Time – a mental construct or a physical reality?

Posted by khuram on January 5, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
If we go deeper than our (actually my) understanding abilities, then we are at the level of an idealist. At this level, we are not confirmed whether material world really exists or not. Then we can theorize that time is just a mental construct.

But if we are not at this much level of depth, then we are at the level of a scientist who takes material world a reality.

At this level … time is not any physical thing. But however, time is the name of a physical phenomenon.

Physical events do occur before and after one another. Course of occurrence of physical events is a physical phenomena.

Some events are repetitive in nature and they occur at regular intervals. In normal conditions, regular interval between one kind of physical event can correspond to exact number of intervals between some other regular type physical event.

Time can only be measured by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events.

Time is duration between events. Duration is measurable by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events. And that physical duration is the time!


5 Responses to “Time – a mental construct or a physical reality?”

  1. Joe Nahhas said

    Kepler (demolish)Vs Einstein’s space jail of time
    r ————– Exp (i wt) ———–S= r Exp (ì wt)
    Nahhas’ Equation
    Orbit location—-Orbit light sensing —–Visual orbit location
    Particle/Newton ——Visual ————– Wave/Quantum
    Quantum – Newton=visual effects=relativistic effects
    =space-time confusions
    S= visual distance; r = actual distance; v = speed and c = light speed
    S = r Exp (i wt) = r [cosine (wt) + î sine (wt)]
    P =d S/d t = v Exp (ì w t) + ì r w Exp (ì w t); v=d r/d t; v=w r
    = v (1+ ì) [Exp (ì wt)] = visual velocity
    E (definition) = m/2(m v + m’ r) ²; E = mc²/2 If v = 0; m’ r=mc
    E (visual) = mp²/2 = mv²/2(1+ì) ² Exp 2(ì w t)
    E (visual) = mv²/2(1 + 2ì -1) [cos2wt + ì sin2wt]
    E (visual) = ì (mv²) [1-2sin²wt + 2i [sin (wt)] [cosine (wt)]
    If wt = (2n+1) π/4
    E (visual) = ì (mv²) [1-1 ± ỉ] = ± (mc²); v = c
    2-Central force law Areal velocity is constant: r² (d θ/d t) =h Kepler’s Law
    h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
    r² (d θ/d t) = h = S² (d w/d t)
    Replace r with S = r exp (ỉ wt); h = [r² Exp (2iwt)] (d w/d t)
    (d w/d t) = (h/r²) exp [-2(i wt)]
    d w/d t= (h/r²) [cosine 2(wt) – ỉ sine 2(wt)] = (h/r²) [1- 2sine² (wt) – ỉ sin 2(wt)]
    d w/d t = d w(x)/d t + d w(y)/d t; d w(x)/d t = (h/r²) [ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
    d w(x)/d t – (h/r²) = – 2(h/r²)sine²(wt) = – 2(h/r²)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt
    (h/ r²)(Perihelion/Periastron)= [2πa.a√ (1-ε²)]/Ta² (1-ε) ²= [2π√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²
    Δ w/d t = (d w/d t – h/r²] = -4π {[√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² radian per second
    Δ w/d t = (- 4π /T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² radians
    Δ w°/d t = (-720/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² degrees; Multiplication by 180/π
    Δ w°/d t = (-720×36526/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/(1-ε)²} (v/c)² degrees/100 years
    Δ w”/d t = (-720×3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/(1-ε) ²} (v/c) ² seconds of arc multiplication by 3600
    Δ w/d t = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²]/(1-ε)²} (v/c)² seconds of arc per century
    The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 – ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²- –.) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4) v=√ [G m M / (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<<M; Solar system
    Application 3: Advance of Perihelion of mercury.
    G=6.673×10^-11; M=2×10^30kg; m=.32×10^24kg
    ε = 0.206; T=88days; c = 299792.458 km/sec; a = 58.2km/sec
    Calculations yields:
    v =48.14km/sec
    [√ (1- ε²)] (1-ε) ² = 1.552
    Δ w”= (-720x36526x3600/88) x (1.552) (48.14/299792)²=43.0”/century
    E ≠ mc² (special-relativity) and the 43" seconds of arc of advance of perihelion of Planet mercury (general-relativity) is are caused by deformed space-time physicists "thought" and not deformed space (x, y, z).

    Anyone dare to prove me wrong?
    E (Energy by definition) = mv²/2 = mc²/2; if v = c
    m = mass; v= speed; c= light speed; w= angular velocity; t= time
    S = r Exp (ì w t) = r [cos (wt) + ì sin (wt)] Visual effects
    P = visual velocity = change of visual location
    P = d S/d t = v Exp (ì w t) + ì w r Exp (ì w t)
    = (v + ì w r) Exp (ì w t) = v (1 + ì) Exp (ì w t) = visual speed; v = w r
    E (visual energy= what you see in lab) = m p²/2; replace v by p in E = mv²/2
    = m p²/2 = m v²/2 (1 + ì) ² Exp (2ì wt)
    = mv²/2 (2ì) [cosine (2wt) + ì sine (2wt)]
    =ì mv² [1 – 2 sine² (wt) + 2 ì sine (wt) cosine (wt)];v = speed; c = light speed
    wt = π/2
    E (visual) = ìmv² (1 – 2 + 0)
    E (visual) = -ì mc² ≡ mc² (absolute value;-ì = negative complex unit) If v = c
    w t = π/4
    E (visual) = imv² [1-1 +ỉ] =-mc²; v = c
    wt =-π/4+ỉln2/2; 2ỉ wt=-ỉπ/2 – ln2
    Exp (2i wt) = Exp [-ỉπ/2] Exp [ln(1/2)]=[-ỉ (1/2)]
    E (visual) = imv² (-ỉ/2) =1/2mc² v = c
    Conclusion: E = mc² is the visual Illusion of E = mc²/2 All rights reserved.
    PS: In case of E=mc² claims to be rest energy claims then
    E=1/2m (m v + m’ r) ² = (1/2m) (m’ r) ²; v = 0
    E = (1/2m) (mc) ²; m’ r =mc

  2. Alexander said

    Einstein’s Physics Dollar Store on Campus
    MIT Harvard Cal-Tech
    Sponsored by NASA
    Why Relativity theory is not Physics and why Einstein’s “thought” = 0
    Walking the walk and talking the talk taking on all space-time confusion of physics by
    MIT Harvard and Cal-Tech and all other Physics dollar stores departments
    And why LHC burned itself

    Visual Effects and the confusions of “Modern” physics

    r ——— Light sensing of moving objects ——- S
    Actual object—– Light ——— Visual object
    r – ——-cosine (wt) + i sine (wt) – S = r [cosine (wt) + i sine (wt)]
    Newton– Kepler’s time visual effects — Time dependent Newton
    Particle ————– Visual effects ——————– Wave

    Line of Sight: r cosine wt

    r ——————- r cosine (wt) line of sight light aberrations

    A moving object with velocity v will be visualized by
    light sensing through an angle (wt);w = constant and t= time
    Also, sine wt = v/c; cosine wt = √ [1-sine² (wt) = √ [1-(v/c) ²]

    A visual object moving with velocity v will be seen as S

    S = r [cosine (wt) + i sine (wt)] = r Exp [i wt]; Exp = Exponential

    S = r [√ [1-(v/c) ²] + ỉ (v/c)] = S x + i S y

    S x = Visual along the line of sight = r [√ [1-(v/c) ²]

    This Equation is special relativity length contraction formula
    And it is just the visual effects caused by light aberrations of a
    moving object along the line of sight.

    In a right angled velocity triangle A B C: Angle A = wt; angle B = 90°; Angle C = 90° -wt
    AB = hypotenuse = c; BC = opposite = v; CA= adjacent = c √ [1-(v/c) ²]

  3. Michael said

    ELIAS: Many scientists hold a realization presently that time is but a perception, and is in actuality simultaneous. What they do not realize is that time is within itself a dimension. They shall be realizing this, and this shall offer them information futurely of the reality of simultaneous time outside of the confines of physical focuses, but initially they must be realizing that time is a dimension within itself. It is what you may term to be an entity within itself, within energy. You have created this within essence. All essences have created this dimension of time and have affixed it to each different physical dimension. Therefore, it differs within different physical dimensions.

    I have expressed to individuals within this forum of the elasticity of time, and how it may be manipulated and bended and created or inserted into different physical dimensions in different increments. Some dimensions move much more swiftly than this particular dimension, some move much more slowly than this particular dimension; but these are all manipulations of the dimension of time. What your scientists have not quite evaluated yet and understood yet is that time is an element. It is almost a thing that may be manipulated, as you now within this dimension manipulate electricity. You may also manipulate time in this same manner, for it is an element just as electricity is an element.”

  4. Its like you learn my mind! Yoou seem to know sso
    much about this, like you wrote thee book in it or something.
    I feel that you just could do with a few percent to pressure
    the message home a little bit, however instead of that, tat is
    fantastic blog. An excellent read. I’ll definitely be back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: