I’ve been brutalizing over creating some epic article on Time and its implications for years. However, the range of mythological nonsense on the matter makes it difficult to decide where to start. So I’ve decided to assert the most declarative claim and let the irrationals try to prove me wrong.
Time is a quantitative value derived by comparing one object’s motion to another (often assumed stable) object’s motion. If you’re familiar with information theory, it’s the exact definition of Ratio. We compare things to rotations of the Earth, orbits of the moon, orbits of Earth around the Sun, and cycles of cesium-133 atoms.
Time is information derived by evaluation. You don’t ask a physicist about the nature of Time because Time doesn’t have any physical attributes. If we correctly separate observation from evaluation, we know that we never “see” Time, we evaluate Time, and as such, it’s the domain of information, not physics.
Nobody has observed “the past” or “the future.” Many scammy articles suggest that has been done, but further review of the source material shows that they’re working backward from a “physical time” conclusion.
For thousands of years, it’s been ancient wisdom that there is only a now, and things that move do so from a force in the present, not because a record needle is mechanically working its way from a start to an end. Yet this knowledge has been summarily dismissed by Western Science without evidence.
Nobody has an observed “time.” Even if you identified a “fabric of the universe” that, as it stretched and contorted, affects physical objects, you wouldn’t call it “time” because Time has an entirely different definition. You wouldn’t replace T in physics equations with such substance; you would add another variable. Regardless, such substance has never been observed.
I have a lot more pop-science about Time to make fun of, but I’d appreciate it if people who are still confused directed their most respected scientists to refute me. That will give me the best understanding of where I need to clarify my claims. For those who are following me, you can look forward to future posts about why we can reject so much popular science.