunset - Sunset to Midnight - Midnight to Sunrise).
.
Enter the Chaldeans with a base 60 geometry at about 4000 BC. The Chaldeans conformed the day to the (base 60) 360 degree geometry of a circle (based upon a '360+ day' long year). The Chaldeans divided the day into 360 divisions. A day was just another "circle" (cycle) so they made it conform to their geometry.
.
By this time in history the 12 major constellations were carved in stone. The observance of the ecliptic (the path of the Sun and planets across the sky) revealed the 12 constellations that are visited by the Sun, Moon and planets (planets were called 'wanderers' or 'sheep' and they called the Sun, 'The Shepherd', indicating that in 4000 BC the Chaldeans knew of a sun-centered solar system).
It was a natural next step to divide the 360 divisions or degrees into 12 parts (one part for each constellation in the zodiac) of 30 degrees each. The 12 divisions of a day allowed the ancients to dedicate a part of each day ('religion') to the Assembly of Gods who represented the constellations and the ancient spiritual cosmology.
.
The division into 12 was, also, the first gradual step towards the creation of a solar calendar and these 12 divisions became the basis for the eventual shift from the earliest lunar calendar which, by the way, could never be reconciled exactly to the actual length of a solar year.
(Note: The word "month" comes from the word "moon" and there are approximately 13 lunations (lunar month) to a year. Anyhow, the lunar calendar was quite troublesome because it could never be precisely reconciled to the exact length of a year and the lunar calendar was always "drifting" and out of sync with the seasons).
.
With their day now divided into 12 segments (30 degrees per segment) each 'degree' represented 3600 arc-seconds of the Earth's axis rotation. (Additionally, each of the 12 segments was equal to two of our hours, but... we haven't got there just yet).

The 6 segments of daytime were each then sub-divided into 3 segments belonging to morning and 3 segments to afternoon and a similar division was made for the night (sunset to midnight and midnight to sunrise).

We now have Man's first "clock" with the day divided into 12 equal segments.
Each segment was 30 degrees of arc (or 120 of our minutes of 'time').

How then did we get to our present division of 24 segments (hours)? To further characterize the 12 Gods of the Zodiac each of the 12 segments of a 'day' were divided by 2, thus giving each God rulership over a portion of the day and a portion of of the night.

This cosmology allowed for the 12 archetypes of the zodiac to display their dual natures (light and dark sides) and placed the cornerstone for Man's first religion/science... Astrology, and simultaneously, the science of horology and timekeeping.

Okay taking a break to get some tea. Will continue with the Julian Calender later.

Time is a speed of conversion of energy into matter. A gravitation is a flow/volume of such.

To the question

'... does time truly exist? ...',

the answer is unquestionably YES !!!


HOWEVER,


To the very distinct question '

... does time truly exist? ...',

The answer is unquestionably NO !!!


When 'Bushidobilly' asserts that time exists and quotes Einstein to support his assertion.

Is he right???

In his assertion that time exists, is Einstein right???

What about the question itself, is IT right???

What 'time' is the question asking about?

What 'time' is 'Bushidobilly' talking about?

And what does Einstein assert when he says that time exists???

What struck me while reading the different posts, was what strikes many of us when we are observing a discussion going on where the participants are unware of conflicting perspectives: the place or space people are unconsciously 'thought from'!!!

THOUGHT FROM!!! Yes, thought from, distinct from, THINKING that which thinks us.

As human beings, it could be said that we are either unconsciously, automatically and exclusively ...

... 'SELF-AWARE', a state which seperates the 'I' (self) from everything else (a possible perspective or space to observe from)

or

we take a step back and observe or take responsibility for the exclusively self-aware being that we are.

The operative here is 'step back'. A changed space, or perspective from which to view.

But if it is not the 'I' or self-aware; knowing or needing to know, perspective, which 'adventureBegins' correctly pointed to (I think therefore I am), which corresponds to the changed perspectivem, than what is it.
If that is the exclusive and only perspective of 'known' existence for humans, than what 'possible' alternative perspective are we then talking about?

Well, 'I' don't know!!!

That is the possible perspective.

It is a perspective, fully assumed, where 'I', which is ALL 'I' (we: a bunch of 'I's) KNOWS, no longer 'dictates' the view.

It is a willingness to not know, inside the compulsive prison of the 'I' dictating the perspective of the 'known' all the time.

It is a voluntary shift in space, or shift in perspective, against the separateness of the delusional 'I' perspective.

So the 'time' we claim and assert (a bunch of separate 'I's) we 'know',
from the exclusive human 'I' space or perspective,
this 'separate' space or perspective of past, present, and future, the operative (if you missed it) being 'separate',
that 'time' DOESN'T EXIST!!!

That 'time' is but a convenient illusion to suit and always agree with the 'I' self-aware perspective: the illusion of all illusions.

On the other hand, the 'time' we 'do not know', this 'time' for which the 'I' has no use, this 'time' which Eisntein doesn't know either, and yet evokes as the only possible time which may exist, only exists outside of the 'I' (separate) perspective.

It only exists in a possible phenomenom comprising 4 inseparable and dynamic dimensions (not 3) which encompasses everything-nothing where 'knowing' from a 'self-aware' and separate perspective makes no difference.

When the earth is perceived as flat, with its 4 corners, humanity's thinking is being thought through a perspective of an 'existing' flat earth!!! Nothing else is possible for humans unless it agrees with the 'known' perspective.

