Is Time Just an Idea?

[creation]

I claim ALL human beings have and do philosophy without any of these steps.

Yes! I agree. And that is the reason why our philosophy is a mesh and why people accept pseudo philosophical ideologies as products of philosophy.
This is why the academia has almost nothing to show in our modern epistemology outside science or away from naturalistic principles.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about and referencing.

IPhilosophy is just done without these steps naturally.

-That can be poetry, literature,comforting thinking, SciFI ,but not philosophy.

If you say so. But you have absolutely no clue at all about what I am actually talking about.

So, there I just claimed that not just I do philosophy by skipping the first two steps in my inquiry but that ALL human beings do philosophy by skipping not just the first two steps but all of your steps in their inquiry, and they have done this from the beginning."

-And this is the reason why we are packed with pseudo philosophical ideas about the ontology of everything (religions,non secular spiritual categories, epistemic ally failed philosophies like idealism etc).

If this is what you do, then that is what you do.

I just did what you said could not be done.

And I just pointed out to you that the practice of your is what demarcates pseudo philosophy from philosophy!
Ideas that ignore knowledge, are not wise claims about our world and we can not act or expand upon them.

And believing that current knowledge is actually factually true, right, and correct speaks for itself.

So, best you say the truth of things instead of saying just what you believe is true, which is obviously not true at all.

Truth is irrelevant to knowledge or a wise claim. We can never say whether our current understanding will be the final one or if our current statements describe something absolutely true.

Some of us can. But, if you cannot, then so be it.

The reason some of us can do this is because of the knowledge and understanding we use, compared to the so called "knowledge" that you use.

Absolutes are red herrings. We can only evaluate how irrational a belief that ignores or not current facts is...that's all.

I have already evaluated and explained the irrational behavior of just having belief itself.

But you may have missed that also?

The whole problem with this claim is, is the so called "knowledge" true, right, and correct in the beginning. History should be enough evidence to prove that CURRENT "knowledge" is not always reliable enough to base anything off nor from.

-Again the whole problem is that you equate knowledge with truth.

Do I?

When did I do that?

You are not in a position to ever know whether if your last statement is absolutely true , so you are limited to guide your claims and beliefs according to what facts and knowledge is available to you....NOW!

And you still do not have a clue what my "position" is.

I can know whether my last statement is absolutely true, which by the way is absolutely true. This can be very easily proven with evidence.

It could be very easily argued that "systematic knowledge" is the very reason why human beings are still stuck where they are now, when this is written. That is; living with the completely out dated knowledge, and living in the most old fashioned, out of line, prehistoric, barbaric, incorrect, and abhorrent ways known.

If you argue that, then it means that you don't understand what systematic knowledge is!

I understand what you are trying to say "systematic knowledge" is.

Systematic knowledge is how we advance our understanding and knowledge and keep questionable claims out from our body of knowledge.

This is what I understood you were trying to say "systemic knowledge" is.

LOL I never thought you would be so honest and actually admit why "systematic knowledge" is so obviously inherently wrong.

Keeping "questionable claims" out from their body of knowledge was exactly what the people who believed the sun revolves around the earth kept 'trying to' do.

So, you, and others, can keep 'trying' for as long as you like keeping so called "questionable claims" out from your current body of knowledge. But the truth always comes out.

See, what is plainly obvious is whatever questions and/or challenges any current body of knowledge would always be seen as a "questionable claim" by the ones who believe their body of knowledge is the most current and is therefore the most up-to-date, and to them must therefore be the best and thus only knowledge that what we should look at and use now.

One vicious cycle of deception and lies people tell themselves.

Systematic knowledge through its 9 main qualities, gave you the device and connection and the opportunity to share your outdated ideas about philosophy, science, knowledge and logic on the internet.

What ideas?

I have yet to have one person to discuss them with me. No one has even attempted to challenge me nor even question me about them. I have not even come close to expressing them fully yet.

You are still stuck on some idea that because science is the greatest thing in the Universe that computers and internet now exist, and therefore that means what have said is outdated.

Your claims are bad reproductions of Normative Science, a philosophical model on the untrustworthy nature of science in relation to truth. The run away success of science didn't leave much room for those ideas...plus Absolute truth is only the idealistic goal of science...not something possible in real life.
There is a reason why science is called..... science (knowledge in Latin) not Truth.

