Likewise, why would one believe that time does not exist? What would it take for that statement to be true?

I'd be glad to go over s1ow's rejoinder with you(the one you initially thought was sarcastic).

What would it take to make the statement "We can see time" true?

Jb:

I am talking about 'time' as a 'thing' or 'object' that can be seen.

I am not talking about the concept of time as in the progression of an event.

Without matter and motion, time is a meaningless concept. That should be extremely obvious. Isn't it?

Well of course, but you're the only one arguing as if there is no matter and motion. I see no use in positing such a premiss, for if there were no matter or motion this discussion would be impossible.

In order to understand the world around us, we must consider the way things are. We can invent all kinds of different scenarios which do not correspond to the way things are, but how is it possible to know about the way things are by imagining something other than that? Matter and motion exist, let's not imagine otherwise.

This is a philosophical question, I recommend that it be moved to the proper subforum. The high quality of our physics discussions is matched (in magnitude) only by the depths of darkness into which our philosophical discussions tend.

Does Matter Exist?

We experience qualities that we attribute to matter, viz. solidity, extension, figure, motion, quantity; but we do not ever experience "matter".

In light of this we should forgive those who would say "we do not directly experience matter, and so it does not exist". There is another way ---

Certain experiences we have are necessarily classified as experiences of matter. Matter is a category in the human mind, and experiences which belong to this category are casually thought of as "experiences of matter".

The danger is to think of "a category in the mind" as something optional, or an unreal "figment of the imagination". We must, after all, be content with the human experience of the universe, and matter is a necessary part of this experience.

You neglected to engage relevance.

What else can be said, Jb?

Time exists. Space exists. Matter exists.

This forum essentially boils down to the following.
Light does not travel because I read an article by a single scientist which said so and therefore I am convinced.

the book never said that - it said for "ease of argument" IE let us not get into the semantics of it which is exactly what you have done constantly on this forum.

Name every scientist which agrees with your article that light does not travel. Actually I challenge you to name more than three.

This essay shall endeavor to show that the relationship of light is not made manifest through the travel of anything, because no matter is transferred from one entity to another during the process of illumination.

Transfer of Luminosity is not Transfer of Matter.

Light is not a force -- as I had demonstrated in "Light Results in Illumination, Not Acceleration" --since all forces cause their targets to accelerate, whereas light qua light does not. However, light, too, is a relationship that does not in itself affect the participant entities' material qualities.

No entity becomes more or less massive just by being illuminated. If the contrary were the case, the Earth would have an enormous coating of mass added onto it from the 4.6 billion years it was continuously illuminated by the Sun. Thus, the relationship of light affects not the participant entities' matter, but some other of their qualities. This quality can be called luminosity.

Since luminosity is not matter, and it can be transferred independently of matter, light does not require the transfer of matter to occur. Thus, light does not require intermediate entities to "carry" it between the source and the target. This means that luminosity can be transferred at a distance, without at all altering the affected entities' amounts of matter or the arrangement of their constituent particles.

Travel is Only Required for Transfers of Matter.

Light does not travel through space and does not manifest itself in any intermediate region between its source and some target entity (which includes targets other than the intended or anticipated one).

Wherever there is an entity sufficiently proximate to the light source and not blocked from it by others, it will be illuminated. Wherever there is no entity, there will be no light. Light is a transfer of luminosity, which is a quality. Qualities are qualities of entities, and no "absence of entities" can ever have qualities. Thus, wherever there are no entities, there is no luminosity and hence no light.

The above implies that light cannot "travel" through space. Only entities can travel, and all entities are material. Any transfer of qualities not including matter cannot have entities involved in it -- and thus cannot involve "travel."

It is thus not only possible for light not to involve intermediate entities: it is impossible for light to involve such entities. Only distance relationships where matter is transferred from the source to the target can have intermediate entities traveling between the source and target to transfer this matter. Luminosity alone cannot be transferred by this means.

Light Results in Illumination, Not Acceleration

I have previously shown that the model of "electromagnetic oscillations" does not describe a property of light, but rather a set of predictions for the effects of the entity which is also the light source on potential target entities.

Furthermore, while the electrical and magnetic forces are relationships between the light source and some target entities, they are not equivalent to light itself. They simply always accompany the relationship of light, because every light source involves the systematic motion of electrons to bring about light.

Any force, whether it is a contact force or a force at a distance, can be described as a push or a pull. A force manifests itself by and only by accelerating the target entity affected by it. Newton's Second Law expresses this via the equation, ÓF=m*a, stating that the sum of the forces on an object is equal to the product of the object's mass and its acceleration. Because the infliction of a force on an object is unable to change that object's mass, the force relationship can only manifest itself by accelerating the object. By Newton's Third Law, both entities involved in a force pair are in fact the originators and recipients of the same magnitude of force, oppositely directed. Any acceleration will naturally alter the observable motion of an object thus accelerated, since that object's velocity will change with time.

So, if light itself were an "electromagnetic force," we would expect the very emission of light and its reception by a target entity to visibly affect the motion of that target entity. Yet no entity accelerates simply because it is illuminated.

Ubiquitous observation shows beyond doubt that the vast majority of illuminated entities originally at rest remain at rest once illuminated, and illuminated entities originally in motion do not change their motion upon illumination. Since they were not accelerated by illumination, and since every force accelerates its target entities, we must conclude that light is not a force; nor can light be the "oscillation" in the "field" pertaining to that force.

The electric and magnetic force relationships are necessarily exhibited by every light source, because they are necessarily originated via the same phenomena -- combustion and electricity -- as light itself. This is why one can expect models that describe such relationships to accompany every instance of light.

But just because two phenomena have a similar origin does not mean that they are identical. Light is not a force, nor are all illuminated entities impacted by an electromagnetic force. Light is another type of relationship between source and target; its consequence is illumination, not acceleration.

We have thus explained experimental evidence of electromagnetic forces pertaining to light sources as compatible with rational cosmology's view of light as a distance relationship between source and target. The view of light as a "wave" is a false reification of a mathematical model which describes changes in a property that accompanies light, but is not light itself. It is a double error: a misapprehension of what the model actually describes, and a confusion of the model with actual reality.

No relationship can be a wave without being the actual systematic vibration of particles. The post-Classical view of light as a "wave" is but the result of a series of logical fallacies misinterpreting experimental data. Only the guidance of rational philosophy can enable scientists to correct such fundamental errors.

When Newton created dynamics, he claimed that the phenomena of the universe, especially inertial motion, unfold in an infinite invisible absolute space. In the 19th century, Ernst Mach argued that all motion is relative and advanced the revolutionary idea that inertia does not arise from the guiding effect of absolute space but from the dynamical effect of the entire universe. This idea, now known as Mach’s Principle, was the biggest single stimulus to Einstein’s creation of his general theory of relativity. However, the precise extent to which Mach’s idea is implemented in general relativity has proved to be controversial. This has been a major research topic for me.

The end of time

Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked “It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things.”

Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions. This is the thesis of The End of Time (books), which is aimed both at the general reader and physicists.

PAPERS: http://www.platonia.com/papers.html

IE let us not get into the semantics of it which is exactly what you have done constantly on this forum.