Google now travel time to work Videos

Hello Александр Багмутов, thank you for your comment, sincerely appreciated.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly RE: "nonsense", So that anyone reading your comments can check for themselves that they are based on a reasonable understanding of what i am suggesting, would you please point out precisely which bit of the video you would say is the most nonsensical. (just the location number will do) That way I, and anyone reading your comment can access whether it is a valid criticism, (and i can check if i am wring in my reasoning or if you may have misunderstood part of the talk) I may be right or wrong in what I am suggesting, but i do know i put a tremendous amount of effort into presenting the possibility as systematically, logically, clearly and unambiguously (i.e. "sensibly") as possible. MM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Secondly, RE:Don`t you see difference between Physical theory (1), our intuitive reception of time (2) and an objective reality (3) - yes, thats very much the whole point f the talk, to identify the different ideas about 'time' - show which ones are just 'ideas' - and to show how even 'objective' time may in fact only be an idea.... i sincerely cant see how you could have watched the video carefully without noticing that :^? I agree, it is a useful idea to break 'time' down into.timeT maths theorytimeC conception of timeCtimeO objective reality.And i basically do this throughout the video as you will know, making very clear the distinctions between 'ideas' and actually existing phenomena etc. (its kind of the whole point of the video :)In doing so this highlights some of the confusion I am trying to dispel, so that the question does ‘time’ exist can be seen clearly and actually answered. And, i think i check all of these different interpretations very, very, carefully and logically in the video... I think I make it extremely clear at location 7:03https://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM?t=423 that scientific authors of books like “How to build a time machine”, and “Time travels in four dimensions” do not start their books saying “time is just an idea (e.g. timeT or timeC) but lets pretend it exists for fun.... and talk about it as if we could travel through it...I also think I make it extremely clear at location 27:11 https://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM?t=1631 “the ‘feeling’ of time passing” that I am aware of timeC and that we can imagine feeling anything but that’s not science And I think I make it extremely clear at location 28:00 https://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM?t=1680“the IDEA of time and the past” that there is a distinction between ‘ideas’ (maths or conceptions) and objective reality... in fact I and, i think i make it very clear at location 11:54 https://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM?t=714with the slide that says...------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, scientifically, which is it ? Does Time simply NOT exist?Its just an arbitrary man-made idea?  ORis Time a REAL, and complex ‘4th dimension’With a ‘Past’, ‘Future’, ’Flow’, ’Order’ and ‘Direction’ etc?------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...that i fully understand the distinctions of different definitions of time, e.g between the idea (mathematically scientifically or conceptually), and the 'actual'; objective reality of time ... or not.And i understand you 've come here 'to hear some interesting thoughts about nature of timeO'I think my point is made very clearly , i.e."It seems to me that all we observe is matter existing, moving and interacting, therefore it makes sense to thoroughly check whether "matter just existing moving and interacting", might be enough to mislead us into wrongly thinking a thing called time(O) exists"You will know that this is encapsulated at location 17:50 https://youtu.be/pSJ8A-w78xM?t=1073With the key question...“What if there is absolutely NO ‘PAST’Ever actually existing or created in ‘any way’, ‘any where’At all?What if things “JUST” move?The key word here is “IF”, and you may find it beneficial to ask yourself ....What if things “JUST” exist, move and interact...not ‘also heading into a future’, not’ also leaving a past behind them’, and not ‘in, with, through, or over a thing called ‘time’.... would this be enough to wrongly make me think timeO exists ?Just to be clear, I do not think it is hollow, pointless or sophistic to check observations and ask questions about them, in fact I think it is the heart of objective science to ask awkward questions.As you have pointed out very clearly, so many people just talk about "time", and ask does "time" exist, etc not even defining what they mean , or which version of which definition they are asking about.For example re your comment “None of those scientists assumed in their physics theories that in objective reality past or future exists or not”, I think you will be amazed at how many people contest that statement, e.g. why would professor Gott write a book called “time travel in Einstein’s universe”... if he thought that in objective reality there is no ‘past’ or ‘future’?...and why would virtually every scientist in all of those books talk about ‘the past’ and ‘the future’ and travelling between them...if they had no opinion either way “in objective reality past or future exists or not”?So with respect, I cant actually grasp what you are saying in your comment, other than that we have a maths ‘tool’ of time ( which thus does not mean timeO exists) , and we have the concept of time (which also does not mean timeO exists), and we have the ‘idea’ of timeO... (my entire talk and book being about testing whether it is valid to assume timeO from the ‘idea’ of time (timeC) Also, with respect, it looks as if you watched the video with a strong preconception of the answer you wanted to hear, and thus may have not actually, objectively grasped the point i make, e.g. you say all my talks are hollow and pointless, but you dont make any comment on my actual conclusion, and how it must be wrong if you assume it is...And, you say "I`ve come to hear some interesting thoughts about nature of timeO, but there was no talkabout timeO at all! Only some obvious points about timeC and lots of nonsense"i would say the thought that "we may be completely and utterly wrong from the outset to assume objective, real "time" exists at all, and this may becasue we haven't carefully considered how the concept of time may be a total red herring, is extremely interesting!Ultimately it leads to the thought that the entire universe, whatever it is doing, may "just" be doing it, and thus the entire universe may literally be utterly "timeless"... to me that possibility is very interesting, as interesting as the possibility that Einsteins extremely useful Relativity may be totally wrong to assume 'time', and can be fully interpreted in terms of things just interacting in 3d warped space timelessly ( so much so i literally wrote the book on it : )Therefore, so we are completely clear, would you please define precisely what you presently mean by the word ‘time’(O), and in particular what features, attributes or components etc you think it may have.e.g. do you think it has a ‘past’, ’future’, ‘flow’, ‘direction’, ‘is involved in enabling things to move etc etc’?(otherwise, without a clear definition there is no way to objectively check what may or may not be the case, and I’ll be shadowboxing a ghost whose definition you may end up changing as you go along : )Again, sincerely thanks for your comment, please let me know what you mean by ‘time’, the ‘thing’M.Marsden

No. Speed=dx/dt is only a conceptual description of motion. Real motion happens because of real interactions between real objects.Time is calculated from an absolute measure of an observed change in displacement between two objects. Time is a concept, not real.

+neighborwebmaster Time is an arbitrary measurement to quantify motion.

Matt,Thanks for the reply. You are clearly an infuriating and insufferable person to 'debate' with. I'm assuming you aren't wilfully misunderstanding me (and Einstein), so I'll try once more, although with little hope of success. I would hope that we could agree that the CONCEPT of Time exists. The WORD 'TIME' exists? Yes? Otherwise I find it difficult to understand how we are discussing it.. using the word 'Time', and referring to your theory. I'm not saying anything other than that the CONCEPT and the word exist in the minds of human beings, regardless of what they refer to. Einstein is dismissing TIME in that quote. Humans may have (rightly or wrongly) a concept that is represented by the word TIME. We also have the concept that clocks measure TIME whether that is true or not. Einstein is saying TIME, the concept, is unimportant, as is the CONCEPT that clocks measure TIME. I don't actually agree with Einstein's sentiments, but if you hadn't somehow totally missed the ironic meaning of that quote then maybe you'd realise that his views as expressed there are in alignment with yours, misguided though they clearly are.

re 'semantics' ( the bane of my life :)   (if i had a dime for each mention of semantics :)see this youtube at location 11:20"What is time?", Does Time exist? and How it may not- Edinburgh Festival Timelessness Talksorry for audio qualityhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIPLcEIQZ68(note youtube comment links seem to just play the current video - you may have to search for Edinburgh Festival Timelessness Talk )*03 Basic Timelessness Introduction.‎ > ‎∆ Timeless v.Time distinctions (Rhetoric and Semantics).*https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/basic-timelessness/table-of-timeless-vtime-distinctionsre *Einstein quote Time is that which clocks measure*04 Timeless measurements.‎  ‎∆ 1 What do 'clocks' actually measure P1?*https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/mathematics/what-do-clocks-measurenote also www.timelessness.co.uk is searchable... put in "semantics" etcMatthew Marsden(Auth "A Brief History of Timelessness")