Who cares. I have explained the flaws human beings make in science already.

Notice how just about everything you talk about is not in actual relation to my view on the word 'time', but is in relation to how great science is.

Systematic knowledge is absolutely obsolete compared to what is actually the true, right, and correct knowledge.

You can not know that.

But I just do not know this, I can actually prove this True.

You can never know what is absolutely true orcorrcet.

Already done.

If you want to insist that I can not, then you are 'trying to' tell us that you know what is absolutely true or correct.

You are actually being self-contradictory by trying to insist on what you believe is true here, obviously.

You can only say that Systematic knowledge is the only credible, verified body of knowledge available to us as we speak today and it is going to change in the future.

But parts of the current systematic knowledge, to you, is NOT credible at all. But this is impossible for you to hear and understand, because, from your perspective, your current systematic knowledge is the VERIFIED body of knowledge available to you, as we speak today, when this is written.

But see 'that' knowledge is will outdated to my current knowledge and understanding.

You are just not able to keep up and understand this knowledge and understanding because of your beliefs, which is a whole other body of knowledge and understanding that you have not kept up with.

What we observe is that our understanding works outside the theoretical realm, they provide us with accurate predictions and life saving technical applications.

You are doing another absolute flaw that human beings continually do. You are 'trying to' speak for 'we' or 'us'. But 'you' cannot do this successfully, even though you have kept 'trying to'. So, 'you' are best speaking for 'you' only, and leaving 'me' and 'others' out of this.

Sure they all could be wrong, but the moment to doubt them is ONLY after you have empirically verify this probability

Tell me how I can empirically verify any thing to any one if no one listens?

....not without indications, that would be an irrational thing to do.

Believing things are true and not listening to any thing contrary is a truly irrational thing to do.

So its wise and humble to accept our limits of knowledge as human beings and act reasonably by accepting what is based on our current facts and their systematic evaluation. [/quote]

You can try absolutely anything to not look at things other than what you want to believe are true, but the actual truth comes out eventually.

If you don't do that , then your behavior is irrational (not wrong!) and your philosophy is nothing more than a pseudo intellectual product.

Remember you keep using words very differently than I do, and I certainly do not have "my philosophy".

i.e You can ignore our knowledge on gravity, but if your claim is that you can exit the top floor window and walk towards the near tall building......that is not a wise claim . Can you see the now the connection between knowledge and wisdom?

What I can see is how obviously you made up some completely ridiculous claim and then tried to put it onto me as though it was something that I would say.

Seriously, you do not have a clue at all in regards to what my view is here, do you?

The same is true with your statement about time dilation.

What IS my statement about time dilation?

Prove to us that you even know what it is

Time Dilation IS an observable fact.We produce electronics that take advantage of that knowledge and as a result, they produce more.

Do you even know what I have said in regards to this?

From what you have written here it appears you have absolutely no idea what I have said regarding this.

BEFORE you go on absolutely absurd claims like, "You can ignore our knowledge on gravity", and then associate that with what I have said in regards to "time dilation" and the electronics produced, how about you FIRST write down what my claims, ideas, and/or views are, then challenge and/or question them only.

Your imaginary perceptions of what I have actually written and said are only SHOWING that you still have absolutely no idea at all what my views actually are.

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't mean that you can't prefer it. It's not objectively preferred (nothing is), and it's certainly not "truer."

What do you mean by "It's not objectively preferred (nothing is)"?

If nothing is objectively preferred, then why even mention it.

I hate doing message boards where replies get increasingly longer, where more issues keep being introduced during the course of those long replies, etc. So one thing at a time.

The point is that it's just an individual's preference. A different individual can have a different preference, and that's all that is. It's not the case that one is right and the other wrong.

[RJG]

1. Time (the dimension itself)
2. The Measurement of Time
3. The Measurement of Objects

Proofs of time dilation using geometry: …

...All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.

Tam, this is NOT proof of Time dilation. This is item #3 (above), this is just the relative measurements of 'objects' that you calculate a result and call "Time" (#1 above). You are confusing #3 for #1.

The real Time, the dimension itself, is not a 'finite' substance that can be affected, measured, or mathematically manipulated/calculated. You are confusing "time the measurement (of objects)" as "Time the dimension". These are two different animals altogether.