When the earth is perceived as 'relatively' round, humanity's thinking is being thought through an 'existing' 'relatively' round earth!!!

... and nothing else is possible for self-aware humans other than that which agrees with the 'known' perspective.

Einstein is not speaking about 'time' inside the 'self-aware' exclusive 'I', or 'known' perspective.

He is speaking of it from the distinguished 'I' or 'known' perspective, therefore 'unknown' to the 'I', therefore, at least, PROBABLY closer to, POSSIBLY, NOT AN ILLUSION, AND THEREFORE POSSIBLY CLOSER TO WHAT IS TRUE!!!

Time as we 'know' it, and 'time' which thinks us, unquestionably doesn't exist other than in the 'self-aware' 'I' illusion.

And yet, the 'time' we do not know, this notion of time which we doesn't think us, unquestionably exists in that unified, whole and 'complete' dimension, which the 'I' doesn't know.

That 'time', which none of us know, is possibly much closer to an intrinsic 'direction' in space than the 'boxed' and separate concept we hold.

And what the heck, why not 'time' we don't know but evoke in a unified field, as a concept much closer to an existing phenomenom of 'god', as that which is there but eludes us totally, rather than the categorically unexisting 'gods' whom so many assert they 'know' in a primitively separate and exclusiv 'I' perspective!!!

Here are a couple of interesting links:

http://www.everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

http://everythingforever.com/

I agree.

When self strips all perceptions of matter and space and moving objects, and all that is left is self, who thinks, then "time" is perceived solely by the passing of ones thoughts which are all that is left.

A thinking center that knows it exists creates its own system of time.

A dreamer who dreams creates its own matter and space.

When you awake from a dream, where did it go? Where did the space and the matter go?

Your brain is a watch. It keeps time, it does not always do this at the same rate, it slows down and speeds up. Some very fascinating research is being done now on the human brain and is elucidating this mechanism.

The thing is, what does this watch sync to? It syncs to the movement and position of things in space.

So there may be many measuring devices, and even many frames of reference as to which to sync up to, however time is a steady function of space meets motion within space.

Does not seem hard to understand to me.

This 'time' where you refer to Einstein,



... and this 'self-referential' time which you define here,




Have nothing in common!!!

Not always.

Yes they do . . . certainly in any skeptical atheists arguments it does hehe , and its completely dependent on the relative velocity of the two frames of reference. Perhaps I did not explain my parallel in clear terms.

So when we as humans talk about time there is two things that one could be talking about.

The perception of time and the "universal" time or the actuality of the motion of all objects in the universe accounting for relativistic effects.

Tough to describe because language does it no justice, but the idea that a tree falls whether you are there or not, and things move without you having perceived it is common to my arguments.

The radioactive material decays at a precise rate regardless of your existence. However we can hone our perception and sync our time to any man made clock, or natural cycle and the observation of cause and effect, which is nothing more then classical physics meets movement.

Well it would appear that you insist on this clock, watch, or other forms of 'OUR TIME' measurement which would somehow 'sync' with 'classical physics meets movement' or some sort of universal time out there?!?!?

Not that I'm trying to 'call you' on anything BDBC, but since there seems to be differences in our views, and stricly for healthy debate sake, I feel this one is worth another crack.

Let's see...

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale (which is what I understand your position to be) have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics.

The problem IMO, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality, as you appear to claim.

So, if I say that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality, then what is time?

And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience?

You'll probably agree BDBC that the meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics.

We could probably safely locate the start of this 'time' dilemma a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One radical consequence of Einstein's work, is that the past, present, and future ARE NOT absolutes.

Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (the realm of the tiny).

The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the 'problem of time.'
It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum.

Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics don’t explain why time always points to the future.
All the laws — whether Newton’s, Einstein’s, or the quirky quantum rules — would work equally well if time ran backward!!! As far as anyone can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.

Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. This is where you and I diverge BDBC. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos.

While it is clear that at least you don't subscribe to Newtonian 'time': 'Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external', it appears you are still trying to tie 'our clock' to the universe's?!?!

But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Nothing to do with what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure the kind of time Einstein is pointing at. From Einstein perspective, clocks don’t really measure time at all.

As an interesting aside, the NIST timekeepers (the US government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation) interstingly claim: ‘Our clock doesn’t measure time’.
Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt mathematical equation, inside which time ends-up disappearing.

'We never really see time,' they say. 'We see only clocks'.

If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on.

We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, and yet, we represent that as if everything is evolving in time!?!?!?

There are fascinating emerging theories about 'time', all dissociating themselves from our current accepted notions of 'time'.

But they're theories.

For now, the most accurate statement about time might be,

'... we thought we knew 'time', but became clear that we had to 'unknow' it, and are now on the verge of knowing it all over again!!!

Not my position at all. The mirco world never enters the equation for macro beings in day to day life, I see no reason to confuse the topic.

But if your are dying to go there . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

However the bulk of the conversation has been about the perception of time and if it really exists. It does, we macro beings map to it through our perceptions.

Perception uses clocks to measure time, both biological and non biological. Intervals of motion is more precise a statement for a physical assessment of what time is.

Bravo Voileazur!

Billy moves only in the macro world.

Billy, we don't map time. We map the relative movement of objects through our perceptions and we call that "time."

Time is a relative concept having to do with perception and movement. It has no existence of its own.

If that where true satellites flying around the earth at vast speeds would not log time differently then we moving at slower speeds.

Spacetime, is a thing. We all move through the macro world and NEVER interact with the micro world we are macro beings.