On the Non-Existence of 'time' [was Re: SciAm article [was Happy Groundhog Day!]]

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Feb 22 05:09:16 EST 2005

In this addendum to my prior post
[quoted in its entirety, below], I'll
address some 'points' made in an
article in the March, 2005 issue of
=Scientific American=, "Misconcept-
ions About The Big Bang", by C. H.
Lineweaver and T. M. Davis, p.36.

"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message 
news:Ix_Nd.16149$Th1.10827 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| news:r4gNd.158301$w62.67855 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|| [...]
| Saying that 'time' is physically-real
| is like saying that "measurement is
| physically-real".
| "Measurement" is something that can
| be done. The act of doing it is phys-
| ically-real.
| "How long is that shtick?"
| "A meter."
| Oh, I see. A meter shtick."
| "Meters" have no physically-real ex-
| istence. They're mental-constructs
| that define an agreed upon measure-
| ment of "distance".
| Is "distance" physically-real?
| Yes and no.
| Yes because physical reality occupies
| space in 3 spatial "dimensions", but
| no because, since the universe is ex-
| panding no "distance" is ever exactly
| the same from one 'instant' to the
| 'next'.
| Critic: "But I thought you said that
| time doesn't exist. Now you're say-
| ing that the dimensions of space
| vary as a function of time?"
| Nope.
| The expansion of the universe is due,
| in it's entirety, to the one-way flow
| of energy, form order to disorder,
| that is what's =described= by 2nd
| Thermo [WDB2T]. Energy 'con-
| tained' within a cubic "meter" is more-
| ordered than the same energy when
| it's 'contained' within a cubic "kilo-
| meter", so, when I said that "dist-
| ance" increases as the universe ex-
| pands, all that's happening is that is
| that the overall energy-density of
| the universe is decreasing, which is
| WDB2T. There's no 'time' in-there.
| Critic: "But, if space is just energy,
| and it expands, and your meter
| shtick is just energy, then it must
| also expand as space expands, so
| the distance your meter shtick meas-
| ures remains the same."
| Nope the mental construct, "meter",
| remains the same. The shtick expands
| in 3-D [in a way that's commensurate
| with local WDB2T].

The =SA= article repeatedly made the
'point' that ~'atoms' "don't expand", so
"matter" doesn't "expand".

But this is NQI ["not quite it"].

'atoms' =do= 'expand'. It's just that,
since energy is released into the UES
when 'atoms' "decay", and that energy
within the UES 'just' flows where it's
most-free to flow, such release of en-
ergy into the UES during "radioactive
decay" flows so that the existences of
the =remaining= SSW<->UES harmon-
ics [TH: "Spherical-Standing-Wave<->
Universal-Energy-Supply harmonics",
which are what, before Tapered Harm-
ony, have been referred to as "atoms"]
are 'sustained', including their 'sizes' rel-
ative to =overall= Universal-ES-"pres-

TH predicts that, as the expansion of the
universe continues to accelerate, whole
classes of 'atoms' will "wink-out" of phys-
ical Existence [until the Universal energy
density reaches a threshold at which no
SSW<->UES harmonics can be 'sus-
tained', and the universe will undergo
periodic "explosions" [what's been re-
ferred to as "radioactive decay" does, in
fact, constitute relatively- =small= [grad-
ual] instances of such periodic "explos-
ions" which Deterministically reflect the
dynamics I discussed in the preceding
paragraph.]] As universal expansion
continues to accelerate, "chemistry" will
literally change in ways that reflect these
variations in SSW<->UES harmonics
being 'sustained'. If folks look, they'll
see that all of this can already be detect-
ed. Doing so requires the use of TH,
though. It's what so-called "Carbon 14
dating" is actually all about, for instance.

So the meter-"shtick" remains a "meter",
to the degree that the existences of the
'atoms' which comprise it are, themselves,
'sustained' as a result of energy being re-
leased into the UES in "radioactive decay"

| It's the same with non-physically-real
| 'time'.
| Critic: "Hold on there! Experiments
| have verified that the speed of light
| is constant."
| How can it be?
| "Speed" is "distance" per 'second'.
| But the universe is expanding, so
| "distance" is never the same from
| one 'instant' to the 'next', so saying
| that SOL is "constant" actually says
| nothing be-cause "distance" is nev-
| er "constant".
| Critic: "But what about what the ex-
| periments have verified?"
| What the experiments have Verified
| is that energy =flows=, and that there
| is a universal low energy-density that
| cannot be decreased, except by the
| expansion of the universe, itself. This
| happens be-cause energy just flows
| in the direction in which it's most free
| to flow, and, in doing this, energy
| maintains the universal low energy-
| density. So, when energy is pushed
| at the so-called "speed of light", in-
| stead of moving in the direction of
| the "push", energy just moves in any
| other direction in which it's more-free
| to move, which is why nothing can
| travel at a "speed" greater than the
| "speed of light".
| There's no 'time' in-there.
| Just energy, flowing.
| Critic: "What does any of this have
| to do with the way the brain works?"
| I'm making a 'point' about how nerv-
| ous systems experience physical reality.
| They "make-up" a lot of stuff that
| they, then, use as "guides" in their
| co-operating within physical reality.
| Critic: "Co-operating?"
| Yeah. All there is is energy.
| Anything 'the' body does can only
| co-operate with the 3-D energy-dyn-
| amics that exist where 'the' body exists.
| For instance, if the body encounters
| a concrete wall, the body cannot walk
| through it. The "concrete wall" is just
| energy 'contained' in 'atoms'. So, it's
| necessary for the body to have some
| way to "know" how to co-operate
| with the energy in the 'atoms' that
| comprise the stuff of the wall.

Nervous systems do this "knowing"
of what's "possible" with respect to

| And it does this =solely= in the "lang-
| uage" of energy-gradients.

No 'time'.

K. P. Collins 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list