There is only ONE dimension of Time, (and along with the 3 other dimensions which) can't "dilate". Dimensions are unstoppable/unchangeable spatial directions that form this universe.

Again, there is only ONE dimension of Time, not multiple dimensions (unlike the many possible multiple "measurements of objects").

According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light. But when I shine my flashlight out in the universe, somehow I still exist! (i.e. Time still continues) even though the light beam (photons) is travelling at the speed of light, at the point when Time should=0.

My existence is proof that (the real) Time is unstoppable, ...nor can "dilate"!

[Terrapin Station]

1. Time (the dimension itself)
2. The Measurement of Time
3. The Measurement of Objects

Proofs of time dilation using geometry: …

...All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.

Tam, this is NOT proof of Time dilation. This is item #3 (above), this is just the relative measurements of 'objects' that you calculate a result and call "Time" (#1 above). You are confusing #3 for #1.

The real Time, the dimension itself, is not a 'finite' substance that can be affected, or mathematically manipulated/calculated. You are confusing "time the measurement (of objects)" as "Time the dimension". These are two different animals altogether.

There is only ONE dimension of Time, (and along with the 3 other dimensions) are unstoppable/unchangeable dimensions that form this universe.

Again, there is only ONE dimension of Time, not multiple dimensions (unlike the many possible multiple "measurements of objects").

According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light. But when I shine my flashlight out in the universe, somehow I still exist! (i.e. Time still continues) even though the light beam (photons) is travelling at the speed of light, at the point when Time should=0.

My existence is proof that (the real) Time is unstoppable.

It's not clear to me what a dimension is in your view.

[RJG]

It's not clear to me what a dimension is in your view

A dimension is a spatial direction that help (along with the 3 others) form this universe.

Dimensions are not things/objects (or of some finite substance) and therefore cannot be measured, manipulated, or affected by gravity or anything else. Dimensions give structure to the universe. Without dimensions there would be no universe.

Without Time, there could be no motion (direction of movement of 3D objects). Without Time, nothing happens.

Dimensions (in this context) are not "measurements".

[NickGaspar]

I claim ALL human beings have and do philosophy without any of these steps.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about and referencing.

I know what you were claiming. I only pointed out the what "all" or most humans do is NOT philosophy. This is why most of people's conclusions are REALLY BAD.

If you say so. But you have absolutely no clue at all about what I am actually talking about.

-You are confusing your right to say ANYTHING, with whether the things you say qualify as philosophy. They just don't.You are massaging your logic and "facts" to reach a specific goal, when philosophy is to follow facts and reason to where they lead!!!!!

-And this is the reason why we are packed with pseudo philosophical ideas about the ontology of everything (religions,non secular spiritual categories, epistemic ally failed philosophies like idealism etc).

If this is what you do, then that is what you do.

What I do is irrelevant and why what most people do is not Philosophy. They are trying to justify their mental gymnastics by placing them under the philosophical umbrella. Things don't work that way though.

And I just pointed out to you that the practice of your is what demarcates pseudo philosophy from philosophy!
Ideas that ignore knowledge, are not wise claims about our world and we can not act or expand upon them.

And believing that current knowledge is actually factually true, right, and correct speaks for itself.

Again....we can not know whether current knowledge is Absolutely true, but this is all we got to work with.
I never mentioned the word "truth, absolute truth or correct. Now I think that you are trying to save the game through practicing sophistry.

Some of us can. But, if you cannot, then so be it.

Wow really! and what bold claim is that !!! Do you have a Nobel Prize next to this arrogant statement sir? What epistemic achievements can you present.How can you demonstrate your ability to tell which scientific framework in wrong or not? What are your principles and criteria (methodology) so we can convince the scientific community to adopt them!
How can you be sure that "the truth" you believe in isn't a product of your ideology?

The reason some of us can do this is because of the knowledge and understanding we use, compared to the so called "knowledge" that you use.

And that is the problem sir. Knowledge has specific qualities. It needs to be a. Objective c. Demonstrable c.Falsifiabled d. Capable to produce predictions and applications (thus further knowledge).
As Far as I have seen, you only promote ideological declarations by rejecting the facts that disagree with your beliefs.

Absolutes are red herrings. We can only evaluate how irrational a belief that ignores or not current facts is...that's all.
I have already evaluated and explained the irrational behavior of just having belief itself.[/quote]

But you may have missed that also?

Absolutes ARE red herrings. In science and in real life we can not absolutely prove anything! Proofs are only in mathematics.
This is why, after so many debunks, we still deal with superstitious beliefs and magical thinking. i.e. We still deal with god claims and the "evil eye".
Not having final proofs is what gives people excuses to hold on to their comforting beliefs and death denying ideologies.
I suspect your denial of the nature of time and its characteristics is a result of a conflict with your ideologies.

-Again the whole problem is that you equate knowledge with truth.

Do I?When did I do that?

You just did in your some lines above. As I said many times, knowledge has nothing to do with absolute truth or being absolutely correct, but that hasn't stopped you from making the following strawman. So as I said you are confusing knowledge with truth.
I quote you:

And believing that current knowledge is actually factually true, right, and correct speaks for itself.

You are not in a position to ever know whether if your last statement is absolutely true , so you are limited to guide your claims and beliefs according to what facts and knowledge is available to you....NOW!

And you still do not have a clue what my "position" is.

I don't NEED to know your position sir. I am judging your practice of rejecting scientific facts and making claims about reality (on time dilation and the nature of the phenomenon). This is enough to see that you are holding a pseudo philosophical position since you ignore our current knowledge and understanding !

I can know whether my last statement is absolutely true, which by the way is absolutely true. This can be very easily proven with evidence.

This is an arrogant and bold statement. How could you ever prove such a claim? Can you prove, in the case of "time dilation" that you have actual evidence,that those are the final evidence we can ever acquire and that your interpretations are correct? IF you can do that then you should point out to the technical applications that make use of your "absolute truths" and of course, what predictions do they make. A truth statement isn't afraid to be falsified, so how do you put your truths on the test?

If you argue that, then it means that you don't understand what systematic knowledge is!

I understand what you are trying to say "systematic knowledge" is.

That is not an answer. DO you or don't you understand why science produces Systematic knowledge according to the highest standards of evidence????

Systematic knowledge is how we advance our understanding and knowledge and keep questionable claims out from our body of knowledge.

This is what I understood you were trying to say "systemic knowledge" is.

This is NOT a definition on what systematic knowledge. I just mentioned the effects and results of high standards of knowledge.......

LOL I never thought you would be so honest and actually admit why "systematic knowledge" is so obviously inherently wrong.

I am not sure that you are really following our conversation sir. Your life is shaped by systematic knowledge (car,freeze,air transportation,vaccines painkillers, gadgets). We only know that it works, we don't know if it is absolutely true or not. That is an arrogant and ignorant claim to make.

Keeping "questionable claims" out from their body of knowledge was exactly what the people who believed the sun revolves around the earth kept 'trying to' do.

-Systematic observations are responsible for rejecting the geocentric model. The idea of geocentrism was fueled by religion and the anthropic principle(pseudo philosophy), not by our systematic knowledge.We always use science to correct previous theories. I am not sure that you understand what science is and how we correct our epistemology (by informing it with better science!).

So, you, and others, can keep 'trying' for as long as you like keeping so called "questionable claims" out from your current body of knowledge. But the truth always comes out.

Time , based on non systematic knowledge was believed to be fixed. Our systematic evaluation of that idea has lead us to new facts. Now we have evidence that show "time" is relative. Our systematic knowledge gave us the tools to produce actual applications that take advantage of this characteristic of time. You just got facts wrong.

See, what is plainly obvious is whatever questions and/or challenges any current body of knowledge would always be seen as a "questionable claim" by the ones who believe their body of knowledge is the most current and is therefore the most up-to-date, and to them must therefore be the best and thus only knowledge that what we should look at and use now.

-That is not "plainly obvious". We know that we people are fallible with biases and this is why we need to be so systematic in our knowledge evaluation. We know what will happen if we lower our standards of evidence. History doesn't lie.
So all claims need to meet the same standards. If you can not see that, then you should really check your reasoning. Fortunately people like you DON'T decide what those standards are! You can keep going around , whining about our high standards and about your absolute true ideas, but in the end of the day, you will need to meet those standards if you really want your ideas to be accepted as knowledge.

Systematic knowledge through its 9 main qualities, gave you the device and connection and the opportunity to share your outdated ideas about philosophy, science, knowledge and logic on the internet.

What ideas?

Your ideas on your outdated understanding of the standards of evidence, of what qualifies as philosophy, of absolute claims not being a red herring. Your ideas are not relevant to our period. They come from our ignorant early critique on science and our ignorance for our epistemic limitations.
We know that our nature and observations set really strict limitations and our knowledge claims need to be confined inside those limitations.
I understand that your epistemic anxiety makes you believe that you can know everything...but the truth is that we just can not .

I have yet to have one person to discuss them with me. No one has even attempted to challenge me nor even question me about them. I have not even come close to expressing them fully yet.

What you really believe as a result of the above outdated principles is IRRELEVANT! Checking those principles alone ,we can understand where ones reasoning went south! Claiming that you posses absolute knowledge...that alone is a red flag and a good way to avoid losing time in a meaningless discussions about personal, unfalsified beliefs. No human being can claim that...and yet you do, that is bizarre!

You are still stuck on some idea that because science is the greatest thing in the Universe that computers and internet now exist, and therefore that means what have said is outdated.

You are on purpose distorting my statement. Science is only our currency best method we have to acquire systematic knowledge.Its not the only way we acquire knowledge and its not the greatest "thing in the universe (whatever that means lol). YOu need to avoid strawmen if you want to be taken seriously by other.s

Your claims are bad reproductions of Normative Science, a philosophical model on the untrustworthy nature of science in relation to truth. The run away success of science didn't leave much room for those ideas...plus Absolute truth is only the idealistic goal of science...not something possible in real life.
There is a reason why science is called..... science (knowledge in Latin) not Truth.

Who cares. I have explained the flaws human beings make in science already.

Your explanations are nothing more than attempts to make some elbow space for your ideology.
Science is a system design to filter human fallibility. THis is why when we correct previous scientific knowledge..it is always done through science.
Science has a self correcting mechanism based on the principle of demarcation and falsifiability and evidentialism and methods like reproducing results through peer reviewing...obviously your absolute truths ignore all those criteria!

Notice how just about everything you talk about is not in actual relation to my view on the word 'time', but is in relation to how great science is.

As I stated your personal interpretations are of no interest. You will first need to prove why your principles are correct, where are they better than those of science, what are their epistemic achievements and what are the real life applications that prove theim valuable to even be considered.
You have tones of work to do mate!

But I just do not know this, I can actually prove this True.

Go on then and good luck...but using arguments from similarity and ignorance is not how we prove our ideas.
Prove that your interpretations of "time" are superior than those of science.

You can never know what is absolutely true orcorrcet.

Already done.

-lol, no you haven't....you are just claiming that you do! You need to provide objective sufficient evidence!
Feel free to do so!

If you want to insist that I can not, then you are 'trying to' tell us that you know what is absolutely true or correct.

lol no! I just told you that we are not in a position to know anything absolute (true or correct).
We are trapped by the fact that we are unable to absolutely prove anything.

You are actually being self-contradictory by trying to insist on what you believe is true here, obviously.

lol.Why are you fighting this with straw-man fallacies??
Acknowledging our limits is not an act of belief. We only need to be honest about what we can really prove and know.Why is this so hard for you?

You can only say that Systematic knowledge is the only credible, verified body of knowledge available to us as we speak today and it is going to change in the future.

But parts of the current systematic knowledge, to you, is NOT credible at all. But this is impossible for you to hear and understand, because, from your perspective, your current systematic knowledge is the VERIFIED body of knowledge available to you, as we speak today, when this is written.

If that is your belief, pls feel free to present this "systematic knowledge" of yours that I don't find credible!
But I warn you, cherry picking opinions outside our scientific consensus will NOT do the trick. Modern scientific consensus has a flawless record and you will have a difficult task if your goal is to prove anything against it.

But see 'that' knowledge is will outdated to my current knowledge and understanding.

you will need to prove that "your" current knowledge and understanding is based on OUR scientific current knowledge and understanding.
Do you really have peer reviewed frameworks that prove time dilation to be incorrect....or are you going to give your own interpretations on other people's results.?

You are just not able to keep up and understand this knowledge and understanding because of your beliefs, which is a whole other body of knowledge and understanding that you have not kept up with.

