Notices
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 501 to 557 of 557
Like Tree102Likes

Thread: Time

  1. #501  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Must apologize to SpeedFreek for not asigning authorship of highlighted (last) statement, and to Strange, if this caused any confusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    SpeedFreek,

    The vibrations of atoms are physical phenomena and require physical explanations. Time is not a physical object, it measures durations. This is how we find out that certain atoms vibrate at the same rate and because we are able to measure these durations we can give them fancy names.
    I don't know why you keep saying time is not a physical object. I am not arguing that it is a physical object. I am arguing that it is as real as space. It is not an illusion. It exists in the same way that space exists and the two cannot be separated.

    You may as well argue that space is an illusion. Is space an illusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    But why is a car's speed always synchronized with the speedometer? Is the speedometer causal to the speed or does it just record the speed and mileage of the car?
    Speed is a function of time over distance. A speedometer measures time over distance. You cannot have speed without time or space. Both exist. Both are real. Neither are illusions.
    I would say only space is real.
    Space can exist without 'time' or 'speed', all you have to do to is imagine that the universe has no human beings in it (or other 'thinking creatures').
    Speed or time cannot exist without space.

    Space is fundamental, objectively present out there.
    Speed and time are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.

    So space and time are in my oppinion not on the same level.
    Write4U likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #502  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I would say only time is real.
    Time can exist without 'space' or 'speed', all you have to do to is imagine that the universe has no human beings in it (or other 'thinking creatures').
    Speed or space cannot exist without time.

    Time is fundamental, objectively present out there.
    Speed and space are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.

    So space and time are in my opinion not on the same level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed and time are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.
    So all we have (again) is more baseless assertions that "time does not exist". <yawn>

    Please show how you would reformulate Newton's law of gravity, for example, without time.

    How can the mind "derivate" speed if time doesn't exist?

    If the mind is inventing time so it can also invent speed, then why shouldn't it invent space as well?
    Last edited by Strange; May 13th, 2014 at 07:45 AM.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #503  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,538
    I love this discussion but I don't think it is possible to raise it above "opinion" at the moment.

    I would love it if it was possible to imagine an experiment that would actually point us in the direction of knowing whether time is a function of space or space a function of time , either a function of spacetime, whether either can cease existing or come into existence (plus any other permutations I haven't thought of).

    I even wonder how our own mortality feeds into questions like this. Like I said it seems to me to be all questions and no answers.

    This is really just a gratuitous comment as my own knowledge base isn't high enough even for as ungrounded (by which I mean "impossible to answer" ) a question as this.

    Well for the record my long time held "bias" is that time is in fact not an elementary part of our existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #504  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I would love it if it was possible to imagine an experiment that would actually point us in the direction of knowing whether time is a function of space or space a function of time , either a function of spacetime, whether either can cease existing or come into existence (plus any other permutations I haven't thought of).
    Our current best theory of the universe describes it as being a four-dimensional space-time manifold, putting space and time on an equal footing. This is very well verified experimentally.

    There are a number of ideas being developed where this four-dimensional geometry emerges from a lower-level structure (e.g. loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation, etc). This may mean that at some fundamental level neither time nor space exist. However, in the world we inhabit they both clearly do.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #505  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I would say only time is real.
    Time can exist without 'space' or 'speed', all you have to do to is imagine that the universe has no human beings in it (or other 'thinking creatures').
    Speed or space cannot exist without time.

    Time is fundamental, objectively present out there.
    Speed and space are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.

    So space and time are in my opinion not on the same level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed and space are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.
    So all we have (again) is more baseless assertions that "time does not exist". <yawn>

    Please show how you would reformulate Newton's law of gravity, for example, without time.

    How can the mind "derivate" speed if time doesn't exist?

    If the mind is inventing time so it can also invent speed, then why shouldn't it invent space as well?

    You posted a quote of me that is not real, i said :
    "Speed and time are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes."

    Not "Speed and space" as your quote says.

    Perhaps just an accident.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #506  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Perhaps just an accident.
    Yes, just an accident due to "overediting" my satire of your post. My apologies. I didn't intend to misrepresent you (it would have made my question redundant). Corrected now.

    Now, how you would you formulate Newton's law of motion without time. Start with a simple one: F = m a (where a is the second derivative of position with respect to ... wait for it ... time).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #507  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I have given my answers to such questions many times Strange :

    The only 'evidence' of the existence of time, preferably in a space-time manifold, is given by clocks running slow.

    Many times i replied that clocks running slow are not scientifically objective evidence for the existence of 'time' or the running slow of time itself.
    It only proves that a mechanism has its components running slow for reasons unknown.

    And in the case of the muon falling to the earth (frequently used to counter the above argument),
    i argued that it enters areas of increasing density which keep it together longer,
    rather than arguing an assumption of 'time running slower for the muon'.

    And in the case of the atom clock running slow i argued that it enters a denser medium just the same,
    causing the oscillations to slow down.
    And in case of orbitting the earth, the counter direction causes more flow, which is a simulation of an increase of density.

    (The trouble is that i cannot answer your question completely without getting into my concept for a relativistic medium co-rotating with the earth)


    To adopt a frequently used argument on this forum: If you propose a theory, you have to provide the evidence.
    He who proposes a theory that relies on that idea, has to prove that time does exist and that it can slow down.


    > So yes, i tend to favor a more material explanation, rather than a more intangeable cause such as 'time'.

    >Matter in the broadest sense of the word (that is going upto Plack scale, and therefore to be indentified with 'space' aswell), then becomes the fundamental origin of concepts such as time or speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #508  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    The only 'evidence' of the existence of time, preferably in a space-time manifold, is given by clocks running slow.
    This is not correct. Every single experiment that confirms the theory of relativity is evidence for the existence of a four-dimensional space-time.

    Many times i replied that clocks running slow are not scientifically objective evidence for the existence of 'time' or the running slow of time itself.
    It only proves that a mechanism has its components running slow for reasons unknown.
    And what of all the cases where there are no "components"?

    And in the case of the muon falling to the earth (frequently used to counter the above argument),
    i argued that it enters areas of increasing density which keep it together longer,
    rather than arguing an assumption of 'time running slower for the muon'.
    That isn't science. You can argue that it is unicorns beating their wings, for all I care.

    He who proposes a theory that relies on that idea, has to prove that time does exist and that it can slow down.
    Done. Your turn. Oh, that's right. You don't have a theory and you don't have any evidence. I'll stick with the unicorns. At least we have pictures of them.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #509  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    And on F = m x a

    An object in accellaration is just an object in motion.

    Only us humans are interested in calculating 'how long' it takes to travel a certain distance, and how this same distance then gradually takes less 'time' to complete successively (accellaration), the universe does care at all, i mean does not have such a parameter.
    And for that purpose we constructed a device that ticks at a constant rate, again just objekts moving within the device.
    Note that this device is turning potential energy into kinetic energy at a constant pace (a classical clock), now we have energy.
    So matter and energy as fundamental and interchangeable, not time or speed.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 13th, 2014 at 08:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #510  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475

    And in the case of the muon falling to the earth (frequently used to counter the above argument),
    i argued that it enters areas of increasing density which keep it together longer,
    rather than arguing an assumption of 'time running slower for the muon'.



    That isn't science. You can argue that it is unicorns beating their wings, for all I care.


    >> Would you call 'time slows down for the muon' science ? ? ? ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #511  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Strange

    I conclude from your arguments that clocks running slow directly proves that time itself runs slow.

    To me that will always be an assumption, an extrapolation, nothing to do with the basic principles of science providing solid proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #512  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I would say only time is real.
    Time can exist without 'space' or 'speed', all you have to do to is imagine that the universe has no human beings in it (or other 'thinking creatures').
    Speed or space cannot exist without time.

    Time is fundamental, objectively present out there.
    Speed and space are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.

    So space and time are in my opinion not on the same level.

    In other words, an empty universe (i.e. without observers) would only consist of time?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #513  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    This is my original post :

    I would say only space is real.
    Space can exist without 'time' or 'speed', all you have to do to is imagine that the universe has no human beings in it (or other 'thinking creatures').
    Speed or time cannot exist without space.

    Space is fundamental, objectively present out there.
    Speed and time are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.


    So space and time are in my oppinion not on the same level.


    >> What you quoted (Strange quoted) is not what i said.

    >> So the universe would exit of matter (the matter we can see, detect) and space (the matter we cannot see,detect currently). These 2 are then 2 variations, configurations of the same elementary substances.
    I do not see why a concept such as time would be present also.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #514  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    To me that will always be an assumption, an extrapolation, nothing to do with the basic principles of science providing solid proof.

    1. That is because you have a closed mind and don't understand how science works.

    2. Science doesn't deal in proof.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #515  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    In other words, an empty universe (i.e. without observers) would only consist of time?
    That is equally plausible as it consisting only of space.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #516  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    And on F = m x a

    An object in accellaration is just an object in motion.
    Physic is expressed in mathematics. Can you provide an alternative formulation of Newton's laws of motion that do not include time, or not?

    If not, then you do not have a theory without time. Simple as that.

    (Rest of your post deleted: you are very keen on empty waffle but are unable to back it up with science.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #517  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    So the universe would exit of matter (the matter we can see, detect) and space (the matter we cannot see,detect currently). These 2 are then 2 variations, configurations of the same elementary substances.
    I do not see why a concept such as time would be present also.
    Because there would be interactions between the matter (gravitation, electromagnetic, weak force, strong force).

    Please provide a mathematical model of your universe, including these interactions, that does not include time. I assume you can do that as you are so sure you model is viable.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #518  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    I wouldn't hold your breath he's just another in a long line of fantasists who think the words "model" and "theory" are synonymous with "whatever daft idea I've just thought of"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #519  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Strange

    Yes, but reality is not the same as mathematics, mathematics reflect causalities, correlations that go on in reality.

    Saying that if a theory holds a time factor that reality itself should also, is a bad line of reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #520  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @Strange

    Yes, but reality is not the same as mathematics, mathematics reflect causalities, correlations that go on in reality.

    Saying that if a theory holds a time factor that reality itself should also, is a bad line of reasoning.
    It is what we call a "scientific" line of reasoning. Sure, you can abandon science (well, you already have) and just have philosophical discussions about the meaning of "time", the meaning of the word "exist", does anything exist outside of our mind, etc. I'm sure that is very interesting (if not useful).

    But I foolishly thought we were talking about science. In which case, it is all about mathematical models of the world (which, rightly or wrongly, is assumed to exist in some objectively measurable sense).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #521  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Strange

    In post one is was about :

    "They were discussing if time was real or just an illusion."

    That is what i responded to.


    What you argue above, i concur with, mathematical models in science containing a time factor etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #522  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    So the universe would exist of matter (the matter we can see, detect) and space (the matter we cannot see,detect currently). These 2 are then 2 variations, configurations of the same elementary substances.
    I do not see why a concept such as time would be present also.
    Because there would be interactions between the matter (gravitation, electromagnetic, weak force, strong force).
    I completely agree, but IMO, also implies that time can be treated as a non-causal result.
    Please provide a mathematical model of your universe, including these interactions, that does not include time. I assume you can do that as you are so sure you model is viable.
    Permit me this one last question; Is it impossible to create a model where time is a de facto condition in the universe because of the interactions of matter, but does not exist absent matter?

    Is it absolutely necessary for time to pre-exist as a dimension, or could it be that time becomes a measurable quality because of the interaction of matter, but before this measurable interaction is merely a "permissive" potential of the universe.

    I agree it is more philosophical than practical but then this is the stuff Aristotle wrestled with also.

    wiki, Aristotelian realism is the view that universals are real entities, but their existence is dependent on the particulars that exemplify them.
    Is it really impossible to create a mathematical (geometric) model where time is just an emergent property (based on observation and experiment), along with material (physical) change?
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #523  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Is it absolutely necessary for time to pre-exist as a dimension, or could it be that time becomes a measurable quality because of the interaction of matter, but before this measurable interaction is merely a "permissive" potential of the universe.
    You could create a model universe with only spatial dimensions and containing no energy or matter. I'm not quite sure what the point would be.

    Is it really impossible to create a mathematical (geometric) model where time is just an emergent property (based on observation and experiment), along with material (physical) change?
    As I said earlier, there are a number of theories where space and time are emergent properties from some more fundamental system. As ar as I know, any such theory treats space and time as having equal standing. For the obvious reason that they do.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #524  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Thanks for your patience with me. I am working my way through these concepts and learning.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #525  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Thanks for your patience with me. I am working my way through these concepts and learning.
    That's OK. Although I disagree with some of your ideas, you are at least thoughtful and willing to consider alternatives. (Maybe I come across as not being willing to consider alternatives! Although I do often think about things people say here quite a bit before responding ...)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #526  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    This is my original post :

    I would say only space is real.
    Space can exist without 'time' or 'speed', all you have to do to is imagine that the universe has no human beings in it (or other 'thinking creatures').
    Speed or time cannot exist without space.

    Space is fundamental, objectively present out there.
    Speed and time are derivates of our minds, tools for structuring purposes.


    So space and time are in my oppinion not on the same level.


    >> What you quoted (Strange quoted) is not what i said.

    >> So the universe would exit of matter (the matter we can see, detect) and space (the matter we cannot see,detect currently). These 2 are then 2 variations, configurations of the same elementary substances.
    I do not see why a concept such as time would be present also.



    What tells you that "space is real"? How do you know that "location" isn't just a quantum property of matter, like mass or size, which your mind represents to you as a 3D environment so you can understand it?

    If your brain were configured another way, maybe "North/South" would be the dimension you believe to be arbitrary, and time would be "Up and Down" to you?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #527  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    On your first remark

    I do indeed as said above, consider space as a type of matter of Planck level size, discrete of nature, undetected with the current means.


    On the second remark


    At least we get inputs from matter out there to our brain, to make a representation of it in our minds. (Reflected by light to our retina etc..)
    But we get no inputs from 'time out there', therefore less fundamental. We create the 'time input' ourselves, that is a big difference.

    If a ball rolls down a slope, then your brain receives input from that event of object displacement.
    What you decide to do with that information is less fundamental then the act of displacement out there.
    You may want to construct a clock and make up a mathematical formula containing t.
    That will help you to find out 'how long' it took for the ball to roll down.
    There is a clear hierarchy here.


    At the basis of the universe dynamics you have only displacement of objects, objects in the broadest sense of the word that is. That is how i think about these things, based on logic.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 14th, 2014 at 04:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #528  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    I'm not sure if I have the terminology correct, but I believe that people who consider time to be a resultant or emergent property of the Universe are inaccurate. I believe time is a fundamental and base phenomenon of reality.

    Time doesn't come about because of energy and matter existing withing the spacial dimensions of the Universe, but have always been present and exsting alongside the spacial dimensions, andthen becuse of that, giving energy and matter somewhere for them to react and interact within.

    Does that make sense?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #529  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Does that make sense?
    Yes.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #530  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    If i were to assume that that is correct, then motion would not be able to influence the pace of time , in reference to GR time dilatation. Time would then have to be absolute, ticking away at an ever constant rate, as a fundamental and base phenomenon. Does not seem right to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #531  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    It seems like a pretty well balanced equation, the faster you move through space the slower you move through time, it's almost like there's a finite amount of somehingness that has to be shared between speed through space and speed throuh time.
    Strange and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #532  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    If i were to assume that that is correct, then motion would not be able to influence the pace of time , in reference to GR time dilatation. Time would then have to be absolute, ticking away at an ever constant rate, as a fundamental and base phenomenon. Does not seem right to me.
    That is because what you say is not right. It appears to be another argument from incredulity ("The universe does what? No, it must be mistaken. Make it stop!")
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #533  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    On your first remark

    I do indeed as said above, consider space as a type of matter of Planck level size, discrete of nature, undetected with the current means.


    On the second remark


    At least we get inputs from matter out there to our brain, to make a representation of it in our minds. (Reflected by light to our retina etc..)
    But we get no inputs from 'time out there', therefore less fundamental. We create the 'time input' ourselves, that is a big difference.
    If course we get inputs from "time out there". Can you not remember what you saw yesterday?

    The eye alone can only perceive light hitting it "right now", just a a person with very poor peripheral vision would only be able to see light directly in front of them. But if a person with poor peripheral vision has a good memory, then they can look left and right to scan out a wide area, and use their memory to reconstruct a view of their surroundings.

    It's more accurate to say, then, that the human eye has very poor peripheral vision in the "timewise" direction. Our memory is needed in order to compensate for that.

    Remember, though, that a 4 dimensional object is an "event". Your brain tries to keep track of every "event" by location in 3D space, with an additional Time coordinate.




    If a ball rolls down a slope, then your brain receives input from that event of object displacement.
    What you decide to do with that information is less fundamental then the act of displacement out there.
    You may want to construct a clock and make up a mathematical formula containing t.
    That will help you to find out 'how long' it took for the ball to roll down.
    There is a clear hierarchy here.


    At the basis of the universe dynamics you have only displacement of objects, objects in the broadest sense of the word that is. That is how i think about these things, based on logic.

    But most objects are also events.

    Look at the computer in front of you. Do you think that computer will still be a computer a thousand years from now? Or will it probably have gotten melted down or something, and made into a whole bunch of other things?

    The "computer" event occupies a certain amount of time. Just as a tall object occupies a lot of space in the "up/down" direction, an event with long duration occupies a lot of space in the "past/future" direction.



    If that all seems bizarre to you, then ask yourself: is it a characteristic of the natural world, or a characteristic of the human brain that makes it seem bizarre?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #534  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    If i were to assume that that is correct, then motion would not be able to influence the pace of time , in reference to GR time dilatation. Time would then have to be absolute, ticking away at an ever constant rate, as a fundamental and base phenomenon. Does not seem right to me.
    That is because what you say is not right. It appears to be another argument from incredulity ("The universe does what? No, it must be mistaken. Make it stop!")

    This makes no sense at all, this way it is no longer a debate, just an attempt to ridicule.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #535  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    This may be an interesting reference source.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/timlin.html#c1"

    Main site:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

    I am really curious about the phrase "transparency point for light" on the universal timeline and how this relates to "c" as a universal "constant".
    Last edited by Write4U; May 14th, 2014 at 03:05 PM. Reason: accuracy
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #536  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    This makes no sense at all, this way it is no longer a debate, just an attempt to ridicule.
    We have extensive evidence that relativity works. I'm not sure what reaction you expect when your reaction to that is "does not seem right to me."

    Provide some evidence that relativity is wrong and we can debate it. Just expressing personal disbelief is, well, ridiculous.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #537  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    This may be an interesting reference source.

    Big Bang Time Line

    Main site:
    HyperPhysics

    I am really curious about the phrase "transparency point of light" on the universal timeline and how this relates to "c" as a universal "constant"
    That is a nice, succinct summary.

    Note that it is "transparency point for light"; this is the time when the universe cooled enough to become transparent to electromagnetic radiation, about 380,000 years after the big bang. Those photons are what we now see as the cosmic microwave background.
    Photon epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    p.s. it has no specific relation to c; as far as we can tell that has been constant for the entire period.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #538  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    But that is the debate, do events move through time or do events create time?
    I would assume (could be wrong) that as events succeed one another, an inevitable consequence of such succession of events would be the creation of time. On the other hand, if it wasn't for time, succession of events is practically impossible. It is simply a scenario of a glass half full and half empty at the same time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #539  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    29
    In a sense, time drags with us and the mind drags time. But in no way is dragged from the outside. To do so, our brains will have had to understand something which isn't even a physical parameter (not a Hermitian matrix ie. an observable), so how did it do this? Does time exist? As the matrix once said, or should I say, the French Man, ''how can we have time if we can never take time.''

    Just like how I said a few weeks ago, objectively impressing our sense of time on the universe, is purely anthropomorphic, than a true empirical physical science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #540  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by ChessLoneDome View Post
    Just like how I said a few weeks ago,.
    Ah, so you are a sock puppet of banned member Chesslonesome/Reiku/etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #541  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChessLoneDome View Post
    Just like how I said a few weeks ago,.
    Ah, so you are a sock puppet of banned member Chesslonesome/Reiku/etc.

    Yes, I am openly admitting it, and also apologizing for my behaviour two weeks ago. Sorry again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #542  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    29
    Here's some food for thought... if time is emergent, space even itself, matter and even energy... if there is no sub-planck scale, the universe in itself is emergent. It seems mystical, and strange that something can emerge from nothing, but I believe this is where science is wrong: I don't truly believe anything can emerge from nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #543  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    29
    It sounds philosophical, but scientists today are even admitting, philosophy could save science and maybe even lead it in the right direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #544  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    29
    I even believe that Einstein himself was a true believer in how strong philosophy and science hold hand in hand, as much as the evolution and separation of religion and science was once unthinkable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #545 Time is Wibbly Wobblily 
    Forum Freshman DiegoJZelaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    18
    I am so happy that this topic has come up! It is one of my favorite topics and probably most pondered question of all time! Not to mention people mention it all the time!

    Here is my opinion on the subject. It is a reply to every post in this thread.

    What is time? Where is time? Who is time? When is time?


    Time is wibblily wobbily, blue pink orange, but not really really blue, or really really pink or really really orange. It is all the colors, but not all the time. Then again, it depends, but contradicting to 'it depends' and to itself, it doesn't at the same time. Time is spikey, soft, and hard. It is there and not there, sometimes over there..., but it "being over here" is not negligible. Than again, you can't assume it isn't! At times it is translucent, sometimes all the time, but other times it is never, but that's rarely.. Or is it?
    But most importantly Time is wibblily wobbily, blue pink orange, but not really really blue, or really really pink or really really orange. It is all the colors, but not all the time. Then again, it depends, but contradicting to 'it depends' and to itself, it doesn't at the same time. Time is spikey, soft, and hard. It is there and not there, sometimes over there, but it "being over here" is not negligible. Then again, you can't assume it isn't! At times it is translucent, sometimes all the time, but other times it is never, but that's rare.. sometimes, maybe, but not really.
    If you don't get what I am trying to say, you'll never understand time. If you think you do, you really don't, but if you truly understand it, you know that time is wibblily wobbily, blue pink orange, but not really really blue, or really really pink or really really orange. It is all the colors, but not all the time. Then again, it depends, but contradicting to 'it depends' and to itself, it doesn't at the same time. Time is spikey, soft, and hard. It is there and not there, sometimes over there, but it "being over here" is not negligible. Then again, you can't assume it isn't! At times it is translucent, sometimes all the time, but other times it is never, but that's rarely.. Or is it?
    But most importantly Time is wibblily wobbily, blue pink orange, but not really really blue, or really really pink or really really orange. It is all the colors, but not all the time. Then again, it depends, but contradicting to 'it depends' and to itself, it doesn't at the same time. Time is spikey, soft, and hard. It is there and not there, sometimes over there, but it "being over here" is not negligible. Then again, you can't assume it isn't! At times it is translucent, sometimes all the time, but other times it is never, but that's rarely.. Or is it? Obviously it is, is it?


    ....



    Hope you all like it

    Diego
    -
    "the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best."
    Last edited by DiegoJZelaya; September 5th, 2014 at 01:33 PM. Reason: font way too big
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #546  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    What if time was the ultimate form of radiation? What I mean is that throughout the universe there are many ways that objects deal with the excessive accumulation of matter. As black holes or galaxies are fed, the the excess materials spew out in the form of gamma ray flares, quasars, heat or photons. If the accumulation becomes so great that even spewing or normal forms of radiation cannot deal with the excess then maybe time slows down giving the process a way to take place. The more extreme the gravitation, accumulation or speed the larger the time dilation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #547  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    What if time was the ultimate form of radiation?
    What if time was a huge green donkey with a bad attitude and a trilby?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #548  
    Forum Freshman DiegoJZelaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    18
    I am so glad someone gets what I am saying!

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    What if time was the ultimate form of radiation?
    What if time was a huge green donkey with a bad attitude and a trilby?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #549  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Howling!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #550  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Is time necessary if there is no measurable change? If we threw away all clocks, would the universe stop or, if the universe stopped, would clocks still be ticking to record "duration of change"?

    We speak of time dilation and contraction relative to rate and duration of change. Suppose there is no change in any dimension?
    Seems to me time would also stop, which means time is a "result" and not an independent constant.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #551  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Time is what it is!!!

    Time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #552  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Is time necessary if there is no measurable change?
    I would say there is always a measurable change. There is always change but we do not measure it because either we cannot or we do not try. But there is surely no such thing as absence of motion .(unless you can think of a scenario)

    I think some people may say that time /motion are emergent properties but I would wonder if they are not primal .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #553  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Is time necessary if there is no measurable change?
    I would say there is always a measurable change. There is always change but we do not measure it because either we cannot or we do not try. But there is surely no such thing as absence of motion .(unless you can think of a scenario)

    I think some people may say that time /motion are emergent properties but I would wonder if they are not primal .
    I believe that time is an emergent property of motion (physical change).

    I understand that the question purely in the abstract. But you asked for a possible scenario. Let me attempt to think outside the box a little.

    SUPPOSE that before the quantum inflation of THIS universe nothing existed and there was no change. Would time exist? Surely not for this universe. Thus when we speak of a beginning of this universe (change) that would include the beginning of time at least for this universe.

    SUPPOSE, we live in a multiverse, each universe created by a quantum event but with different spacetime properties, would the spacetime within that universe have any relationship to the spacetime in our universe?

    When we speak of time, it is always mentioned in relationship to our universe and our spacetime. I have no argument with that at all. In our universe there IS always motion, I agree.

    But, if our universe is still expanding (inflating) does time already exist in the future or is time created as a byproduct (result) of the inflationary change in spacetime. If there is space, there is time (Einstein). But what if there is no physical space, why would time be necessary at all?

    IMHO, the primal condition you speak of is a latent permissive condition, which cannot be measured, but allows for change and the duration (time) of such change becomes a chronological account which can be measured as emergent time.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 7th, 2014 at 07:44 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #554  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,538
    [QUOTE=Write4U;591232]
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post

    I understand that the question purely in the abstract. But you asked for a possible scenario. Let me attempt to think outside the box a little.

    SUPPOSE that before the quantum inflation of THIS universe nothing existed and there was no change. Would time exist? Surely not for this universe. Thus when we speak of a beginning of this universe (change) that would include the beginning of time at least for this universe.

    I don't suppose that at all. I suppose that before this universe was created (or what preceded the Big Bang
    ) there was "something". I don't know what but I wouldn't begin to assume there could have been nothing . However ,as that is your supposition then ,yes time would not exist either.

    SUPPOSE, we live in a multiverse, each universe created by a quantum event but with different spacetime properties, would the time within that universe have any relationship to the time in our universe?

    I don't think multiverses are worth speculating about (even if they existed). If they had any bearing on what we know of as our universe then they would not be a separate universe but part of our own.

    When we speak of time, it is always mentioned in relationship to our universe and our spacetime. I have no argument with that at all. But, if our universe is still expanding (inflating) does time already exist in the future ? no or is time created as a byproduct (result) of the inflationary change in spacetime. ? yes If there is space, there is time (Einstein). But what if there is no physical space, why would time be necessary at all?

    that is right no space =no time
    Just my predisposition and feeling based on what I have learned so far . I probably cannot back it up .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #555  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Write4U,
    I understand that the question purely in the abstract. But you asked for a possible scenario. Let me attempt to think outside the box a little.

    When we speak of time, it is always mentioned in relationship to our universe and our spacetime. I have no argument with that at all. But, if our universe is still expanding (inflating) does time already exist in the future ?
    =geordief,
    no
    or is time created as a byproduct (result) of the inflationary change in spacetime.
    yes
    If there is space, there is time (Einstein). But what if there is no physical space, why would time be necessary at all?
    that is right no space =no time
    Just my predisposition and feeling based on what I have learned so far . I probably cannot back it up .
    I can certainly not back it up, My speculation is purely intuitive and I know that in physics and cosmology many things are counter intuitive, so I am happy to hear that we are at least in partial agreement.

    I have never understood the term "borrowed time". What does that mean other than as a colloquialism? IMO. you cannot borrow time, your existence only creates time (a timeline specifically for you), you cannot borrow time from future time. We can control "change" to a degree and thereby alter the duration (time) of an event. But if the event does not happen, there CAN be no time associated or allotted for that event. It has not become part of our spacetime.

    I believe only potential (that which may become reality) is exempt from time. It isn't real yet and only when this potential is expressed does time emerge along with physical reality of that potential.

    Time emerges as a reslt of universal inflation of space. Time has nothing to do with the creation of spacetime , physical space does. The duration of a physical event always precedes its measurement in time.

    ok I'm far enough in deep water here. Perhaps past the point of "no return" and I'll "never" make it back to shore.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 7th, 2014 at 08:50 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #556  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Diego nailed it! Time is wibbily wobbily, just like a polychromatic donkey sporting an oversized took. Fully as wibbily wobbily as any general grammatical manifold, being only Euclidean globally and locally non-Euclidean.
    In fact, here is a challenge. Demonstrate the consistency of a set of axioms for any romance language grammar.

    Motion may be defined as the movable qua movable. -Aristotle-
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #557  
    Forum Freshman DiegoJZelaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    18
    Thanks! It's nice to know what I say matters and is read

    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Diego nailed it! Time is wibbily wobbily, just like a polychromatic donkey sporting an oversized took. Fully as wibbily wobbily as any general grammatical manifold, being only Euclidean globally and locally non-Euclidean.
    In fact, here is a challenge. Demonstrate the consistency of a set of axioms for any romance language grammar.

    Motion may be defined as the movable qua movable. -Aristotle-
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Similar Threads

  1. Is crossing time zones actually real life time traveling?
    By Zimmery "Reece Ran" Mac in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2014, 06:36 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 12th, 2013, 12:29 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 20th, 2013, 06:59 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 4th, 2008, 06:50 PM
  5. Time is space-time, is motion-interval, defining distance?
    By That Rascal Puff in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 6th, 2006, 11:54 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •