Talk:Time/Archive 4

message: Mostly new. I've kept the recent debate of the lede and its images below, as it is ongoing. 
The debate on the E+ pages is in Archive 3, and imho should best be considered CLOSED MERGE INTO "TIME" and "SECOND" REJECTED by the community of editors on this page. If you want to keep debating it, there are all those E pages to discuss it on. :) -- Yamara 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got lost trying to follow the archived debate. Was the conclusion to do nothing? Ie. do not merge anything into Time and do not merge anything into Second? If so can I remove the first two merge tags from Orders of magnitude (time)? -Wikianon (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Page 

message: I see that a millisecond is considered 0.0001, if second is 1, what is in between them? walkingonthesun Say something to me 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: milli = thousandth nano = billionth and pico = trillionth Potatoswatter (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Between a second and a millisecond? 

message: Sorry for the strange bold topic, 
I dont want to introduce a new theory (or upset you physicans). I just wonder where we are in modern physics these days.
As it's a known fact; Time goes slower here down on earth (close to earth's  mass). Compared to far away in space satelite / astronauts. The mass of earth is quite big but as a general effect in the universe it should aply to all kind of masses.
Altough a widely known fact, i'm missing any reference of this in particle physics/quantum mechanics.
I'm wondering asking here for any theories, is mass just slowed down time?. Where gravity (or bended space) is just like (ahum sorry) a waterfall of space-time* between different spaces. I'm not a physican but it's the level at wich i understood some of einsteins concepts.
Einstein talked a lot about spacetime, but somehow it seams the concept of the 'empty spacetime is not much used in particle phyiscis. Altough it's a great concept Einstein tought of; he for saw gravitational lensing - einstein rings - blackholes etc..
So i just wonder is there a modern theory of space time for the small scale atomic world?
Where mass of a particle is taken into acount with time delays in the particle, where 'particles/>>spaces' bend space surounding them. And where it might be that mass is explained by the time difference of that area. It might be a theory of a universe based on a pure: space & time only concept. (particles and gravity and all other forces as side effect)
I'm curious, is there such a theory, these days (be it proven or not quit yet ?) I'll be happy to read it..
--82.217.143.153 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Quantum gravity... -- JocK (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time difference instead of a top mass quark 

message: The above statement is dogmatic. It is also indefensible and unscientific. Even the presumed "fact" that only an operational definition (or, actually, operational definitions) are currently acceptable among scientists is stated dogmatically. Anytime one makes a statement using the word "only" as it is used above, an incredible burden of proof is loaded onto the writer.   And, besides, the statement is contradicted by what is well attested in other, competent, writing within Wikipedia (not to mention standard physics books).
An operational definition of time says, basically, "Time" is what we call the measurement or quantity we get when we compare the beginning and end of one operation (or some number of cycles of some regular operation like the swinging of a pendulum under standardized conditions) with the beginning and end of some other operation. But the number associated with "t" in such a case does not even have a direction. Working with devices like clocks, which incorporate an operational definition of time, researchers are puzzled by the direction of time. (I can establish a line from New York to D.C., start laying my meter stick along the line at a point in NYC and stop counting when I get to a point in D.C. Or, I can start in D.C. and end up in NYC. So why can't I start laying out cycles of my stop watch with the birth of a hamster in my lab and stop the clock when the hamster dies of old age, but also start the stopwatch when the hamster dies and lay out cycles of its operation back to the moment of its birth?) Then, around the beginning of the 20th century, people begin to realize that identical clocks do not measure identical numbers of cycles if one of them takes a fast trip to Pluto and back. The measurement of time becomes inextricably implicated in the measure of space and movement in space. Then the question arises, "Why?" There is no answer for that in the operations used. To the contrary, the measurements and the operational definitions of "space" and "time" suggest that something is going on to link the two, and from that point some researchers have asked whether there is some realm of experience (perhaps at quantum measurement range) in which space and time "collapse" into something more basic.  
"Space-time" turns out to have more explanatory value than just "space" and just "time." The operational definitions for the measurement of time are profitably brought into cojunction with the operational definitions for the measurement of space, for motion in space, etc. It is not clear whether space is nothing but the relationships among things, or whether space has characteristics of its own. Similarly, it is not clear yet whether considerations of entropy and use of the operational definition of time will be sufficient to exhaustively delineate the nature of time.  
If science can discover something about time that is not a function of the operations by which we make what are called "time measurements," then on what grounds can the writer preemptively exclude that knowledge from the definition or the understanding of time in the sciences?  
The "Within science" part is clearly argumentative. Why start the article by taking a dogmatic and argumentative stance? P0M (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had my qualms about the sweeping scope of the phrase "within science": ie geology and palaeontology use relative dating, so a precise chronometric unit may be of less importance than a sequential placement of events. The adjective "only" and the verb "needed" are problematic and presumptive. But I don't find the sentence forwarding an "argument" so much as a rough attempt at categorizing the many perspectives on time in the opening of the article. The opener demands a conciseness and clarity that is also useful to the reader. And it has to be accurate, of course. Can the sentence be replaced with a more perfect description in thirty words or less? Don't forget to preserve a mention of the SI second. —Yamara ✉ 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs anything more than tweaking. I've started to take a look at the whole article, so I may wait until I've gotten a better grasp of the whole and then tweak the top. No use in making a change topside that will mess us something later down. P0M (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogmatic assertion 

message: I think it is about time for this page to be Semi-protected as it is constantly being vandalized by IP's.  N.B. This is the first time I am in need of Admin. with the exception of Speedy deletes. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: An open question,"When do we start measuring time?" Some scientists agree that we start measuring time after the "Big Bang". I disagree. Time begins at the point of observation. Everything else is computer model of what our modern concept of time could have been millions of years ago. What do you think?
:Who is the "we" of whom you speak? Who was around to measure the time at which life on Earth began? 
:Without getting into the argument of that time is (relationship or something real in itself), measuring time implies that there are processes of sufficient regularity to make counting their cycles useful to some lifeform, and that there is a lifeform around to do the measurement. Of course that doesn't mean that the moon wasn't circling earth before the first oyster started timing its ovulation to the times and the tides.
:We can measure things like how long it takes to lay down an inch of sediment in a lake and then work backwards to date things not according to current observations of clock cycles but according to inches of sediment (and what was caught in it) in existing lake beds. When we go back to the earliest times in the Universe we have the advantage of the natural "time machine" presented to us because it because things that we see that are the farthest away in space are also the farthest away in time. So by panning from near to far we can pan from nearby times to far back times, and we can measure the progress of events that happened long ago. P0M (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do we start measuring time? 

message: TIME. An Open Question for Discussion. "Is time worth measuring if there is no organic life?" After all it is organic life which came up with the concept of time and how it relates to the beginning, size and evolution of what we call, "The Universe".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.14.90 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does time exist if nobody is there to experience it? Does a tree that falls generate noise if no-one listens? Does a comment exist if no-one reacts? Can anyone tell me why the heck I rendered above comment existent..? ;) JocK (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is time worth measuring if there is no organic life?" 

message: Since time is essential to history and chronology, a short section might address when the present seconds, minutes, and hours became universal.  Perhaps it's unknowable but I suspect that most of Asia and Africa must have adopted the Western standard c. the 18th century.
B Tillman 15 April 2008 (Tax Time!)
:Good question. There were interactions between Egypt and the Middle East (particularly Judea) very early on. Their ideas on time have determined many of our ideas on time, particularly the division of the day into 24 periods, the idea that each of the planet-gods had charge for a time period in regular rotation, and the resulting way that the days of the week got their names.  
:At least the major outlines of these ideas were known in China around 50 a.d.  The Chinese divided the day into twelve watches, i.e., into two-hour periods. I suspect that as a practical matter the division of the day into hours must have coincided with mechanical clocks, and they may have been imported by Catholic missionaries around the time of Leibniz.  
:When the further division of the hour into 60 minutes came about must be recorded somewhere. There is apparently a practical connection between the number of days in a year and the division of the circle into a rounded version of that number, 360 degrees. All over the world at the dawn of civilization people were aware of the five planets. (Astrologers are still fascinated with some of the ideas that drove lots of early interest in the planets, so it's an enduring idea.) There are 12 months, which is an idea we get from lunar cycles, 12 * 5 = 60, human heart rates average out to something close to 60/minute (particularly for shepherds and other people in good physical condition), and 60 * 60 gives the number of seconds in an hour and the 360 degrees in the circle and approximates to the 365.25 days/year.  So all of these numbers hang together.  Also, we see traces of numeration base 12 in things like our idea of the dozen (12) and the gross (12*12).  
:So my guess is that time to the base 12 must have been a common idea throughout Eurasia very early on. I have no idea about pre-Muslim Africa or the pre-Columbian Americas.  
:Probably the best one could do would be to find the earliest mentions of "24 hours in the day," "60 minutes in the hour," and "60 seconds in the minute." Linguistic traces suggest to me that the Chinese, before missionary-led calendar studies, divided the hour into quarters. Books on technology might tell us when the first mechanical clock was made.  It's pretty hard to imagine dividing the hour into standard units with tools like the water clock or the hour glass.  On the other hand, a big enough sun dial would have probably encouraged people to divided the dial into degrees, so maybe that could have led to the definition of a minute.
:Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China might have the information somewhere in one of its many volumes.  If you are around a library that has the whole set you might give that source a try.  There are also encyclopedias of technology.  P0M (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time as a World Standard 

message: I've removed the following from the "Time in religion and mythology" section, following a sentence about Greek philosophers:
One analogy compared the time of life to the passing of sand through an hourglass (a common measuring device for time in the past). The sand at the top is associated with the future, and, one tiny grain at a time, the future flows through the present into the past (associated with the sandpile at the bottom of hourglass). The past: ever expanding, the future: ever decreasing, but the future grains become amassed into the past through the present.
My work on Hourglass suggests ancient Greeks didn't have hourglasses. Also, looking in the history, this statement was tagged "citation needed" in February 2007, but never got one. I've said before that I like the image, a lot, but there's simply no cite for it.
Finally, I've moved the opening of this section down to "Time in philosophy", since it's, well, philosophers talking philosophy. There are plenty of gods one might mention under the "religion & mythology" header, but these ain't it. --Yamara ✉ 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldness strikes: Shake up in religion & mythology 

message: Would you please comment on the new "light cone" image we have prepared. The intention was to imply the correct scale of space-time relative to the observer. Interstellar light-years vs years scales seemed appropriate. Thoughts? Dhatfield (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The function of an illustration is to communicate meaningful information to the intended audience of an article. The image looks fine, technically, but the reader has to reason backwards from the word "cone" in the caption to understand the part about what the straight lines represent. What the dots represent is not indicated at all. Are they stars? Are they events? It's up to the reader to guess. And  what is the snake that has consumed stars or events and keeps slitering forever toward the bottom of the screen? I think I know enough about the subject, and have seen similar diagrams in enough books on the subject, that I might guess correctly. But if I relabeled the drawing then whoever put it up might revert me on the grounds that I had gotten it totally wrong. P0M (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not into reverting - we're not a very militant lot at the Graphics Lab :) Can you please post specific comments / suggestions for improvement at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Light Cone. I'm not sure wht you mean about the "snake". We are working specifically on the "World cone" image. Dhatfield (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The graphic is probably o.k. It is the caption that is inadequate because it does not say what the undulating line represents. The diagonal lines could be labeled, at least with letters, so that the caption could say something like, "Line AB represents..."  The lines that I am guessing represents the world-line of some observer would be hard to label on the diagram itself because the only place where it doesn't move from side to side is at the center.P0M (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are talking about different images. I assume you are talking about the animation. We have not done any work on the animation. If it needs improvement, please place a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve. Dhatfield (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once". This quote, attributed variously to Einstein, John Archibald Wheeler, and Woody Allen [...]
I saw than sentence within a quotation from Le possible et le reél by Henri Bergson. Can anybody who has read that book confirm that? --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! !  16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Time exists because some systems of differential equations can't be de-parameterized; can't have the "t" (or "dt") removed -- and furthermore, are chaotic or even stochastic. Kevin Baastalk 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On a deeper metaphysical level, every observable system is observable because both it and the observor act upon and can be acted upon. Take this away and you have essentially nothing.  Once you introduce this, however, you have dynamics, and thus time.  Time and affect are inextricable, and without affect there is nothing. Kevin Baastalk 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once" 

message: Just what it means to suggest Time "began" with the Big Bang needs elucidation. "Time began with the Big Bang" is a position often repeated and correctly sourced to Hawking. Personality issues about Adler & Hawking are not relevant & can be found elsewhere. I propose the following replacement - which is not a revert.  --JimWae (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.   Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless.   This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, 
  
*Hawking never said time began with the big bang.  In trying to make complex issues easily understood by people other than physicists, he has unintentionally muddled his own point.  Adler was an idiot, had a degree in psychology, taught philosophy even though he knew nothing about it, and is being used to discredit the world's foremost authority on physics and mathematics.  This is precisely why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.60.166 (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of time starting at a certain point is utterly insane.  But hey, more than half of us believe it all goes back to some omnipotent being, so I guess it's not all too surprising that masses of people believe such crazy things.  In any case, our task is not to critique these beliefs, but to document all POVs, however absurd some may be. Kevin Baastalk 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of Time 

message: Really. Lycurgus (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's just one thing after another 

message: Anyone else find the picture of the "Sunrise shown in time lapse" distracting? It's hard for me, at least, to concentrate on the article when there is a large shaky image next to the words. Perhaps someone can edit it so that it is smoother (and thus not so distracting) or replace/remove it completely?
209.173.109.104 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Distracting, annoying, naive, and poorly crafted: classic example of over/under-lighting. As far as I am concerned, get rid of it without giving it a second thought. DVdm (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If you're using Firefox on a PC, just hit the Escape key. That, at least, stops the animation. I can't speak for other software/hardware combinations. Stormerne (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Nobody opposed against removing, so I went ahead. DVdm (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I missed that. I have removed the text as well. I think the idea of the text is sufficiently covered a bit below in the sentence "Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart". Cheers, DVdm (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture at top right is distracting 

message: I was suprised to find that, except for the brief section on Unreal Time, philosophical theories are completely neglected in this discussion.  It is certainly not the case that Physics has a stranglehold on what time really is.  Some traditional philosophical discussions involve static (nonmoving) time, and ideas about events and objects flowing through time.  Of particular interest to me, and of, I think, general utility, is the Kantian concept of time, which receives a short discussion in the Transcendental Idealism article.  Basically, it views time, and space, not as physical realities, but as mind dependant concepts.  Under this view, our conception of time is a fundamental cognitive process in that it serves to structure all of our other experiences.  This is a fundamentally different from the theories of Physics in that Time is not seen as an actual thing existing out in the Universe.
This idea ties into the discussion on this pagrle titled, "What Time Really Is."  Our basic measurement for time is the rotation (change) of the sun, and on smaller scale, the clock.  As discussed in the article, sometimes time seems
to "drag" or "fly", and this may be viewed as the difference between the Mind's perception of the change of the event that it is concentrated on, and the objective measurment of time on the clock.
See, most  importantly, Critique of Pure Reason, I. Kant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.152.145.0 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally disagree. Time is what we read on our clocks. Philosophers can whine as much and has hard as they want, they will never have anything interesting to say - let alone contribute - about it. They can only produce more babble and nonsense. And after having produced more babble and nonsense, they can only produce even more babble and nonsense. DVdm (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Philosophy? 

message: Under the section physical definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Physical_definition) just above the heading "Classical mechanics", there is a line that does not belong:   "THIS WHOLE THING IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!"
I was unable to edit it as it does not show in the edit section for "Physical definition".
The offending line also does not appear in the any of the versions in the article's history.
What could be the reason for the above, and how does one correct it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.171.206 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Template vandalism, solved here. --Van helsing (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to remove "THIS WHOLE THING IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!" 

message: I think that this serves as an aggreable and safe general opening.  It speaks of a broad and important effect that is more then a just a component of a system.  It may be simplistic but we've gotta start somewhere.Gnostril (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Time is that which differentiates moments" 

message: changes rhythm during time Prisms and rain (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the clock itself 

message: The page structure seems wrong, it seems as though it is only concerned with the religious and philosophical aspects of time as well as time being just a measuring device with the physics of time being a side note. It should begin with and be mainly concerned with the physics behind time as a dimension as well as the representation of time in physics as this is the most generally accepted theory, as religions choose to disagree and atheists would say otherwise and philosophy isn't as well accepted. Then include side details related to religion and philosophy. Also time, as well as positions in space(the 3 spatial dimensions), existed long before humans were here to measure and quantify it, therefore I'm removing the first sentence about time being a measuring device as it is inaccurate, it also completely contradicted the second sentence about time being hard to define. Thanks for the consideration  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.198.213 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Structure 

message: I have moved this section to the Imaginary time article discussion. Softvision (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imaginary time 

message: Hi.
I think it's a good idea to add the following links (under the ISST -International Society for the Study of Time- link):
* Institute for Time Nature Explorations : http://www.chronos.msu.ru/eindex.html
* CEITT - Time and Temporality Research Center : http://ceitt.com/index-en.html
:My first reaction was to say no, because the external links section is a real mess; however, I agree that those two specific sites appear to be genuinely revelent, and also in the interests of avoiding bias, I've added them. Cheers!
   Chzz  ►  10:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tn|editsemiprotected}} 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: The second paragraph states that "... time is considered one of the few fundamental units."  It even cites a source that is supposed to back this up.  But it isn't correct.  Time is not a unit; a second is a unit, and it is a unit of time.  The cited source includes a quotation that talks about units of time or units of length, not the concepts of time or length being units in themselves.  In general, a unit is an agreed-upon quantity of measure, not the abstraction being measured.  I want to either fix this sentence or remove it.  I think the intent was to indicate how important the concept of time is in physics; it is perhaps better to say that time is one of the fundamental quantities that can be measured in the International System of Units: length, mass, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, luminous intensity (which is actually a human perceptual unit, not a physical unit), and "amount of substance" (actually just an atom- or molecule-count).  If nobody objects, I will change this in the next day or two.  CosineKitty (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it surely souds odd. Perhaps writing it as fundamental quantities helps. DVdm (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, "a fundamental physical quantity", since there is an article for that?  CosineKitty (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and then we might even drop the reference altogether. No problem with me. DVdm (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it.  CosineKitty (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Saying what "time is", is probably the most impossible thing humankind has invented.I think we only find solid agreement over the (operational) definition of time among physicists, engineers and John Doe: "Time is what we read on clocks" (see also http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html). For philosophers o.t.o.h. the opening sentence will never be acceptable. I think that's just one of those facts of life :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time is not a unit 

message: "In Book 11 of St. Augustine's Confessions, he ruminates on the nature of time, asking, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." He settles on time being defined more by what it is not than what it is,[23] an approach similar to that taken in other negative definitions."
If you are going to keep that quote from Augustine's Confessions we need to elaborate on the relevance of it to the article and how it relates to Augustine's inquiry on the subject. The setence that follows the quote is also pointless and sounds like their knowledge of Augustine's position on the issue is limited to that quote. In my opinion the quote does not adequately represent his analysis of time and some of the acute inferences he makes. I suggest someone with adequate knowledge of Augustine try and fix this becuause his contributions to the subject matter are notable and have had a wide spread influence toward the western conception of time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.50 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Augustine Part 

message: It may be just me, but it seems that a page on time should have a current time.  I don't know how to put such a thing on there (html?), but I think something at the top that said The current time is: XX:XX:XX (UTC) would be really nice.--E♴ (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's true...I just did a google search for time, and this article is #7.  Anyone who wanted to know the current time would have gone to an earlier result.  I guess it's just people like me who start by searching wikipedia, instead of google...--E♴ (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Time 

message: What is this supposed to mean?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.126.183 (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time is an intersection between 3 dimensional space and the 5th dimensional information field 

message: "Travelling backwards in time has never been verified, presents many theoretic problems, and may be an impossibility."  
:"Has never been verified" is an impossible to prove claim.  How does one know, for example, that the Tibetan philosopher, Sum Sing Wing Wong, who flourished in 1850 in the Fling Flong Province did not verify traveling backwards in time? (EnochBethany (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible To Verify Negative Statements