The Past and Future existing at the same time?

[Element115]

This appears to be a reasonable perception of how we as humans view the concept of time. But I have to disagree with all of it. We have no proof any of it is true.

Is there proof in anything related to space-time that isn't heavily theorized in regards to spacial offset divergence?

 

[Mayhem]

This appears to be a reasonable perception of how we as humans view the concept of time. But I have to disagree with all of it. We have no proof any of it is true.

Maybe perception can't provide proof , what sort of proof are you looking for. Physical or?

An individual rather than a whole perception? maybe.

 

[Einstein]

Maybe perception can't provide proof , what sort of proof are you looking for. Physical or?

An individual rather than a whole perception? maybe.

Why not use physical observation as proof? At least it can be observed by all who wish to see for themselves.

We have observed the red-shifting of light with galaxies as their distance increases from us. It has been measured and widely agreed upon that space-time is still expanding at an ever increasing rate. I would choose this observation as the basis for the existence of time. Please note that this observation shows an inseparable relationship with space. Manipulating one also influences the other.

And then of course there is one actual scientific experiment about space-time. It was called the Casimir effect named after the guy that discovered it. It was observed that two metal plates when brought extremely close to each other will suddenly attract very rapidly. It was interpreted to mean that space-time has pressure and can cause matter to move. The space-time between the plates is shielded by the plates from the space-time outside the plates thus reducing the available push effect. An imbalance in push force results in the apparent plate attraction.

Now the next step in understanding would rely on the above statements as being factually true. If the above is basic knowledge, we should be able to use that knowledge as building blocks for something more advanced. Something more advanced that comes from this basic knowledge would tend to validate the basic knowledge.

I posed myself a question as the next step. The question I asked myself is: Do I really need two metal plates to create the push effect with space-time?

 

[Element115]

Why not use physical observation as proof? At least it can be observed by all who wish to see for themselves.

We have observed the red-shifting of light with galaxies as their distance increases from us. It has been measured and widely agreed upon that space-time is still expanding at an ever increasing rate. I would choose this observation as the basis for the existence of time. Please note that this observation shows an inseparable relationship with space. Manipulating one also influences the other.

And then of course there is one actual scientific experiment about space-time. It was called the Casimir effect named after the guy that discovered it. It was observed that two metal plates when brought extremely close to each other will suddenly attract very rapidly. It was interpreted to mean that space-time has pressure and can cause matter to move. The space-time between the plates is shielded by the plates from the space-time outside the plates thus reducing the available push effect. An imbalance in push force results in the apparent plate attraction.

Now the next step in understanding would rely on the above statements as being factually true. If the above is basic knowledge, we should be able to use that knowledge as building blocks for something more advanced. Something more advanced that comes from this basic knowledge would tend to validate the basic knowledge.

I posed myself a question as the next step. The question I asked myself is: Do I really need two metal plates to create the push effect with space-time?

What about unobservable phenomena? Observing is measuring and that would collapse the wave function in order to solidify an observable outcome. In this case we need to take resultant evidence of experiments and theorize an outcome based on our current knowledge. The advancement of AI and quantum computers will speed up this process.

 

[Einstein]

What about unobservable phenomena? Observing is measuring and that would collapse the wave function in order to solidify an observable outcome. In this case we need to take resultant evidence of experiments and theorize an outcome based on our current knowledge. The advancement of AI and quantum computers will speed up this process.

It seems to me an unobservable phenomena would be theoretical. And factually that would by definition be fictional. Inventors don't theorize. They just play with facts.

What you propose is just more nonsense by the academic schooling method. Pretty much guaranteed to get nothing for results.

I'm still waiting for the day when some scientist actually isolates a piece of "MASS" to prove that mass actually exists. But it seems that no one is working on that problem.

 

[Element115]

It seems to me an unobservable phenomena would be theoretical. And factually that would by definition be fictional. Inventors don't theorize. They just play with facts.

What you propose is just more nonsense by the academic schooling method. Pretty much guaranteed to get nothing for results.

I'm still waiting for the day when some scientist actually isolates a piece of "MASS" to prove that mass actually exists. But it seems that no one is working on that problem.

I've not directly observed particles acting as a wave, but I've seen the results through the double-slit experiment. Would that in your mind be considered fictional, or fact?

 

[Einstein]

I've not directly observed particles acting as a wave, but I've seen the results through the double-slit experiment. Would that in your mind be considered fictional, or fact?

I looked at the double slit experiment and don't share the same opinion as the academic community. If you will notice photons were only observed as a result of two wave fronts interfering with each other at specific locations. Observation only shows photons exist with those constraints. I would be interested in seeing if the photons would show up if the two wave fronts were recombined into one wave front that was then allowed to impact the screen. At present I can only accept that photons can exist as the result of the double slit experiment. The experiment doesn't prove photons exist as particles that make up waves.