-That claim of yours could be easily justified by just pointing out to our the peer reviewed material, official frameworks and technical applications of what we "don't understand".....
The stage is yours man! What is this scientific consensus that you are aware off but we ignore!!!!!

What we observe is that our understanding works outside the theoretical realm, they provide us with accurate predictions and life saving technical applications.

You are doing another absolute flaw that human beings continually do. You are 'trying to' speak for 'we' or 'us'. But 'you' cannot do this successfully, even though you have kept 'trying to'. So, 'you' are best speaking for 'you' only, and leaving 'me' and 'others' out of this.

-Again, scientific consensus..is the product of what WE are doing...not what me or you want to believe to be true. Your cellphone company is using OUR knowledge to provide US with useful science based technology.
Our understanding of Newtons laws and Einstein's relativity is why you have GPS services,bridges and satellite connections.
So scientific consensus is all about OUR knowledge and how it is used to better OUR lives.

Sure they all could be wrong, but the moment to doubt them is ONLY after you have empirically verify this probability

Tell me how I can empirically verify any thing to any one if no one listens?

First you need to stop making claims about absolute truth. We know that you are wrong there.
Then you need to stop cherry picking experiments
You also need to stop projecting your personal interpretations on other people's experiments...specially when the scientific consensus agrees with their conclusions.

....not without indications, that would be an irrational thing to do.

Believing things are true and not listening to any thing contrary is a truly irrational thing to do.

As I said before...you are confusing the concept of knowledge with the concept of truth. Accepting knowledge claims based on systematic knowledge and facts is due to Pragmatic Necessity ...not an arbitrary choice of faith. You need to clear up those differences in your mind sir.

So its wise and humble to accept our limits of knowledge as human beings and act reasonably by accepting what is based on our current facts and their systematic evaluation.

You can try absolutely anything to not look at things other than what you want to believe are true, but the actual truth comes out eventually.

And this is what you do when you ignore our latest measurements on the phenomenon of time dilation. You need to look at our current facts...only then your belief will be a rational one.

If you don't do that , then your behavior is irrational (not wrong!) and your philosophy is nothing more than a pseudo intellectual product.

Remember you keep using words very differently than I do, and I certainly do not have "my philosophy".

Sure, your language mode IS in the center of your faith based beliefs!
Everybody has a philosophy. Even science is based on the philosophical principles of Methodological Naturalism.You guard yours by ignoring our latest facts about nature...this is an huge indication of a philosophical worldview that isn't based on logic and scientific principles

i.e You can ignore our knowledge on gravity, but if your claim is that you can exit the top floor window and walk towards the near tall building......that is not a wise claim . Can you see the now the connection between knowledge and wisdom?

What I can see is how obviously you made up some completely ridiculous claim and then tried to put it onto me as though it was something that I would say.

The example above was just an analogy on what you are essentially doing by rejecting something obvious as time dilation. I don't say that you deny gravity, but your time dilation denial is equally ridiculous, when we look at our available facts.

Seriously, you do not have a clue at all in regards to what my view is here, do you?

No need to know your views, since I don't address your views. I am only addressing your red herring claims about absolute knowledge and truth and your failed attempt to poke holes in scientific consensus.

The same is true with your statement about time dilation.

What IS my statement about time dilation?

You stated more than once that you disagree with our current scientific explanations about this phenomenon.

Prove to us that you even know what it is

I won't browse back to your previous posts. I you want you can make a clear statements of your belief and post links that are in support of your claim.

Time Dilation IS an observable fact.We produce electronics that take advantage of that knowledge and as a result, they produce more.

Do you even know what I have said in regards to this?

From what you have written here it appears you have absolutely no idea what I have said regarding this.

BEFORE you go on absolutely absurd claims like, "You can ignore our knowledge on gravity", and then associate that with what I have said in regards to "time dilation" and the electronics produced, how about you FIRST write down what my claims, ideas, and/or views are, then challenge and/or question them only.

Your imaginary perceptions of what I have actually written and said are only SHOWING that you still have absolutely no idea at all what my views actually are.

If you think that I misrepresent your belief feel free to present it...even if the serious issue here is your confusing about absolute knowledge and on what science is and how it works. But I am ok to address your beliefs about time dilation in detail. The floor is yours.

[Terrapin Station]

It's not clear to me what a dimension is in your view

A dimension is a spatial direction that help (along with the 3 others) form this universe.

Dimensions are not things/objects (or of some finite substance) and therefore cannot be measured, manipulated, or affected by gravity or anything else. Dimensions give structure to the universe. Without dimensions there would be no universe.

Without Time, there could be no motion (direction of movement of 3D objects). Without Time, nothing happens.

Dimensions (in this context) are not "measurements".

And it's not just a concept (that people have) in your view?

[Terrapin Station]

(Dimensions that is--dimensions are not just a concept that people have in your view?)

[RJG]

Science falsely assumes:
Time is a function of Motion (of objects).

When in reality:
Motion is a function of Time

Science forgets that without Time there could be no motion, period!. This is why they falsely equate "measurements of objects" as Time itself.

(Dimensions that is--dimensions are not just a concept that people have in your view?)

I don't follow. Everything we know is just a "concept"!

[Steve3007]

Taking vague pot shots at someone you disagree with is not something we want to encourage in this forum.

According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light. But when I shine my flashlight out in the universe, somehow I still exist! (i.e. Time still continues) even though the light beam (photons) is travelling at the speed of light, at the point when Time should=0.

If it wasn't for assertions like the one above (bolded), the discussion might simply be about semantics or pure metaphysics. But the above assertion shows that your wordplay apparently leads you to make sweeping false statements about what a loosely defined group of people that you call "Science" says. a.k.a, a straw man argument. Or maybe a vague pot shot?

It's left to the reader to guess who or what you're referring to by the catch-all title "Science" and which particular part of it you claim to have lifted that assertion from, but if we assume you're talking specifically about the theories of Special and General Relativity, then they don't simply say that time stops at the speed of light. And putting the word "stops" in scare-quotes doesn't alter that. As I said before, if you want to assert that somebody has said something that is factually incorrect, first read what they actually said and, preferably, quote them saying it.

[NickGaspar]

1. Time (the dimension itself)
2. The Measurement of Time
3. The Measurement of Objects

Proofs of time dilation using geometry: …

...All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.

Tam, this is NOT proof of Time dilation. This is item #3 (above), this is just the relative measurements of 'objects' that you calculate a result and call "Time" (#1 above). You are confusing #3 for #1.

The real Time, the dimension itself, is not a 'finite' substance that can be affected, measured, or mathematically manipulated/calculated. You are confusing "time the measurement (of objects)" as "Time the dimension". These are two different animals altogether.

There is only ONE dimension of Time, (and along with the 3 other dimensions which) can't "dilate". Dimensions are unstoppable/unchangeable spatial directions that form this universe.

Again, there is only ONE dimension of Time, not multiple dimensions (unlike the many possible multiple "measurements of objects").

According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light. But when I shine my flashlight out in the universe, somehow I still exist! (i.e. Time still continues) even though the light beam (photons) is travelling at the speed of light, at the point when Time should=0.

My existence is proof that (the real) Time is unstoppable, ...nor can "dilate"!

You lack basic understanding of our scientific concepts of time and dimension.
Time is not what you understand to be.

[RJG]

Steve, you need to chill. My quoted "stop" was in reference to Tam's actual usage of the word "stop" (with quotes). My conversation was with him, not you. Please butt out - unless you see an error in my reasoning/logic, then I appreciate you pointing it out. Otherwise keep the unnecessary condescension to yourself.

[RJG]

Time is not what you understand to be.

...or maybe it is the other way around. You seem to forget that Logic always trumps Science.

One question for you -- can objects move without the dimension of Time?

If you accept this as true, then "measurements" of objects in motion is not Time. Simple Logic.

[Steve3007]

My conversation was with him, not you.

You didn't say "According to Tam, Time "stops" at the speed of Light.".

Your conversation appeared, in part, to be with an entity that you refer to as "Science". You appeared to be telling us that this entity has said something with which you disagree. If you falsely assert that somebody has said something, who, in your view, has the right to critique your assertion?

[RJG]

Your conversation appeared, in part, to be with an entity that you refer to as "Science". You appeared to be telling us that this entity has said something with which you disagree. If you falsely assert that somebody has said something, who, in your view, has the right to critique your assertion?

When I said "Science" in this context, I meant the "Science community in general", I was not referring to any particular person.