Abolish Time !

This is the age of science, we say. 

Science has changed many concepts. Yet some concepts linger.

Most societies (not all!) like to rely on notions of having the convenience of time and timing.

With western societies, they also tied it in with the second law of thermodynamics called the arrow of time.

But what is time comprised of so we can detect it?  For many, it is allegedly measured now in many ways, no longer monolithic, e.g. Alexander A. Friedmann wrote in his 1920's piece "The World as Space and Time": Thus time is overthrown from its pedestal.

If there is time, then what does time produce, what product??  Is it detectable? Is there a track to trace it? It seems to passively be accepted as from the earlier centuries despite modern studies on it. Can one see time against monocolored walls?

Many say it is potent or is a mover. Is it everywhere and if not then a rethink is overdue about the arrow of time. Quantum may be one avenue to scrutinize the role of time. It seems likely in quantum that time's presence is compromised. The arrow of time has no direction at such minute levels. Directionlessness. Hence time is not cognizable in the picture.

But let's look at how we perceive it on the macroscale or world scale and see if time is potential or passive in the course of proceedings. 

We say illness and death are due to time that allows change, 'because you are getting old'. Some symptoms don't occur everywhere, or at different rates, e.g. a dead body is not lifeless because ('your time is up'), teeth and nails continue to grow, other organisms with the right condition start up after deceasement on the same body. But aren't we updated? The coming of  ailments and death are scientifically traced to change by microscopic changes as through DNA not some overblown concept that is a catch-all, like time. If they were subject to arising by time then all diseases would be occurring at the same time, not staggered. By their implication with the 'big bang', time started at that juncture and presumably spread out evenly from there and is uniform. When we see that 'time dependent occurrences' are not uniform but develop in staggered ways (mind the gaps) rather than uniform since the inception, how can it be perceived as providing uniform development?  They don't arise all at the same passing of time.  How does  time know when to activate anything or decrease anything? Again, what does time produce? 

Mutations? Now how do mutations suddenly pop up if everything really is a product of the flow of time? I think most static theories have been debunked by now.

It is said things would not be if it weren't for time passage. Right? Therefore time is nurturing ! Really? It is a very old saying in old canons, proverbs, parables already: If a seed fall on fertile soil then in time it will sprout, grow and maybe even multiply-right? One simply (simple-minded) concludes that time passage helps nurture. So, time seen on the large cosmos scale may not produce much. It is not credited for being the universe. Time may be perceived as cosmos dependent, as there have been no posited claims that time is found beyond the universe's frontier. Current thoughts claim time starts after the cosmos inception. 

On smaller scales of the cosmos, passage of time is not always conducive to the presence of something appearing or not. If not the passage of time, then what? Rather than relying on time, it looks like opportunity and chance play the combinative role on whether something occurs or not, both events, and also on its duration. A volcano keeps erupting because there is material feeding it, and when the material is exhausted the collective event ends, not because time for eruption has run out. The compositional universe will end because its clock runs out? No, it's because the material and energy not available to fuel it. The opportunity of being in a nurturing environment may be more of a determining factor. If something is growing how does it have the opportunity to spread? There would have to be another something that it would connect to (an opportunity) and if there is not, then again it won't matter how much time passes if something else is not there. It is more like chance and opportunity whence something may occur since the passage of time, illustrated above is not found reliably conducive, i.e. not time dependent, unless time convolutes. If perceived time's presence is irregular and not uniform, then is there something that exerts influence to make time irregular? It is believed in sciences that time "grew" with the universe. If so, and everything is already distributed in the early universe, then there is no reason to have time progression. The events are already in place since the beginning and need not await for time passage for them to occur. The density of particles (for example, it is said 'empty space' is not because it is loaded with active, tiny particles) is such that they are positioned close to each, very close. They easily can interact without waiting for time to connect them. (If not for the density of early particles, how would time influence the cosmos since it is passive or not interacting with the particles?) It is more like chance that particles interact with their valance fields. If there is no  product, then the passage of time is not the primary source for nurturing events, incidence is. Has 'spooky action at a distance' been fully comprehended? That activity does not appear dependent on measured time, even though Aristotle had intended to use time for measuring motion and distance.

The rest of the messages say if a seed falls on infertile soil, it will NEVER grow. No matter how much time passes-thousands, millions even billions of years that seed cannot grow. What happened to the role of time being nurturing? Isn't it universal, and if not then what to think of its role. No, for things to occur like a seed to grow, it needs the right compositional environment and conditions. Time does not help with the seed on the infertile soil. Planets and stars have also been around likewise for a very long time yet they have not developed like the Earth  by the passage of time. The conditions appear as the necessary precedence. And now some science explores that time may not be lasting after all, if they can successfully establish it in the first place. Just a bunch of presumptions. What is scientific methodology used for? 

Does the flow of time itself produce energy? When looking at valance levels, etc. there is a reason that they are at different levels. Energy provides opportunity for activity and shifting of levels that by which we exist.

If time as we depict it is substantiated and is to have a distinct "role", it seems largely to be a passive background where applicable. Perhaps a different gauge should be sought.

In Newton's age, time is depicted as a uniform, monolithic nature. By the late 19th century, the monolithic  concept was critically analyzed. By the time of Friedmann and Einstein, time was dethroned as monolithic. Measuring time was not the same everywhere, it is considered silly to think otherwise.

How would time be measured if there were insufficient dimensions? Thereby, if first would have to find that the presence of dimension would make time dependent upon, and cannot reasonably say the converse.

It is said, there are determined four fundamental forces... TIME IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!

Likewise, in Sir Martin Rees', "Six Numbers", time is not listed as one of the six.

S o  l e t s  w a k e  u p !

Note: the material herein is not necessarily a reflection of the entropy of current societies.