Notices
Results 1 to 93 of 93

Thread: What is time?

  1. #1 What is time? 
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I have stated elsewhere on this forum that I don't believe time is anything more then a way for humans to comprehend the movement of matter.

    My argument is simple,

    If all matter in the universe stopped moving for any duration small or large we would not have any idea that such an event occurred at all. Every single device we have to measure this so called time is based on some form of matter changing in some way, it could be the movement of a watch to the oscillations of an atom. If matter stopped so would everything we have to measure it. Now this being said billions of years could pass without a single consequence, all matter would be exactly the same as it was before the event occurred. This of course could never happen within the laws we know of.

    In reality for time to be truly measured in the way we think of it, we would need a way to do so that didn't interact with any known form of matter.

    Traveling at the speed of light doesn't change time, it may change the movement and speed at which matter interacts, it does not effect time in the slightest. The rest of the matter in the universe continues to move at the same speed, as does the vessel you are traveling in, your life may be extended past your counterparts in another part of the universe, however you did not impact time, only the interaction of matter.

    Curious to see if anyone understands what I'm trying to convey.


    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Time, to me, is ununderstandable. What I believe is that time is linked to the movement of atoms. When all atoms are still, when there is no movement whatsoever, I believe time stands still.

    Following this principle, the Big Bang, the origin of all energy and all movement, is also the start of time, or at least the start of the stopwatch. Time has always existed, but was simply 'halted', perhaps by a previous big crunch.

    Still, if there is something I probably will never understand in this short lifespan of ours, it is time. It's almost ironic that we lack the time to understand time.

    Mr U


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Eon
    Eon is offline
    Forum Freshman Eon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19
    I disagree, I think time is a force that is completely seperate from any other entity or object, even if we managed to stop every atom in existance I think time would continue as it always has, even if we didn't notice it passing.

    It's kinda like the tree in the woods analogy this one, similar principles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Eon
    I disagree, I think time is a force that is completely separate from any other entity or object, even if we managed to stop every atom in existence I think time would continue as it always has, even if we didn't notice it passing.

    It's kinda like the tree in the woods analogy this one, similar principles.
    Yes, perhaps. It would however have no impact on the universe and thus become almost pointless. Time could be stopping every second and we would know nothing different.

    I'm for the theory, stop matter, stop all time.

    To believe in anything other then time being the way we measure movement of matter would require one to believe in something outside of the known universe, that brings about the possibility of other unknowns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Eon
    Eon is offline
    Forum Freshman Eon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19
    True, time could be stopping all the time, that isn't what my argument was about though, I was saying I don't think stopping everything (and I mean everything, you would have a lot of matter to stop, that in itself is essentially impossible) would have any effect on time.

    We often describe time as the forth dimension, as such would stopping everything stop something from being 3D or a flat 2D object from being just that, a flat 2D object.

    True, your point on time becoming pointless is valid, but just because something is pointless, doesn't mean it disappears, I would say that a lot of stuff on this planet is pointless and not needed, but all that stuff is still there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    NMN
    NMN is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Neither here nor there...
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I'm for the theory, stop matter, stop all time.
    0 Kelvin, my friend. Good luck with that.
    Science doesn't follow English rules or exceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by NMN
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I'm for the theory, stop matter, stop all time.
    0 Kelvin, my friend. Good luck with that.
    That's what you have to love about theories, they don't have to be proven

    Kelvin, as in measurment of temperature?

    I think what I'm really getting at is that time doesn't exist, it's only a measurement of the movement of matter created by man. If all matter stop and starts "Time" as we know it would not be missed. Time still passed while the universe stood still, we just don't have any way to measure it. Without the movement of matter to us it just doesn't exist. So in the end time is dependant on matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    NMN
    NMN is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Neither here nor there...
    Posts
    5
    Kelvin, yes temperature, after Lord Kelvin.

    Absolute Zero = 0 Kelvin.

    I'm also gonna have to disagree with you on that one. I believe th theory that time is the 4th dimension. Of course we can't measure time to it's abslouteness, it's a physical dimension we can't see.

    'Time' was created by humans based on matter, yes. But Time was not. The quoted tiem is the human-made representation of what we think Time is. But the real Time is another dimension acting on it's own, and Time will not stop with matter. It will continue when the first 3 dimensions stop.
    Science doesn't follow English rules or exceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by NMN
    But the real Time is another dimension acting on it's own, and Time will not stop with matter. It will continue when the first 3 dimensions stop.
    I'm not sure if you read my info in the introductions page, I'm based off logic for the most part.

    If this 4th dimension has no visible or measurable impact on the first three dimensions in the event that they stop and has no impact on any other known forms of existence, then we have to conclude it's void. Now if say a ghost could walk through the frozen universe, then we have something
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5
    surely time is not a reall thing.... if u do not have a clock or a watch u could not tell the time of the day. And even time is not accurate.... there is not actually 24 hours in one day. What people mean by time normally is the position the earth is against the sun.

    The concept of time, in my opinion is totally dependant on gravity and if not, it is directly related to gravity...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 What is time? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8
    I think I'm pretty much with (In)Sanity on this one. Close anyway.

    I see time as an invented perception of man, used to describe an interval between cause and effect.

    However in the case of the EPR (so-called) Paradox, Quantum Physics seems to be showing that simultaneous events can occur. Einstein called this "Spooky force at a distance". But as radical as it sounds, we seem to be discovering evidence for it.

    If it turns out to be provable by repeatable experiment enough "times" (no pun intended), then we have to come to the conclusion that under certain conditions, time really does not exist.

    Aging is nothing more than the progression of the laws of Thermodynamics.

    All the influx of energy into our bodies cannot keep them from wearing out. But the "time" we are alive is largely due to our own invented perception of it.

    George Carlin likes to say that it can never actually be "right now", but to me, how can it ever be anything BUT that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    It's also kind of interesting as George points out that we are always living in the past, everything we see, here, feel etc is always in the past. Sound takes time to reach us, light as fast as it is still takes time, nerves take time to respond and transmit to our brains. Everything is always delayed.

    It's hard to envision our lives without the concept of time. That word is also highly abused by our imaginations.

    I would love to find out I'm wrong on my ideas, time is much more fun when Hollywood gets a hold of it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 What is time? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8
    To (In)Sanity:

    Yes, Hollywood does make great fun out of time.

    Several years ago, I offered a friendly challenge to anyone that could describe ANY time travel scenario that I COULD NOT show where it HAD to lead to some sort of paradox.

    The so-called "Twins" paradox was offered as not really a paradox at all which of course it isn't. But then the Twins Paradox is not really time travel at all. Just Einstein's Time Dilation due to relative velocoties. The Cesium clocks have of course proved that this dilation does indeed occur. But there is no paradox.

    Most descriptions of this "paradox" have one twin travelling to far off reaches of space when in reality the same effect can occur if the traveller never leaves the solar system.

    The traveller can orbit the sun at near the speed of light, always remain visible from earth, and the Earth visible to him.

    After 50 years say, both will have seen the Earth orbit the Sun 50 times, but the returning twin only ages say 5 years for the duration of the voyage.

    The problem lies in the perception of the "year" on the aging process. The traveller's "time" is dilated due to velocity, but the Earth still went around the Sun 50 times, even tho he only aged 5 years, and will have orbited the Sun several million times himself, having done so once every 30 minutes say. (Depending on the diameter of the vehicles orbit.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    The problem lies in the perception of the "year" on the aging process. The traveller's "time" is dilated due to velocity, but the Earth still went around the Sun 50 times, even tho he only aged 5 years, and will have orbited the Sun several million times himself, having done so once every 30 minutes say. (Depending on the diameter of the vehicles orbit.)
    So we would have to conclude time is not changing at all, just the movement of matter. The molecules traveling at the speed of light somehow are moving slower internally then the molecules moving slower. It's as if the movement is causing some force that causes a slowing of the atomic structure. Perhaps gravitational force has something to do with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 What is time? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8
    (In)Sanity:

    I am most certainly not qualified to address the issue of "why" time dilation occurs. Even Einstein did not try to truly address this, only point out that it MUST occur, which has since been proven to be so.

    I can't dismiss YOUR speculation on it's possible reasons, but my guess is that it lies at a deeper conceptual level than this. One I have definitely yet to grasp. I just go on the observed, repeatable, verifiable evidence like they do on CSI.

    The fact that the traveller ages slower utterly BAFFLES my understanding. But the Cesium clocks on aircraft, the Appollo missions and the Space Shuttle have proved that the effect is real, measurable, and even to the extent that Einstein predicted for given defined and measurable relative velocities.

    WHY any of this is so becomes another matter entirely to me. All I can do is shrug my shoulders.

    I do believe this however. There ARE NO paradoxes in the Universe. Any "seeming" Paradox is nothing more than our inability to understand what's really going on.

    We do indeed have "much in this world we have not yet dreamed of" to discover and try to understand HOW any of it can actually be so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: What is time? 
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Williams
    (In)Sanity:

    I am most certainly not qualified to address the issue of "why" time dilation occurs. Even Einstein did not try to truly address this, only point out that it MUST occur, which has since been proven to be so.

    I can't dismiss YOUR speculation on it's possible reasons, but my guess is that it lies at a deeper conceptual level than this. One I have definitely yet to grasp. I just go on the observed, repeatable, verifiable evidence like they do on CSI.

    The fact that the traveller ages slower utterly BAFFLES my understanding. But the Cesium clocks on aircraft, the Appollo missions and the Space Shuttle have proved that the effect is real, measurable, and even to the extent that Einstein predicted for given defined and measurable relative velocities.

    WHY any of this is so becomes another matter entirely to me. All I can do is shrug my shoulders.

    I do believe this however. There ARE NO paradoxes in the Universe. Any "seeming" Paradox is nothing more than our inability to understand what's really going on.

    We do indeed have "much in this world we have not yet dreamed of" to discover and try to understand HOW any of it can actually be so.
    Well if the internal movements of matter are altered by speed then this would explain the aging process, the clocks, and all related issues. To me it just sounds logical.

    Science so often wants a romantic answer to problems they have not yet solved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman Awake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    25
    Maybe just maybe, everything does stop for long periods of "time" and we don't know it. Or maybe "time" itself is just a figment of our imagination. I personally think time is something contrived by people to give some order to life. Much of it has developed from our instincts and surroundings.
    "You are only free when you realize you have nothing to lose."-Anonymous
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    101
    Time is the movement of all matter. However the human mind is only aware of time because the observation of movement.

    Thus concludes John Locke, if the mind were at rest (sleep) we are unaware of time, or when you lock someone in a dark room for several deays the mind would not know of how long the span of time it spent locked in that dark room. After witnessing people come out of coma, they are totally unaware of how much time has passed, to them it was only yesterday that they had the accident or operation that put them in coma. The mind does not know time. Only because we are able to observe the motion of matter, day/evening/night, we kind of comprehend time, however most people don't know exactly without looking at a clock that an hour has passed them by, or a few minutes, or even therty seconds, if not counting. The mind according to Locke was unable to comprehend time without the observation of movement.

    Godless.
    Don't count your money while your sitting on the table.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: What is time? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I have stated elsewhere on this forum that I don't believe time is anything more then a way for humans to comprehend the movement of matter.

    My argument is simple,

    If all matter in the universe stopped moving for any duration small or large we would not have any idea that such an event occurred at all. Every single device we have to measure this so called time is based on some form of matter changing in some way, it could be the movement of a watch to the oscillations of an atom. If matter stopped so would everything we have to measure it. Now this being said billions of years could pass without a single consequence, all matter would be exactly the same as it was before the event occurred. This of course could never happen within the laws we know of.

    In reality for time to be truly measured in the way we think of it, we would need a way to do so that didn't interact with any known form of matter.

    Traveling at the speed of light doesn't change time, it may change the movement and speed at which matter interacts, it does not effect time in the slightest. The rest of the matter in the universe continues to move at the same speed, as does the vessel you are traveling in, your life may be extended past your counterparts in another part of the universe, however you did not impact time, only the interaction of matter.

    Curious to see if anyone understands what I'm trying to convey.


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    "Time quantifies or measures the interval between events, or the duration of events. Time has long been perceived as a dimension in which each event has a definite (but not necessarily unique) position in a linear sequence, but as differing from spatial dimensions in that "motion" through time appears restricted to having only a forward direction.

    For everyday purposes, and even for quite accurate measurements, this view is sufficient. However, the scientific understanding of time underwent a revolution in the early part of the twentieth century with the development of relativity theory. Modern physics treats time as a feature of spacetime, a notion which challenges intuitive conceptions of simultaneity and the flow of time in a linear fashion.

    Despite scientific advances, the everyday meaning of time is affected more by the social importance of time, its economic value ("time is money") and an awareness of the limited time in each day and in our lives. Thus, time has long been an important theme for writers, artists and philosophers."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman CRice_aka_TheRizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    11
    Ok, you miserable cretins are all wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Just kidding) Let a real authority on science have a stab at it (kidding again, it's just my style).

    First of all, how can we even began to understand time if we can't even understand empty space, not to mention this lumpy, so-called physical stuff we call matter?

    I guess a good a place as any to start is with a thought experiment. Let's assume time is that invisible, static ticking entity we'd all like to think it is. I'm talking about time in the same sense that Newton thought of it, before that brainy bastard Einstein threw a monkey wrench into the whole deterministic framework. Ok, freeze time (let's be dualists too for a moment and say that we froze everything except for ourselves, the observers). What just happened?

    All the matter everywhere in the universe should be invisible. We find ourselves in an infinite, empty vacuum that is the Universe. Remember that the only reason all this matter stuff looks so physical to us is because it's moving so fast -- in the exact same way that your fan resembles a single, solid smooth disk, instead three or maybe four fan blades when you turn it on.

    Matter is supposedly made up of tiny little solid particles called atoms, and those puny little atoms are supposedly composed of yet smaller parts -- protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those little shits are yet composed of even smaller shits, and they're so fuckass small they might as well not even exist at all.

    The truly mindfucking part is that the distance between the protons, neutrons, and electrons relative to their respective sizes and the size of the atom as a whole, renders all atoms not much more than empty space. Atoms only seam like huge solid particles in comparison to protons, neutrons, and electrons of which they're composed because, like the fan blades in rotation, the electrons are orbiting the proton/neutron nucleus at such a high speed.

    And if you really think about it, how do we know that the same kind of reasoning doesn't apply to those tiniest of shits that makeup electrons, protons, and neutrons? Einstein did show how matter and energy are one and the same. Maybe all this stuff isn't so "physical" after all? What if the entire notion that matter is made up of particles was FUBAR from the start? I think so. I tend to believe that matter is in reality a continuous field of sorts, which extends to infinity in every direction.

    In that way I imagine the big bang as a ripple in that field, sort of like tossing a stone into a pond, except that the pond is a closed system that keeps reverberating back on itself in an infinite feedback loop, and the stone is a clump of that space/time stuff. In the beginning was ying and yang, matterenergy and spacetime? But then we're back to that whole Newtonian way of thinking about time. Words like "beginning" and "end" only confuse things. It's better to, instead of thinking of time as a line, think of time as circle of string; the beginning and the end are the same point. I'm already getting confused.

    Or forget the big crunch/bang thing altogether. Perhaps everything has already happened, and it's all just one huge pattern that repeats. Either way, the keystone to the unification of science is our own conscious experience, and not even Mr. PhD has been able to figure that one out.

    Or even crazier yet, perhaps all this matter stuff is just digital information -- numerical coordinates or code -- being played and replayed by some fucksauce supercomputer. Maybe our post human ancestors get a thrill from running simulations of their evolutionary history. Maybe they have computers that simulate big bangs and multiple universes, and even minds like theirs and ours.

    If that's the case, then I think it's safe to say that of all the thinking, feeling minds in existence, the vast majority are computer programs, or simulations. And with the indifference principle in mind, the chances that you too are a simultion are rather high, if not nearly certain.

    Ok, now what were we talking about again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Welcome to the forum.

    First of all, how can we even began to understand time if we can't even understand empty space, not to mention this lumpy, so-called physical stuff we call matter?
    Now, just great...another person trying to make Hollywood out of time. It's a measurement, why can't anyone grasp such a simple concept. Without matter or energy to measure, time would not exist.

    It's just like temperature, without matter temperature really doesn't exist either. Unless of course you consider absolute zero which is again a man made term for nothing.

    Bah, I give up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman CRice_aka_TheRizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    It's a measurement, why can't anyone grasp such a simple concept. Without matter or energy to measure, time would not exist."
    Now you make a very interesting point, and I think it ties in to some of the things I just mentioned. I think I said something to the effect of, "what if it's all just digital information, numerical coordinates or code?"

    That is precisely what I was trying to get at. I find the whole notion of "material" or "physicalness" to be eroneous. Everything is information, or measurements if you will. It's like living in the matrix, except that outside, "reality" is also a matrix. It's all just matrices within matrices. In other words, there is no "outside" of the matrix.

    Am I making any sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Destruct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    31
    Time is
    a) a co-ordinate in a 4D reletavistic space-time
    b) the things that clocks measure in a quantum framework.

    I admit, b) just means you need to work out what a clock is, and it basically seems to chime with the idea already presented that time is when a physical property changes (movement of atoms, for example, but field fluctuations will do just as well).

    There is an interesting book by Julian Barbour called "The End Of Time" that argues that there is no time at all, not even change, but instead just a massive quantum configuration space of every possible form, and that some of those forms contain patterns called "records", which, if you are in one of those configurations, gives the impression of time.

    For instance, our experience seems to exist in the now, not the past or future. The only reason we think there was a past is because of our memories and our records (such as pictures, or fossils). But these memories and records are current events, current configurations of energy in the "now".

    This is one of those can't prove it, can't prove against it, type theories, it can't be falsified or verified so you might ask its worth. The reason it is of some credibility is that it is a direct result of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which is the most direct method of incorporating General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The equation has the strange effect of erasing time from the picture completely and leaving behind a timeless configuration space of every possible instant without any mechanism joining them together.

    The tough part is to prove that the wavefunction concentrates on configurations that have records in them. This has yet to be done, but thought experiments with buble chambers show a way it might occur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3
    Our human minds allow us to perceive time as a progression of sequential events. A projection of a 4th dimensional plane onto a 3 dimensional matrix (neural network) if you will. The brain (through a vast variety of methods) can be rewired to integrate time as a "solid object" (searching for a good metaphor here). The best way to describe this would be to hear music (rooted in time) as a painting or sculputre. Non-simultaneously apprehended events can actually be perceived simultaneously given the proper mental state. I know this is true; I have experienced it several "times". Fractals and recursion seem to be a key element of this state. I have only been able to achieve this for a span of about 30 seconds of normal time, although it was surely an eternity while I was experiencing it.
    When I'm awake, I'm accused of being a dreamer. When I'm asleep, I'm accused of being a square.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    All logic says time is just a measurement of the movement of matter and energy. We base the scale of time on these movements, if matter and energy were to be slowing down, stopping or speeding up we would have no idea. The reason being is that our basis of time revolves around these very movements. So if all matter stopped for a billion years and then continued on we would be none the wiser. I suppose one could argue then what happen while all matter and energy was frozen. Did "time" still move forward. If it did it would beyond the scope of our existence and thus irrelevant.

    What is the speed of light, how fast light can travel in one second. We of course measure one second on the movement of matter. It may be an atomic clock or a casio wrist watch. In the end we say light travels at a given speed based on this movement. What if that movement is constantly changing, this would in fact mean that light is actually changing speed without our knowledge. This of course has no support and I don't profess it as theory or fact. It is however a what if.

    If traveling at the speed of light causes the internal workings of matter to slow then a second measured at the speed of light would be a very long time. We would appear to be traveling beyond the speed of light to the observer who is in fact moving this fast. The person would age slower in reference to the rest of the universe that is moving slower. The person moving at such great speeds would have no idea this event was occurring. The only indication would be the outside world zooming by at beyond light speeds. The speed of light would not have really changed, the calculation of what a second is would have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    so far there have been numerous descriptions of time (Psycological, thermodynamic, reletivistic and as a co-ordinate.)

    these are all valid descriptions of time in there aplications.
    when a person is locked in a dark closet they will probably use a psycological referance for how long they have been in there.

    a person traveling at light speed will need to consider the poor bastards who are ageing faster than they.

    but anyone no matter where they are will be bound by the thermodynamic 'arrow of time' where entropy can only increase, you can only grow older despite the Botox.

    i guess we can sumise from this disscusion that time is a dimension alowing movement of space in 1, possibly 2, direction/s. as to the measurement of the passage of time it will depend on the observers frame of reference.

    Anyone want to add something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman wesmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Amusing those who cross my Path
    Posts
    99
    I can't resist my cool graphic of what time seems to be to me:



    Sort of a hub for dimensional spokes. We see "time" as what we see it as, but it's only a slice of what it really is... what we call time is maybe a sub-set of what actually comprises time.

    That or it's just the zero-eth dimension, that which upon all others are stacked. Uhm... sumthin.
    <center>You are now leaving.....
    *gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
    *Kowtow*
    *Dorky Pose*
    </center>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Wes, this is nice for selling books but outside of that it's crap. Time is nothing more then a measurement of the changes in matter and energy, any thought outside of that borders on science fiction. It has no basis in logic. It does however make people money. String theory is crap. It's nice Sci-Fi however. I have yet to see a single thread of evidence to even begin to convince me otherwise. Not an attack on you, just of the crazy people that come up with all the crap about time. Wish I would have thought of it, I could be living large as well. I need to take up smoking crack so I can come up with some good ones. The simple answer is the correct one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman wesmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Amusing those who cross my Path
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Wes, this is nice for selling books but outside of that it's crap.
    I have no book to sell you. I offer my thoughts freely. I made that graphic to try to help show what I was thinking.

    Time is nothing more then a measurement of the changes in matter and energy, any thought outside of that borders on science fiction.
    Yes, it is that.. and note that at the top it says hypothetical. You wouldn't be aware I have a whole big thing that fits with all this.

    It has no basis in logic.
    Pardon, but you have no freakin clue what it is based in, and it's significantly presumptuous of you to say so, as you're completely ignorant as to its basis. It has a basis is MY logic, but I understand if you disagree.

    It does however make people money.
    Probably so. I'm not really looking to get on that bandwagon. I just like my pretty graphic and think it summarizes my thinking on the matter, though of course again... hypothetical.

    String theory is crap. It's nice Sci-Fi however.
    WOW. That's pretty arrogant. You're in Penrose's camp? Hawking gives the basis of the ideas involved merit. I think I'll side with him. In this case to me, it's YOU that is crap. Regardless though, neither of us know do we? Well, you seem to think you do. I was just offering my thoughts and readily admit I have no idea if they are at all relevant in reality.

    I have yet to see a single thread of evidence to even begin to convince me otherwise.
    LOL, well, it makes sense to me. I've mulled it over for a long time and to me, string theory seems to be on the right track. What the shit do I know though? For that matter, what the shit do YOU know? I haven't seen a thread of evidence to support a number of things I believe are probably true about the universe. I'm pretty much always going on my best hunch and willing to change my mind if you can show me why I should. Proclaiming it "scifi" however, is not very motivating.

    Not an attack on you, just of the crazy people that come up with all the crap about time.
    That is an attack on me, since that depiction of above is my doodad.

    (it's okay though, I aint mad ner nuthin, everybody gotta vent)

    Wish I would have thought of it, I could be living large as well.
    Wow. Issues?

    I need to take up smoking crack so I can come up with some good ones. The simple answer is the correct one.
    LOL. How prophetic.
    <center>You are now leaving.....
    *gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
    *Kowtow*
    *Dorky Pose*
    </center>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman wesmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Amusing those who cross my Path
    Posts
    99
    Oh, and to me it seems perfectly natural to attempt to understand time's place in a geometric model of the universe. Seems simple enough to me. It must be the right answer?
    <center>You are now leaving.....
    *gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
    *Kowtow*
    *Dorky Pose*
    </center>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I just love it when people come up with theories that have no explanation. Even Einstein is guilty of this. If we say it it must be true...but why?

    In the end most every explanation runs in to a point where it can't be explained further. I wish people would at least try, or start to try. So it just pisses me off when I see theories on time that state nothing. A picture is worth a thousand words, yet it makes no sense without explanation of what it's trying convey.

    So why does the hamster disintegrate when shot at 3500 fps?

    Hawkings by the way has some drug induced ideas to say the least. Again it's one thing to have a theory it's another to explain it down to it's intimate details. If you can't explain the theory it's just an attempt at gaining attention and or wealth. If any of the ideas a theory is based on can't be explained it's no better. LOL, we live in the Matrix...prove otherwise

    Sorry to be so hard on you Wes, it's the scientific community as a whole that I'm frustrated with. There is a lot of BS floating around out there that has no logic behind it at all. Logic has to go all the way through, not just on the surface. You can't base something on something else that doesn't hold up to logic. It's 100% in all directions or nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1
    Well I've pondered this alot myself and I tend to agree with your version, (In)Sanity.

    Basically time is a measurement relative to observable change. Time itself actually isn't anything other than a conceptual representation of change. The measurement is never static. Its completely dynamic and relative to the observer and what he is observing. My perception of time could be completely different than yours depending on where we find ourselves, yet time itself doesn't exist in two different places because it doesn't exist period. Its an illusion we created to make sense of sequential events. I never understood why people got the notion that its some kind of 'thing' or fabric... that doesn't make sense to me at all.

    Some young theorists by the name of Peter Lynds wrote a paper about a new theory of time, and it got alot of publicity. I haven't read it yet or looked into it much but from what I gathered he seems to lean towards what we are saying. Something along those lines anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman wesmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Amusing those who cross my Path
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I just love it when people come up with theories that have no explanation.
    From a guy who defends belief in gods, that seems like an illogical response.

    What theory has an "explanation"? What kind of explanation is satisfactory to you? Are you the authority on explanations? Am I? What if we disagree?

    Even Einstein is guilty of this.
    Guilty of a creative mind. What a bastard.

    If we say it it must be true...but why?
    Who the fuck said anything that for instance, I posted, is TRUE? What don't you understand about the word "hypothetical"? What I posted is an offering as to my thoughts on the matter. I don't take it as "truth" except in that it's the current fruition of my opinion, and it fits with my perspective on numerous other facets of reality. I would hardly however, hold it as factual. It's merely one way to look at it which may offer deeper insights into who knows. THEORIES presented are intended as a framework for understanding something... how to relate to it. You know, people tend to relate to things.... thus, they give you their theory on how it fits into whatever.

    In the end most every explanation runs in to a point where it can't be explained further.
    Uhm... everything does that. Why is blue blue? It's defined as such. So? If a theory reaches the point where it is found to be illogical, inconsistent, refutable via data.. then it's time to rework or smash it. Until then, it seems a little angry to get uptight about it. It's different if some asshat is trying to cram it down your throat, but no one in this thread has done any such thing.

    So it just pisses me off when I see theories on time that state nothing. A picture is worth a thousand words, yet it makes no sense without explanation of what it's trying convey.
    There is an explanation along with my pretty picture. I submit that you could give a shit less as to further explanation, as you've written it off as stupid before bothering to ask if there is any support for it, etc. That's cool with me, but you're bitching up the wrong tree it seems.

    So why does the hamster disintegrate when shot at 3500 fps?
    This thread isn't about hamsters I don't think. What did I miss? Presuming it's not in vacuum, the simple explanation would be that the friction created by the air fried and smashed him.

    Hawkings by the way has some drug induced ideas to say the least.
    Character assasination? Wow, great theory you've got there Mr. Hypocryte. What the shit do you know about Hawking's drug habits? Do you know that his theories are related to them? Are you even remotely qualified to criticize them in such a manner? Are you really just expressing your frustration with the stick up your ass?

    Again it's one thing to have a theory it's another to explain it down to it's intimate details.
    Wow. How did you come up with that? Genius I tellsya. Did you know that to some people, it's fun to come up with an idea that fits some puzzle in their head, and then see if the idea works for real? So you have an idea, and then you try to see if the "intimate details" work with that idea. Did that occur to you? Sure it's fine to poke fun at such "drug induced" ideas, but to write it off and stupid is well, stupid IMO.

    If you can't explain the theory it's just an attempt at gaining attention and or wealth.
    How very narrow and retarded of you to say. In a discussion about the nature of time, offering one's opinion is responding to a request for stimulous.

    If any of the ideas a theory is based on can't be explained it's no better.
    What is better or worse about a theory is it's utility to the invidual or society.

    LOL, we live in the Matrix...prove otherwise
    Why bother if you can't tell the difference?

    Sorry to be so hard on you Wes, it's the scientific community as a whole that I'm frustrated with.
    You're not my dad, and I think you're simply emotionally jacked in this regard, so it's impossible for me to percieve you're "being hard on me". I really don't think you're being consistent or mature about the topic at hand, but rather are venting your frustration with some issue you have with what you percieve to be "the scientific community". I just don't think you've really thought this through very well, and sit on a perch of self-involved superiority. I've been there.

    There is a lot of BS floating around out there that has no logic behind it at all.
    Of course...?

    Logic has to go all the way through, not just on the surface.
    LOL. Logic has to be consistent within its boundaries. People move those things around all the time, making huge assumptions in order to justify whatever they want. This in effect changes where the surface is relative to the claim. Where I find you to be in complete delusion in this subject is twofold:

    I have made no claim to truth.

    You have asked nothing of an explanation, yet complain that there is no explanation. There is an abstract of an explanation in the picture itself. The full explanation as to why it seems that way to me takes forever to explain dependent on how easily I communicate with whomever.

    You can't base something on something else that doesn't hold up to logic.
    It's 100% in all directions or nothing.
    LOL. Who decides what logic is? Ah, you do I see. Did you know I do to? Does that create an issue? What's more interesting to me is that you have made no argument addressing any specific theory, but have only bitched and moaned about how theories have to be...

    I don't remember what's been offered in this thread, but since you're so "logical" perhaps your can enlighten the audience by taking each offering and clearly demonstrating its logical flaws. That way, people might actually learn something valuable. Learning that you're uptight and have an attitude problem doesn't really educate me.
    <center>You are now leaving.....
    *gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
    *Kowtow*
    *Dorky Pose*
    </center>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman wesmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Amusing those who cross my Path
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I just love it when people come up with theories that have no explanation.
    From a guy who defends belief in gods, that seems like an illogical response.

    What theory has an "explanation"? What kind of explanation is satisfactory to you? Are you the authority on explanations? Am I? What if we disagree?

    Even Einstein is guilty of this.
    Guilty of a creative mind. What a bastard.

    If we say it it must be true...but why?
    Who the fuck said anything that for instance, I posted, is TRUE? What don't you understand about the word "hypothetical"? What I posted is an offering as to my thoughts on the matter. I don't take it as "truth" except in that it's the current fruition of my opinion, and it fits with my perspective on numerous other facets of reality. I would hardly however, hold it as factual. It's merely one way to look at it which may offer deeper insights into who knows. THEORIES presented are intended as a framework for understanding something... how to relate to it. You know, people tend to relate to things.... thus, they give you their theory on how it fits into whatever.

    In the end most every explanation runs in to a point where it can't be explained further.
    Uhm... everything does that. Why is blue blue? It's defined as such. So? If a theory reaches the point where it is found to be illogical, inconsistent, refutable via data.. then it's time to rework or smash it. Until then, it seems a little angry to get uptight about it. It's different if some asshat is trying to cram it down your throat, but no one in this thread has done any such thing.

    So it just pisses me off when I see theories on time that state nothing. A picture is worth a thousand words, yet it makes no sense without explanation of what it's trying convey.
    There is an explanation along with my pretty picture. I submit that you could give a shit less as to further explanation, as you've written it off as stupid before bothering to ask if there is any support for it, etc. That's cool with me, but you're bitching up the wrong tree it seems.

    So why does the hamster disintegrate when shot at 3500 fps?
    This thread isn't about hamsters I don't think. What did I miss? Presuming it's not in vacuum, the simple explanation would be that the friction created by the air fried and smashed him.

    Hawkings by the way has some drug induced ideas to say the least.
    Character assasination? Wow, great theory you've got there Mr. Hypocryte. What the shit do you know about Hawking's drug habits? Do you know that his theories are related to them? Are you even remotely qualified to criticize them in such a manner? Are you really just expressing your frustration with the stick up your ass?

    Again it's one thing to have a theory it's another to explain it down to it's intimate details.
    Wow. How did you come up with that? Genius I tellsya. Did you know that to some people, it's fun to come up with an idea that fits some puzzle in their head, and then see if the idea works for real? So you have an idea, and then you try to see if the "intimate details" work with that idea. Did that occur to you? Sure it's fine to poke fun at such "drug induced" ideas, but to write it off and stupid is well, stupid IMO.

    If you can't explain the theory it's just an attempt at gaining attention and or wealth.
    How very narrow and retarded of you to say. In a discussion about the nature of time, offering one's opinion is responding to a request for stimulous.

    If any of the ideas a theory is based on can't be explained it's no better.
    What is better or worse about a theory is it's utility to the invidual or society.

    LOL, we live in the Matrix...prove otherwise
    Why bother if you can't tell the difference?

    Sorry to be so hard on you Wes, it's the scientific community as a whole that I'm frustrated with.
    You're not my dad, and I think you're simply emotionally jacked in this regard, so it's impossible for me to percieve you're "being hard on me". I really don't think you're being consistent or mature about the topic at hand, but rather are venting your frustration with some issue you have with what you percieve to be "the scientific community". I just don't think you've really thought this through very well, and sit on a perch of self-involved superiority. I've been there.

    There is a lot of BS floating around out there that has no logic behind it at all.
    Of course...?

    Logic has to go all the way through, not just on the surface.
    LOL. Logic has to be consistent within its boundaries. People move those things around all the time, making huge assumptions in order to justify whatever they want. This in effect changes where the surface is relative to the claim. Where I find you to be in complete delusion in this subject is twofold:

    I have made no claim to truth.

    You have asked nothing of an explanation, yet complain that there is no explanation. There is an abstract of an explanation in the picture itself. The full explanation as to why it seems that way to me takes forever to explain dependent on how easily I communicate with whomever.

    You can't base something on something else that doesn't hold up to logic.
    It's 100% in all directions or nothing.
    LOL. Who decides what logic is? Ah, you do I see. Did you know I do to? Does that create an issue? What's more interesting to me is that you have made no argument addressing any specific theory, but have only bitched and moaned about how theories have to be...

    I don't remember what's been offered in this thread, but since you're so "logical" perhaps your can enlighten the audience by taking each offering and clearly demonstrating its logical flaws. That way, people might actually learn something valuable. Learning that you're uptight and have an attitude problem doesn't really educate me.
    <center>You are now leaving.....
    *gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
    *Kowtow*
    *Dorky Pose*
    </center>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Time is what one infers that happened between your face being less wrinkled, and at some other point, more wrinkled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman wesmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Amusing those who cross my Path
    Posts
    99
    I have no idea how I double-posted the above, but it wasn't intentional and I can't figure out how to delete the repeat.
    <center>You are now leaving.....
    *gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
    *Kowtow*
    *Dorky Pose*
    </center>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Insanity:

    In the end most every explanation runs in to a point where it can't be explained further. I wish people would at least try, or start to try. So it just pisses me off when I see theories on time that state nothing. A picture is worth a thousand words, yet it makes no sense without explanation of what it's trying convey.
    The theory is the explanation, to the best of the theorists ability, and given the current physical understanding.

    Sorry to be so hard on you Wes, it's the scientific community as a whole that I'm frustrated with. There is a lot of BS floating around out there that has no logic behind it at all. Logic has to go all the way through, not just on the surface. You can't base something on something else that doesn't hold up to logic. It's 100% in all directions or nothing
    You really see science as this f'ed up? Shame.

    As for time, there is no such thing as commonly understood. Something "in motion", "passing" by. There is a property of the universe called entropy. It is a general tendency for things (especially in closed systems) to move toward a lower energy state, becoming more disorganized.

    Now a question: What is the color red? It is our perception of photons with a wavelength of approximately 730nm striking retinal photoreceptors. But what is red? That's no answer! Answer: Red is a perception only, with subjective value only.

    Now, what is time? It is our percption of entropy, a fundamental attribute of the universe. That's it.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    26
    [quote="superluminal"]

    Now a question: What is the color red? It is our perception of photons with a wavelength of approximately 730nm striking retinal photoreceptors. But what is red? That's no answer! Answer: Red is a perception only, with subjective value only.

    Now, what is time? It is our percption of entropy, a fundamental attribute of the universe. That's it.
    Nicely said superluminal. Nominalism at its best.
    (In)Sanity: simply because we have a term for something, doesn't necessarily mean that that term must have a real referent. Time, is a unicorn.
    "Wherever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Time is just a property of our Universe which alows the movement of Matter to occur in one direction, one where Entropy always increases.

    spacetime is just a property of our universe and the movement of matter is just an effect of this property as well as just a way for us humans to percieve the property of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Time is just a property of our Universe which alows the movement of Matter to occur in one direction, one where Entropy always increases.

    spacetime is just a property of our universe and the movement of matter is just an effect of this property as well as just a way for us humans to percieve the property of time.
    What is the purpose of the word "just" here? You seem to have an unusual, at least to me, use of the word direction. Your use of time only in relation to motion through space seems to me to be a Newtonian usage. In relativity, time is much more than this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: What is time? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    If all matter in the universe stopped moving for any duration small or large we would not have any idea that such an event occurred at all.
    First of all, do you think that such a hypothetical situation is even possible? I do not. Second of all, if it were to occur, we could not have any thoughts at all, as thought requires motion in space.

    Every single device we have to measure this so called time is based on some form of matter changing in some way, it could be the movement of a watch to the oscillations of an atom. If matter stopped so would everything we have to measure it.
    I will agree with this. However, again it is theoretical, and not really possible. Also, do you consider that there is nothing more to time than use for measuring?

    In reality for time to be truly measured in the way we think of it, we would need a way to do so that didn't interact with any known form of matter.
    I don't understand your point here.

    Traveling at the speed of light doesn't change time, it may change the movement and speed at which matter interacts, it does not effect time in the slightest. The rest of the matter in the universe continues to move at the same speed, as does the vessel you are traveling in, your life may be extended past your counterparts in another part of the universe, however you did not impact time, only the interaction of matter.
    This seems like a Newtonian usage of time. In relativity, this is not the case. Of course, in relativity, I really don't know what your usage is of the concept of moving at the speed of light, as everything moves at the speed of light through space-time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: What is time? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Every single device we have to measure this so called time is based on some form of matter changing in some way, it could be the movement of a watch to the oscillations of an atom. If matter stopped so would everything we have to measure it.
    I will agree with this. However, again it is theoretical, and not really possible. Also, do you consider that there is nothing more to time than use for measuring?
    First, just because a situation is hypothetical doesn't render it useless. A hypothetical in extremis is often one of the best ways to test the theoretical limits of instantiating a theory.
    Second, indeed there is nothing more to the concept of time than as a scale of measurement. The role of time in the Relativistic space-time framework is nothing but that of a scale. The idea that the concept of time involves more than this is devoid of meaning within any scientific framework.
    "Wherever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Re: What is time? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by glaucon
    First, just because a situation is hypothetical doesn't render it useless.
    Speaking very generally, I quite agree with you. Speaking in this case specifically, I do not agree.

    Second, indeed there is nothing more to the concept of time than as a scale of measurement. The role of time in the Relativistic space-time framework is nothing but that of a scale.
    You state this with such conviction. Nevertheless, I think that you are restricting yourself to a Newtonian understanding of time.

    The idea that the concept of time involves more than this is devoid of meaning within any scientific framework.
    I think that you do not understand all scientific frameworks. Have you ever studied relativity?

    Have you ever heard of space-time? It would be a pretty meaningless concept if the only meaning of time is as a way to measure space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Time is just a property of our Universe which alows the movement of Matter to occur in one direction, one where Entropy always increases.

    spacetime is just a property of our universe and the movement of matter is just an effect of this property as well as just a way for us humans to percieve the property of time.
    What is the purpose of the word "just" here? You seem to have an unusual, at least to me, use of the word direction. Your use of time only in relation to motion through space seems to me to be a Newtonian usage. In relativity, time is much more than this.
    ok so i used the word just to many times big fucking deal.

    second i'm not just refering to motion through space but the movement of time allowing for the thermodynamic proccess associated with entropy to take place. besides isn't time always in motion anyway, the only exeption of which i can think of would possibly be whilst traveling at the speed of light.

    please tell me how is relativity different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    second i'm not just refering to motion through space but the movement of time allowing for the thermodynamic proccess associated with entropy to take place. besides isn't time always in motion anyway, the only exeption of which i can think of would possibly be whilst traveling at the speed of light.
    I'm sooo sick of saying it...but time is just a measurement. It has no properties other then what we have defined. It's our way of dealing with movement and change, nothing more..nothing less.

    Now tell me, why would time stop while traveling at the speed of light. Is it because some dude said it would based on a math problem

    Nope, sorry..time would not stop at the speed of light. You on the other hand might not have any molecules that are moving as they are unable to overcome the force of the speed. So in a sense if movement stopped then so would the device you used to measure the passage of time.

    Pure science says that time is a measurement, the romantics say it's some magical thing that can be manipulated. Yep, I can adjust my watch and play with time Matter moves, time exists only because we measure the movement. Do I need to write a book on this subject?

    Logic people, logic. We need more logic. It's all soo simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i'm even more sick of saying it movement and change are not possible unless there is a time for it to happen in.
    measurement is a human concept based on our desire to calculate sizes and distances and provide specific coordinates for where an object is.

    Now tell me, why would time stop while traveling at the speed of light. Is it because some dude said it would based on a math problem.
    i really should have mentioned the part about all this happening to the observer reletively speaking. i don't think it's entirely plausible either hence why i said POSSIBLY.

    all this is Logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    i'm even more sick of saying it movement and change are not possible unless there is a time for it to happen in.
    measurement is a human concept based on our desire to calculate sizes and distances and provide specific coordinates for where an object is.
    Yes, but without the measurements that are based on the very movements of matter time can not be defined. The movements on the other hand still occur. In other words you can't measure time without movement. Movement could however happen regardless. Time still ends up being just a measurement of that movement. When we say it took time to happen we are really saying matter changed from one state to another. You actually had me stumped for a second with your comment, as it's a hard concept to grasp. We have a hard time thinking without the concept of time involved as we know nothing else. The key thing to remember is that time can't be measured without matter changing. We label these changes as the passage of time, still matter doesn't need time to change, time needs matter to be measured.

    Now tell me, why would time stop while traveling at the speed of light. Is it because some dude said it would based on a math problem.
    i really should have mentioned the part about all this happening to the observer reletively speaking. i don't think it's entirely plausible either hence why i said POSSIBLY.

    all this is Logic.
    Sorry, I wasn't attacking you. Anything is possible as they say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    [quote="(In)Sanity"][quote="wallaby"]i'm even more sick of saying it movement and change are not possible unless there is a time for it to happen in.
    measurement is a human concept based on our desire to calculate sizes and distances and provide specific coordinates for where an object is

    Yes, but without the measurements that are based on the very movements of matter time can not be defined. The movements on the other hand still occur. In other words you can't measure time without movement. Movement could however happen regardless. Time still ends up being just a measurement of that movement. When we say it took time to happen we are really saying matter changed from one state to another. You actually had me stumped for a second with your comment, as it's a hard concept to grasp. We have a hard time thinking without the concept of time involved as we know nothing else. The key thing to remember is that time can't be measured without matter changing. We label these changes as the passage of time, still matter doesn't need time to change, time needs matter to be measured.
    time doesn't need to be measured...humans need to measure time but time itself either doesn't need to be measured or can't be measured.

    just like we can never know a particles exact position or its velocity there might just be a certain fuzzyness to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    time doesn't need to be measured...humans need to measure time but time itself either doesn't need to be measured or can't be measured.

    just like we can never know a particles exact position or its velocity there might just be a certain fuzzyness to it.
    I'm not sure if you were trying to debunk my statements or not. But yes I agree. The question is would "time" exist in an absolute void with nothing outside that void? The first instinct would be to say yes, time would have to pass. I suspect however you would be visualizing that void from the outside. From the outside we would look at it and say that xx amount of time passed. Now if nothing exists inside or outside of the void then in a sense there is no way to measure that time, so time can not be defined. One could not even argue that time had to of passed, how to you know for sure that it did unless you were on the outside looking in?

    I think it's hard to separate the people from the "time". Toss the concept of time for a minute and just think of nothing but movement, don't think of how long something takes, just move stuff around. It all still works. I have to thank you for bringing this all back up, it's help me refine my ability to explain my concepts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    time doesn't need to be measured...humans need to measure time but time itself either doesn't need to be measured or can't be measured.

    just like we can never know a particles exact position or its velocity there might just be a certain fuzzyness to it.
    I'm not sure if you were trying to debunk my statements or not. But yes I agree. The question is would "time" exist in an absolute void with nothing outside that void? The first instinct would be to say yes, time would have to pass. I suspect however you would be visualizing that void from the outside. From the outside we would look at it and say that xx amount of time passed. Now if nothing exists inside or outside of the void then in a sense there is no way to measure that time, so time can not be defined. One could not even argue that time had to of passed, how to you know for sure that it did unless you were on the outside looking in?

    I think it's hard to separate the people from the "time". Toss the concept of time for a minute and just think of nothing but movement, don't think of how long something takes, just move stuff around. It all still works. I have to thank you for bringing this all back up, it's help me refine my ability to explain my concepts.
    i could see this happening if time were slowed down very very slow and everything kept moving at the same velocity.

    the only problem is that time still flows for the observer and thus providing a measurement. if time were stoped then the observer could not observe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    the only problem is that time still flows for the observer and thus providing a measurement. if time were stoped then the observer could not observe.
    Exactly, it's this element of "intelligence" that makes time really exist. The non-intelligent part of the universe just considers movement and change. Time exists because we define it. It's not a part of the physical universe like matter and energy are. It's a product of our analysis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Time exists because we define it. It's not a part of the physical universe like matter and energy are. It's a product of our analysis.
    Which is it, matter or energy, that you consider responsbile for the fact that the space that constitutes your body is not the same as that on the day that you were born? Do you think that time is not important in understanding the change that you have undergone throughout your life? What "real" part of the universe is repsonbilble for what others consider is due to time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    time is a real thing hence the universe ages, i am aging and the water on the window is drying because as it all makes a passage through time, as everything in this universe does, it is changing. it does not matter wether i observe it or not.

    so if a person viewing a place that is without time by the very act of there viewing creates a time measurement that means that there was always time there to begin with just no way of measuring it. measurement is a human concept and is not an requirement of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    time is a real thing hence the universe ages, i am aging and the water on the window is drying because as it all makes a passage through time, as everything in this universe does, it is changing. it does not matter wether i observe it or not.
    Good point. To go even further, replace your word ages with the word evolves.

    so if a person viewing a place that is without time by the very act of there viewing creates a time measurement that means that there was always time there to begin with just no way of measuring it. measurement is a human concept and is not an requirement of time.
    There can be nothing in the universe, as it is now, that is without time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    agreed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    Think of it this way aswell... time as we know it is really all in the mind, when you sleep time is irrelevant, your not tuned into the energy interactions around you, you loose all sense of time.. if you had to say.. 8 hours feels more like a minute or less, especially if you dont dream. its a collective experiance as much as it can be a personal one.

    Like a wave it has a duality because of concious experiance, its our concious experiance that defines this reality , we get confused when it bleeds off into nothingness because our physical brains logic is grounded in the material world, the formative mind isnt however, so we struggle to understand where everything comes from because we cant explain it on a purely physical level, because logic is a natural extention in appreciation of the 'physical' universe.

    We automatically realise something has to come from somewhere when we see its effects, but then when we cant see or grasp at it in a physical sense the brain gets confused. The brain externalises everything, which throws us off the scent, because its thinking outside in rather than inside out.. and we miss out our own conciousness as a key factor.
    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore wretched's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    BakomGaller
    Posts
    108
    A dimension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    This thread is more or less about time.
    Portions of it corroborate the following - TOTAL FIELD THEORY - forum:
    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (4-D time).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    Think of it this way aswell... time as we know it is really all in the mind, when you sleep time is irrelevant,
    I suppose you think that when you are asleep breathing is also all in the mind and irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Hey. Here's something for the snoring sleeper that Hermes just awakened.
    I've posted this elsewhere and forget where and hope I'm not gigged for doing a 'double post'; whereas the following seems like a timely space to post an excerpt from my forum - it has to do with time being motion and conversely (Aka, ultimately, the 4th Dimension - wretched provided the correct, abbreviated answer, in two words: 'A dimension'.):

    A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs:
    'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.'
    - A (popularly deluded) bumpersticker mentality.

    Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute.

    Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun (refer 'space-time' - the spinning motion of the earth on its own axis can be included in this computation.).
    Sums up the bumper-sticker inspired hallucination. Its about time. Motion is time and conversely. It is not an arbitrary value as it is so frequently misunderstood to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    no, one second of time is about 3*10<sup>8</sup>m space
    you cant use earth or any planet to tell time in science, its not accurate enough. Time is a dimension like space exept it goes only in one direction
    turning M-S in either way you have to use C, tunrning Kg-M/S you need to use G and so on, use right constants and UNITS.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun.
    This is quite a revelation.

    A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute.
    Some of these are approximations, in particular your definition of a month in relation to the year and the week in relation to the month.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    the real definition of a year were 12 laps of the moon by babylons, but theen they realised that a year is more than 12 revolutions of the moon, and that moons orbit around the earth is less than 30 days. this is from where 360° concept comes from, their year were 360 days, one complete circle
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Dear Zelos:
    (Deja vu)
    You're right.
    I am making generalizations.
    Whereas, they explain a lot that is otherwise being misunderstood, overlooked or otherwise unconsidered.
    Thank you for the refinements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    time is a real thing hence the universe ages, i am aging and the water on the window is drying because as it all makes a passage through time, as everything in this universe does, it is changing. it does not matter wether i observe it or not.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. The universe just is what it is - it is true that the universe is aging from our frame of reference but to the universe itself, or to an "outside" observer (such as God?), the universe just is. It is consciousness of inhabitants within the universe that feel the passage of time in that universe. It's hard to picture time in that manner but that's how I see it looking at the universe as a 4D entity with spacetime, and not 3D space + time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    its aging even if u look from the outside, becuase if u are in or out of the universe the entropy increase in the universe, therefor aging
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    You're really just rephrasing the same thing, and my comment addresses it equally. Entropy is dependent on the flow of time - what does it really mean to say that the entropy is "increasing" (over time) when the universe, as a whole, includes the past, present, and future? This assumes a 4D model for the universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    ? the universe as whole is present, what happens is determened by the past and the present determen what willl happen but the universe isnt all of them at once its allways present
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    ? the universe as whole is present, what happens is determened by the past and the present determen what willl happen but the universe isnt all of them at once its allways present
    Again, that's only true from our perspective as inhabitants within the universe. You're still thinking in terms of 3D + time. But if you unite time and space into 4D spacetime, you have to accept the universe as a whole in all directions. Up, down, left, right, back, front, past, and future. You don't say that 10 feet in front of you isn't part of the universe, and you likewise can't claim that 10 hours ahead of you isn't part of the universe. Both events are part of the universe, just at different locations in spacetime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    time is a real thing hence the universe ages, i am aging and the water on the window is drying because as it all makes a passage through time, as everything in this universe does, it is changing. it does not matter wether i observe it or not.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. The universe just is what it is - it is true that the universe is aging from our frame of reference but to the universe itself, or to an "outside" observer (such as God?), the universe just is. It is consciousness of inhabitants within the universe that feel the passage of time in that universe. It's hard to picture time in that manner but that's how I see it looking at the universe as a 4D entity with spacetime, and not 3D space + time.
    i'm not sure i even agree with that post of mine anymore.
    but since time changed my opinion on it i'd have to say in general that rate of change can be used as a measure of time in terms of another variable.
    i can agree that the universe is aging from our point of view as there is no universal time.

    i do not understand what you mean by the statement, ' It is consciousness of inhabitants within the universe'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    ? the universe as whole is present, what happens is determened by the past and the present determen what willl happen but the universe isnt all of them at once its allways present
    Again, that's only true from our perspective as inhabitants within the universe. You're still thinking in terms of 3D + time. But if you unite time and space into 4D spacetime, you have to accept the universe as a whole in all directions. Up, down, left, right, back, front, past, and future. You don't say that 10 feet in front of you isn't part of the universe, and you likewise can't claim that 10 hours ahead of you isn't part of the universe. Both events are part of the universe, just at different locations in spacetime.
    the thing is, time is different in the manner that it doesnt go back/forth, it allways goes forward, it has a specefic direction therefor you can think of space/time to be simular but not exacly the same, space isnt there any different between back/forth but in time there is
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    the thing is, time is different in the manner that it doesnt go back/forth, it allways goes forward, it has a specefic direction therefor you can think of space/time to be simular but not exacly the same, space isnt there any different between back/forth but in time there is
    The spatial dimensions only go "back and forth" when you view it in the context of time as we perceive it - a 3D + time point of view, again. With a 4D view of the universe you don't exist at just one moment in time, at one particular set of (x,y,z) coordinates. You exist as a series of events along your worldline, which includes a time coordinate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    yes, but its still present i am in
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    The spatial dimensions only go "back and forth" when you view it in the context of time as we perceive it - a 3D + time point of view, again. With a 4D view of the universe you don't exist at just one moment in time, at one particular set of (x,y,z) coordinates. You exist as a series of events along your worldline, which includes a time coordinate.
    just as long as that series of points is no longer physical yes.

    at any one time Zelos occupies one descrete point on his worldline and not all points simultaneously, unless your a believer in destiny or think that the future has already been maped out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    at any one time Zelos occupies one descrete point on his worldline and not all points simultaneously, unless your a believer in destiny or think that the future has already been maped out.
    I bolded the important part. Of course at any one time that is the case. But at any one time only applies to a 3D + time universe.
    But if you unite space and time, there is a different way to look at it. THe reality of time isn't as cut and dry as you guys are making it, and GR shows us that even in everyday life (GPS satellites for example). You guys I believe both have discussed how time can do some funny things when you're talking about near light speeds, or near black holes - so let go of the tick tock linear notion of time that you know is only an illusion.
    If you only want to accept the universe as 3D (or however many spatial dimensions you prefer) + time that's not a problem for me...but think about the implications when you accept spacetime (and hence accept that space and time cannot be separated)

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single construct called the space-time continuum, in which time plays the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a good deal of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

    In classical mechanics, spacetime is a mere formal option, but in special relativity, space and time are inseparable. The notion of space depends on the observer, as instantaneous events depend on a reference frame.
    If you are talking about local reference frames - like ours - you can talk about time the way you guys are. If you want to talk about the universe as a whole, things are different and time can't be viewed in that manner anymore.
    Am I being unclear? It's hard to express what I mean clearly on this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    at any one time Zelos occupies one descrete point on his worldline and not all points simultaneously, unless your a believer in destiny or think that the future has already been maped out.
    I bolded the important part. Of course at any one time that is the case. But at any one time only applies to a 3D + time universe.
    But if you unite space and time, there is a different way to look at it. THe reality of time isn't as cut and dry as you guys are making it, and GR shows us that even in everyday life (GPS satellites for example). You guys I believe both have discussed how time can do some funny things when you're talking about near light speeds, or near black holes - so let go of the tick tock linear notion of time that you know is only an illusion.
    If you only want to accept the universe as 3D (or however many spatial dimensions you prefer) + time that's not a problem for me...but think about the implications when you accept spacetime (and hence accept that space and time cannot be separated)

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single construct called the space-time continuum, in which time plays the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a good deal of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

    In classical mechanics, spacetime is a mere formal option, but in special relativity, space and time are inseparable. The notion of space depends on the observer, as instantaneous events depend on a reference frame.
    If you are talking about local reference frames - like ours - you can talk about time the way you guys are. If you want to talk about the universe as a whole, things are different and time can't be viewed in that manner anymore.
    Am I being unclear? It's hard to express what I mean clearly on this topic.
    i know very well that spacetime is inseperable, that has to be one of the most overstated facts about relativity.
    and hence every vector in the universe that describes motion is a spacetime vector. however that does not mean that this motion can not be simplified and broken into components. you do not simply have a spacetime vector of given magnitude and direction, this is a resultant vector which is the square root of the sum of the squares of the component vectors, think pythagoras (the hypotenuse is a 1 D line that has two components and thus can be represented 2 dimensionally).

    hence if i were to jump of a building and and observer was to record my motion once i was at terminal velocity (constant), to an observer on an adjacent building who's line of site was perpendicular to mine, there would be 4 vectors that describe my motion seperately and not completely. these vectors x,y,z,t would read different magnitudes as the observer changes there position (to another frame of referance). however dispite this the resultant spacetime vector will be invarient in magnitude no matter which frame of referance the observer is in.

    at relativistic speeds lorentz transformations will be needed to account for a stationary observer observing a body moving at such speeds, but the magnitude of the spacetime vector will remain this same.

    therefor all motion through space occurs through time and all motion occurs through spacetime.

    graphing motion of the components with respect to each other we can isolate particular points and derive vectors which further explain there motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I don't really disagree with you - the difference is just when you say
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    however that does not mean that this motion can not be simplified and broken into components
    ...it can be broken down from a local reference frame like yours, or mine, or the guy on the next building, or the guy plummeting to the earth. But from the entire universe itself, or a "God-like" perspective? I don't think it makes sense to apply it in that manner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I don't really disagree with you - the difference is just when you say
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    however that does not mean that this motion can not be simplified and broken into components
    ...it can be broken down from a local reference frame like yours, or mine, or the guy on the next building, or the guy plummeting to the earth. But from the entire universe itself, or a "God-like" perspective? I don't think it makes sense to apply it in that manner.
    why not?

    i personally don't think it makes sense to be talking about god like referances when we don't have them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    for everyframe a vector will have different size and direction. so it should then also be relative even for somekinda god referens frame
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    for everyframe a vector will have different size and direction. so it should then also be relative even for somekinda god referens frame
    but the resultant vector will be the same magnitude.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    not really, the acceleration, velocity, force etc vectors is different for every referensframe. becuase te momentum, time, space etc all is referens frame based. wich is the fundamentals of this kind of things therefor its not the same for everyframe, like in your frame im exposed to 10N while in my im exposed to only 1

    when i think on it, is there really any base unit that isnt effected by relativity? i can think of ampere and kelvin and mole, but not sure, arent those not effected by relativity?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    not really, the acceleration, velocity, force etc vectors is different for every referensframe. becuase te momentum, time, space etc all is referens frame based. wich is the fundamentals of this kind of things therefor its not the same for everyframe, like in your frame im exposed to 10N while in my im exposed to only 1

    when i think on it, is there really any base unit that isnt effected by relativity? i can think of ampere and kelvin and mole, but not sure, arent those not effected by relativity?
    yea you'll disagree on the x, y, z, t co ordinates and vectors but if length is invarient through rotations and so forth then different reference frames will still measure the same magnitudes and directions.

    the line of thought that brings me to this is the first postulate of relativity, ' the laws of physics are the same for all observers in an inertial rest frame', the laws of physics include that of relativity right?

    and so even if lorrentzian transforms must be used for a stationary observer who is observing a moving observer then you still obtain the same resultant no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    gardengrove California
    Posts
    139
    so u mean that the time we have now is incorrect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by iLOVEscience
    so u mean that the time we have now is incorrect?
    define time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by iLOVEscience
    so u mean that the time we have now is incorrect?
    define time.
    Time is the interval between two or more events (in space).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman .:Elusive.Neutrino:.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Coronado, CA
    Posts
    54
    Time is just a dimension, as difficult to define as the spacial dimensions, because it is much too simple for human minds to understand.
    <i8b4uUnderground> d-_-b
    <BonyNoMore> how u make that inverted b?
    <BonyNoMore> wait
    <BonyNoMore> never mind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88 can we measure time with kelvin 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    12
    i'm not very sure about this statement but

    when you heat something up dont you make the particles move faster and by moving faster wouldnt you in essence make time go slower relative the it's surroundings. So the object might feel hot because some of its particles traveled faster than speed of light? There is more energy in the object because it becomes hotter but isnt energy related to the speed of light and that is related to time. I defintiely would appreciate feedback on that.
    "The purpose of life is a life of purpose"
    -Robert Byrne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89 Re: can we measure time with kelvin 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by curiouskid
    i'm not very sure about this statement but

    when you heat something up dont you make the particles move faster and by moving faster wouldnt you in essence make time go slower relative the it's surroundings. So the object might feel hot because some of its particles traveled faster than speed of light? There is more energy in the object because it becomes hotter but isnt energy related to the speed of light and that is related to time. I defintiely would appreciate feedback on that.
    When you heat something up, the particles do not move about at the speed of light. Not sure how fast or how far they move.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    12
    i didnt think they did either but maybe the electrons or the smallest particles might move unmeasurably fast, and they probably wouldnt all go that fast just some of them which would heat up the object slightly... E=mc^2 ...but since only a few particles of the object are moving that fast there is only a measureable amount of energy
    "The purpose of life is a life of purpose"
    -Robert Byrne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by curiouskid
    i didnt think they did either but maybe the electrons or the smallest particles might move unmeasurably fast, and they probably wouldnt all go that fast just some of them which would heat up the object slightly... E=mc^2 ...but since only a few particles of the object are moving that fast there is only a measureable amount of energy
    you might benefit from reading up on the latest theory of eletrons, it seems they may not be some tiny little ball orbiting a nucleus but more of a ring or cloud of energy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    12
    I think that it may appear as a cloud, because we cannot measure speed after the speed of light, because time stops and there is no way of measuring if we dont have the time to do it..so it is as if it never happened..
    "The purpose of life is a life of purpose"
    -Robert Byrne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    What's so wrong with balls?
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •