04 Timeless measurements.




Time works extremely well in a mathematical way, and the notion is undoubtedly useful. but just because something works mathematically (like money for example) this does not prove that it actually exists as a real 'thing'.

I love and respect mathematics, but I'm no mathematician. So, you may ask, how can someone who is no good at maths hope to disprove something as seemingly complex and mathematical as our advanced ideas about time?

The answer is that I am not questioning the intricate details of the mathematics. I'm just questioning what these facts and figures are actually about, and what they actually prove.

To prove or disprove that mankind could complete a manned mission to and from Mars with current technology, one would have to be very good at mathematics because there are fine details and figures that need to be worked out and compared very accurately. But to prove or disprove the likely basic 'existence' or not of some particular 'thing' say gravity, or 'ghosts', air or santa claus, magnetism or the Loch Ness monster,  needn't come down to mathematics or mathematically skill. 

All I need to make clear is just what has been observed, what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and what has been 'assumed', but not really proven. And from there work out just what our facts and figures can logically be assumed to actually be about, or not about

 In doing this I am suggesting for example that Einstein's relativity does explain dilations and distortions in speeds, rates, dimensions, mass and so on, but that these effects are all just happening now - wherever they are happening. But relativity does not seem to prove in any way that 'the past' or 'the future' exist, or that a thing called 'time' exists. 

So time is left being...

Just a mathematical 'system' we use to sensibly compare types of motion...

If you think the sentence above seems to be stating the obvious then bear in mind that you are disagreeing with Galileo, Newton, professors Einstein, Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and many others,  including anyone who is discussing the possibilities of 'time travel' for example.

Also bear in mind that most if not all of our 'time' based mathematical ideas refer to the past and the future without ever clearly stating that it is 'obvious' that these words, and the word time, relate to things that do not actually exist. Instead, most texts are worded as if these things do actually exist.


Here are some sections from the book to explain how time can both work as a 'system', while not actually relating to something that actually exists at all.

>>∆ 1 What do clocks measure?