Breakdown of Talk 3

Introduction.





The talk starts with a general introduction as to what our general definition or beliefs about Time are. Defined in some detail, so that we are at least clear about what is being contested.

Here we cover in more detail, how, and why the expert opinion seems to be that 'Time REALLY exists'. How it is not 'obvious that there is no such thing as time, and everyone knows it' (which is something non-scientific people say quite often). And how instead Galileo, Romer, Newton, Einstein,Hawking etc etc all seem to have very good reason to say Time exists (with a past and a future), and how Time may even be stretched (dilated), warped, travelled through etc. 

All things that I am directly saying cannot be true because our most basic 'reasons' for assuming even 'the past' makes sense or 'exists' can be shown to be wrong.

Q+A on stuff so far, And a close look at some of our mental blocks that arise when we try to see through an illusion that works perfectly and which we are very familiar and comfortable with. e.g. how 'money' works as a notion, and how the language of money works. But money itself does not exist other than a useful man-made concept.

A closer look at resistance to seeing through illusions, and a section the 'illusions of vision'. Explaining how we don't see quite what we think we see, but we see an illusion or misunderstanding that 'works' perfectly, and so for most of us the 'illusion' hides unexamined.

focusing on 'the past' - does it exist? or does in 'not exist' ? to be unclear here is very unscientific. And to continue a conversation 'about time' without this point being clarified is extremely unscientific.

when the police ask you what you 'remember' about an incident, do you tell them about 'the past' or just about the 'present' contents of your head - your memories - as if they are 'the past'?

In the world around us, we have endless  'pointers' or evidence suggesting that 'the past' exists. But these are like 'maps' pointing to a territory. Eventually, no matter how many maps you have you need to see actual proof that the 'territory' exists. 

So here we check, why do we only have maps that seem to point to the past, and are these pointers good enough evidence to prove 'the past'  'exists'?
This is critical, because virtually all of the books I have on Time (including Einstein's Relativity) seem to make an incorrect assumption at this point. (invalidating or requiring the complete re-framing of most of what they subsequently say. i.e. its wrong =) ). 


INTERVAL

The present, it's all around us, but is it really 'an infinitely thin slice of time'.

If you believe in time, then you believe it is. Perhaps I can simplify the situation. Does a car doing '100 miles per hour' actually prove that Time, and hours exist ? Here we take a look at motion, and then energy.

We 'say' that Things 'take' 'time' to happen in the present.

But do events really 'take' a thing called 'Time'? If so, where do they take it from, and why? Also, why is 'energy' always essential for movement and change, and what does 'time' bring to the party.

If energy is all we need, then the expression 'things take time to move' is just an empty and misleading expression, which uses 'semantics' to wrongly suggest the existence and need of an extra 'completely intangible' thing called 'time'.

we also say 'events' come out of the predictable, or unpredictable future. but is this true ?

The past, present and future seem to be clearly different 'distinctions'. Yet Einstein suspected the distinctions between the three were a persistent illusion. Here we look at whether we can 'bridge' the past, present and future in one simple thought experiment.

If so, can we still answer the classic question 'Why can we 'remember the past but not the future'?

whatever we say about the past, present and future, Time still seems to exist if only because it seems to have a direction or 'arrow'. Here we look at Hawking's 3 arrows of time (the thermodynamic, cosmological, and psychological arrows) and see if we can dissolve them so we are again just left with 'now'.
even with this hurdle behind us, surely we still 'age', surely every child is always younger that their parents, and this alone proves the progression of Time... I think i can prove this wrong - how ?... well look at the video =)

Ageing continued (will it ever end), and defeated, so we look at the apparent 'temporal order' of events.

Does this 'temporal order' actually, really 'exist'? - if not, then many experts have make a critical false assumption, and have based there belief that time exists, and is mysterious, on this invalid assumption.


If there is no actually existing, created, and recorded 'temporal order', how do we explain the apparently true fact that fast moving astronaut's are genuine 'time travellers' who have travelled into the future, or come out of the past (if only by a few milliseconds) ?

if this is not down to 'time dilation' how would it look if we recreated the observed fact in a single room?

This talk ends before all the planned topics were covered, more talks planned for September 2011.

(yes, I know I mentioned 'a date', in 'the future'... watch the talks =)

Matt Welcome


Comments