Hi milespergallon,Thank you for your comment, please feel free to tell me what you think here, I’m putting y work out there so it can be peer group reviewed.I have a particular view on the theory of time that I sincerely think resolved all issues with it and shows the theory to be moot – but – I am also aware I may be wrong. The test is in seeing if I can address All issues and questions it raises. (check the seperate site and video links comment)SO, re your points, firstly please read on only if you are open to having you current opinion changed if some of your assumptions can be shown to be incorrect, otherwise trust me there is no point. ( I can’t fight possible dogma, only make people first aware they may have it) -          I spend most of my effort explaining things clearly, and having to show people where they have misunderstood me, I suspect because most people read my work expecting it to say something they are already thinking, instead of taking it at face value. e.g you sayre the “Einstein quote about Time being that which clocks measure is utterly in agreement with what you are saying...” I strongly disagree.What I am saying is *1-it seems that things exist in the universe, and 2- it seems that things just move, change and interact – not heading into a ‘future’ or leaving a ‘temporal past’ behind them. (or however you want to express that).* From these postulates I conclude everything we attribute to ‘time’ can be explained away.So I am very clearly not saying - “Time 'is' that which clocks measure”,(though i see where you think there may be confusion.But, Im saying something sublty - though very significantly different, which is in essense...'clocks' are just motors, that just show movement, that is all they can be used to 'measure' - and it is misleading to call this time becasue it implies a thing called 'time' exists, and people will jump endlessly to conclusions if they assume this) so - I am saying* “we may be completely wrong from the outset to assume a thing called time exists” ( other than as a useful idea.*(its important to see here you seem to have misunderstood my position).  SemanticsYes there is an issue with semantics, virtually everyone I meet who says this seems to jump to the conclusion that thus the error is in my work – and thus don’t check further. Consider *1 - Einstein “Time is that which clocks measure”, 2 - Oxford English dictionary “"TIME" : The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future”* *For 1 to be correct you need to prove there is a thing called ‘time’ that passes and so can be ‘measured’.For 2 to be correct you need a proof there IS a ‘past’ and a ‘future’.* And both cannot be true, ie “Time is that which clocks measure” means time is just another (misleading) name for motion – misleading because most people will assume the word time also means “The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future”. Also you are saying “'Time is a man made construct which is significant only in that it corresponds to clocks and watches, another man made thing.” Which disagrees with*1-       Because we can’t measure a man made ‘phenomena’ that does not actually exist, and2-       If you are right then the O.E.D is wrong, because man can’t make a past and future.* I think the answer may be that Einstein’s words are misleading here, the oed is essentially wrong, and with respect you may be also... instead, I think ... “objects may be *just existing, moving changing and interacting”* (this is something very few people seem to have considered, let alone considered and been able to disprove, perhaps yourself included : ? ) An experimentSpin an object like a pen on a table and ask yourself “what is this rotating thing ‘measuring’ ”? I would say a rotating thing, be it a pen, or a hand attached to cogs, ‘measures’ nothing. All it does is show you... *1-it seems that things exist in the universe, and 2- it seems that things just move, change and interact – not heading into a ‘future’ or leaving a ‘temporal past’ behind them. (or however you want to express that).* You could use a rotating thing ( say a hand on a numbered dial) , and compare its rotation to another moving or rotating thing, in which case a ‘clock’ can be used to compare, or measure ‘movement’. Therefore all we see is movement, and we do not see anything heading into a future, or leaving past behind, nor a thing called time ‘passing’, or being measured because a thing is moving. Re* “You seem to have it totally upside down and ultimately be involved in a circular argument about semantics.”* I politely disagree, the arguments “time is that which clocks measure”... therefore time exists.. therefore clocks measure time. And "TIME" is The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future”... therefor the past and future exist, therefore time exists. are both “circular argument[s] about semantics.” And both start with a statement about a thing called ‘time’, as IF its exists, and without providing any proof if its existence. ( therefore both arguments are circular, logically sophistic, (relying on their own conclusion as their postulate) and unfounded” And I am not saying either of those. I'm saying*“direct observation of the facts, seem to show us clearly that things seem to exist, move and interact”(A starting point based on checkable facts...) So therefore , if matter just existing and interacting can explain all that we think suggests a thing called time may exist”, then Ockham’s razor suggests that possibility is worth serious consideration.(a conclusion that can be experimentally tested)* As I say you or I may be right or wrong, but with respect it is important that you realise your initial statement about my argument was incorrect, ie. You seemed to have thought I meant something that I did not. ( so it is not a valid statement about my analysis). Please note I'm not being rude, just logical and direct. M.MarsdenMatthew Marsden (Auth "A Brief History of Timelessness") 

Hi Salthead ( get that looked at :)i think you may find there is only change.saying "Time is a measurement of change." implies there must also be a thing called "time" for change to be happening... and thus the confusion starts becasue people will also assume "time" is "The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future"which is imo unproven, and unproveable.mm

+Rob Smithyes , you are redeemed :)thanks for your vote, as i say to Karla, be great if you could spread some links to anyone you think may be interested ( not just re the competition, just www.timelessness.co.uk etc)atb matt

+Karla CarmichaelHey Karla, thank you so much for that!, genuinely appreciated.I've put all my energy into writing the book, giving talks, and making videos, and its a real up hill struggle, I know i may be wrong in the "timeless" possibility im suggesting people consider, (i.e. im not a crank), but its hard to get the idea seriously heard and considered through all the noise) - so it would really help me if you could facebook or twitter the links etc.thanks again for voting, as i say , much appreciated.matt marsden

+Matt Mars Not only did I make a spelling mistake I made a logical fallacy afterwards, But I have found redemption in  voting for you. All the best !

+Karla Carmichael Hi Karla, that was very polite and helpful of you, I wonder if you can help me likewise ? As i said to Rob, this video is part of a FQXI video contest, so, if you liked it would you please put in a vote on their site for me?its at //fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2245( I have 2 other, shorter "timelessness" videos you can check out there also.many thanks Matt Welcome.

+Rob SmithHi Rob, I need your help!but first, Hmmm, Hi Rob, can one have an "incorrect" spelling mistake? Isn't every correctly spelt word an "incorrect spelling mistake"? B^)      (Anyway, I think being bad at English is just a sign of a misspelt youth :)So, it seems you have sworn unnecessarily, and made a logical error, but at least you were acknowledging responsibility :) But, here's the thing, u can redeem yourself here ! this video is part of a FQXI science contest, and it would really help me if you could go to //fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2245 and put in a public rating vote.many thanks, and watch your english isint it! Matt Welcome.

I think my family will disown me.

You can edit your post if it truly bothers you  ( go the right hand side of your post and click edit) but I think you'll be alright. :)

Ah fuck I made an incorrect spelling mistake, how will society accept me now ?