Thread: The Theory of time

I believe the theory of time is an explanation made by man to explain occurences in everyday life. Similar to the theory our ancestors had that the earth was flat. But to seriously discredit time would have a profound effect on everyones life. Is the universe ageless? The theory of time itself is just an explanation we have to something we cant comprehend.

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.
Sums up the bumper-sticker inspired hallucination. Its about time.

you copied that right from Kent B Robertson

Another one regurgitating someone elses writtings

I am K. B. Robertson.
Hope you're feeling better, soon.
(Can't we just get along?)

Are you really I am a 21 year old construction worker

Yer doing fine, bro. There's no reason we can't be friends. I'll be 65 tomorrow - 7.11.'41. Best regards (Stay in touch, please)
I'm at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

- TRPoof

I suppose I'll spend more time writing about time.

My statement just translates in to the movement of matter, it all requires a duration relative to some reference mark. In this case the planets, the sun, the moon, etc. In the end it's all just matter that is changing. We simply quantified these changes in a measurement we call Time. It's nothing more, nothing less. It can be stopped if you stop all matter, it can be slowed, if you slow all matter (relative to you). It can even be reversed, if you somehow managed to get every single spec of matter to do the exact opposite of what it once did.

In the end, if we don't have a point of reference in which to base movement then time becomes impossible to measure. Change still occurred, so time still exists. Without change somewhere in the universe, time can't exist.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

It can be stopped if you stop all matter,

How can matter be stopped?

It can even be reversed, if you somehow managed to get every single spec of matter to do the exact opposite of what it once did.

This also is not possible.

Originally Posted by freedom21

I believe the theory of time is an explanation made by man to explain occurences in everyday life. Similar to the theory our ancestors had that the earth was flat. But to seriously discredit time would have a profound effect on everyones life. Is the universe ageless? The theory of time itself is just an explanation we have to something we cant comprehend.

Your idea is a good description of absolute time. I think man is correct in measuring time, but thinking of it as absolute is like thinking the earth is flat. When Einstein made SR and time became variable, it was like pointing a at a picture of the earth from space and saying "duh."

Also, if you slow, stop, or reverse matter, that does not slow, stop or reverse time for one of two possible reasons:
1. You must slow everything in your body also, and so you will still percieve time to be the same.
2. you dont slow, stop or reverse motion in your body, in which case you have have to use something in your body to measure the correct time.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

It can be stopped if you stop all matter,

How can matter be stopped?

It can even be reversed, if you somehow managed to get every single spec of matter to do the exact opposite of what it once did.

This also is not possible.

Well, more of an in theory thing then something that can be achieved.

One of the larger little questions ('A theory of time'). Si. It's being well taken care of here and the answers can legitimately keep on coming in.

One of the many correct answers I dont see yet is, Time: is the interval between two or more events.

The same answer can be correctly applied to the question, 'What is space'?

These are important, subtle, simple and complex (space-time contained) questions. It's good to see it here.

The question 'What is space?' was brought up by a 15 year old on another forum about six months ago, I think the generally correct answers are still rolling in... Moves me to consider posting the question, 'What is space?', just to see what happens in the answer department - I mean this is serious and educational copy, folks.

If time were not just a way to measure the seconds, minutes, etc. Then it would not be anything more than just a figment of our imagination. Age is just simply the force of gravity on our bodies and nothing more. It is the relentless human drive that demands an explanation for everyday occurences in our lives. This is where the notion of time originated in the first place.

Originally Posted by freedom21

If time were not just a way to measure the seconds, minutes, etc. Then it would not be anything more than just a figment of our imagination.

What if everything was just a figment of our imagination.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

Time: is the interval between two or more events.

What does this even mean? How can such an interval be measured? Motion through space is required to measure time. This mechanism of measurement is far more than an "interval".

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I suppose I'll spend more time writing about time.

My statement just translates in to the movement of matter, it all requires a duration relative to some reference mark. In this case the planets, the sun, the moon, etc. In the end it's all just matter that is changing. We simply quantified these changes in a measurement we call Time. It's nothing more, nothing less. It can be stopped if you stop all matter, it can be slowed, if you slow all matter (relative to you). It can even be reversed, if you somehow managed to get every single spec of matter to do the exact opposite of what it once did.

In the end, if we don't have a point of reference in which to base movement then time becomes impossible to measure. Change still occurred, so time still exists. Without change somewhere in the universe, time can't exist.

I'm sorry that I don't think so.
The existence of Time need only space. If there is not any change in space, the persistent existence of space will create the time.

The existence of Time need only space. If there is not any change in space, the persistent existence of space will create the time.


What is this about?

The exsitence of time need only genus imagination which drove the idea for time in the first place. Take the sun, ancient egyptians worshipped this because they had no idea where this burning ball had come from, or what this magnificent heat giving star was. So they drew their own conclusions, this must be god. The sun has been around for far longer than they could ever imagine.


It is the human need to explain things that makes answers for that which we cannot comprehend.

Time as we truly know it has been around since as long as the history of humans. So we base all of our conclusions on what we think is a fact because it is one thing in not only science but in life as we have known it that has never truly been questioned.

We make educated quesses to things which we cannot begin to explain. Sorry to say but the hypothesis of time has been with us so long that we have just accepted it to be a scientific fact.

Just as the Catholic religion was first started with the creation. Then there were ten commandments then apostles. Do you see? Now its a form of control. Over our history it has grown to be a form of control the beam for which the Catholic religion is built upon.

Time is like the Catholic religion. We've based everything on it though not only ALL religions but EVERYTHING. So this will almost be an impossible idea to kill of course.

The time we talk about is objective, not the concept of time in human mind or how we think the time. As you say, there is not time when there are not human?!

By the way, The year, the month, the week, the day etc are not the time but the unit of time measurement. Of course, the time cann't be measured when there is only the existence of space.

We want everything explained.. That's true...

But we accept it if we can't explain it yet.. Also true...

Still nobody has the right to hold down an idea.. Nor a belief...

This is deeper than you know, why does time flow forward and not backwarts, or anything else.. It may sound like stupid questions, if there is no answer it is indeed like religion. NOT catholic. Just normal plain belief there is something up there, or someone concious who guids us that we just can't understand what it is...

Time is change in momentum.
Time is movement.
Time is aging.
Time is everywhere but nowhere.

*sigh*

Maybe time does flow backward and we just perceive it as forwards.

Or would we then be perceiving it backwards to its forwards. :?

Bahhh, time is a measurement. Can everyone just think for a second and figure that out. It's change in our surroundings, matter and energy. Time = change. Time does not equal some mystical magical thing that we are just too stupid to figure out, it holds no power. It's a man made way to describe and measure the changes around us.

It took xx amount of time to boil that water.
You will live xx amount of time.
You waited a long time for the day to end.

Why on earth does everyone keep wanting to make time into something it's not, is it just so simple of a concept that it confuses everyone ?

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

It's a man made way to describe and measure the changes around us.

I think it is the deeper meaning of the word. We understand that time is a measurment but, like you said we created the word and the meaning. Thinking of the acctualy passing of time, or change, is what we are talking about, i think. What allows for change (we have noted that it is not "time")? Why do we only perceive change as moving in one direction? There is something deeper here and we just call it "time" for lack of a better word.

I think that is why this question is still being asked.

As I tried to point out in one of my previous posts the perception of changes in time can be achieved by changing matter and energy. For example, if it were somehow possible to change all the matter in the universe back to a previous position with the exception of one individual or group, then that person or people would perceive that they had gone back in time. The reality is that the only thing that had changed is matter reverting back to a previous state.

If the universe looked like this 1000111111 and then like this 1001000000 and I somehow reverted it back to 1000111111 then in a sense I have just altered the perception of time. In the end that is all we have, is perception. The devices we use to measure time including our own minds is subject to the change above.

In the process of changing everything back "time" still moved forward. The end result however would be that all forms of matter and energy would perceive time as having moved backwards.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Why on earth does everyone keep wanting to make time into something it's not, is it just so simple of a concept that it confuses everyone ?

Why on earth would you want to so limiting in your definition of time, and why would you be so surprised that not all other people want to be equally limiting?

Originally Posted by fieldz

By the way, The year, the month, the week, the day etc are not the time but the unit of time measurement. Of course, the time cann't be measured when there is only the existence of space.

If you have been reading along you would already read that I acknowledge time a unit of measurement but thats it. Time could be no way associated with space we make the association of course to answer questions that we have no other answer to.

Originally Posted by freedom21

If you have been reading along you would already read that I acknowledge time a unit of measurement but thats it.

Fortunately for us, many scientists are not as limited in their usage of the notion of time as you claim to be.

Time still is just a way to measure change, no matter what you try to do to it. I can say one year ago today or I can say 365 rotations of the earth ago today. They mean the same thing. Without a physical object of some type (even if it's sub atomic) we have no reference at all to time.

Let's say for example the universe was truly random and that absolutely nothing had a periodic cycle. We would then reference events based on other events.

"I was at the park walking the dog back on the day the sun flickered 3 times while the yellow dog barked 12 times at the cat with 3 spots."

Again we are just referencing change in state of matter.

Someone show me an instance where time is not directly related to the change in matter or energy (aka the physical universe). I'm not talking about the word "time" either, but the concept of.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Time still is just a way to measure change, no matter what you try to do to it. I can say one year ago today or I can say 365 rotations of the earth ago today. They mean the same thing. Without a physical object of some type (even if it's sub atomic) we have no reference at all to time.

Let's say for example the universe was truly random and that absolutely nothing had a periodic cycle. We would then reference events based on other events.

"I was at the park walking the dog back on the day the sun flickered 3 times while the yellow dog barked 12 times at the cat with 3 spots."

Again we are just referencing change in state of matter.

Someone show me an instance where time is not directly related to the change in matter or energy (aka the physical universe). I'm not talking about the word "time" either, but the concept of.

Are you aware of the twin paradox? Do you believe that it represents something significant? In it, an object changes its rate of motion through space compared to the other. For example, take a pair of twins at birth and send one off at a rate of motion near the speed of light for as long as it takes for the other on earth to grow to old age. Once this shift in rate of spatial motion ends, we can examine the space and time considerations of the person who never left earth and the person who left earth. One will have aged more slowly than the other. One will have reached old age, and the other will still be a baby. You seem to be saying that time is only about the cycle of the earth about the sun, and nothing more. You therefore seem to be claiming that they are the same age. How relevant is this to the fact that one has lived through his time and is about to die of old age and the other is still a baby and has a lifetime of time ahead of him. You would focus on what is basically irrelevant, the cyclic motion of the earth about the sun, which is unrelated to either person, unrelated to either unit of space-time.

Are you aware of the twin paradox? Do you believe that it represents something significant? In it, an object changes its rate of motion through space compared to the other. For example, take a pair of twins at birth and send one off at a rate of motion near the speed of light for as long as it takes for the other on earth to grow to old age. Once this shift in rate of spatial motion ends, we can examine the space and time considerations of the person who never left earth and the person who left earth. One will have aged more slowly than the other. One will have reached old age, and the other will still be a baby. You seem to be saying that time is only about the cycle of the earth about the sun, and nothing more. You therefore seem to be claiming that they are the same age. How relevant is this to the fact that one has lived through his time and is about to die of old age and the other is still a baby and has a lifetime of time ahead of him. You would focus on what is basically irrelevant, the cyclic motion of the earth about the sun, which is unrelated to either person, unrelated to either unit of space-time.

If I freeze a living twin solid and revive them 20 years later then the other twin would have aged more rapidly.

The bottom line is there is not conclusive proof that the very movement (the speed) is not causing a change in the state of matter in such a way as to make that change occur more slowly. Seeing as how we can't get anything of any significance near the speed of light it becomes hard to prove or disprove this theory. Logic says matter slows and thus time. Time however is not the primary cause.

Originally Posted by freedom21

If you have been reading along you would already read that I acknowledge time a unit of measurement but thats it. Time could be no way associated with space we make the association of course to answer questions that we have no other answer to.

The existence of the SPACE creates the TIME, then the SPACE has “Past”, “Present” and “Future”. The SPACE like the frame of film contains all messages in space at that time. Suppose the SPACE as the point, and then the TIME would be the line.

Base on the space-time, then the movement, and matter and the universe can be created.

In realism, space-time can not exist alone, but it is the base of world.

InSanity wrote

.If I freeze a living twin solid and revive them 20 years later then the other twin would have aged more rapidly.
The bottom line is there is not conclusive proof that the very movement (the speed) is not causing a change in the state of matter in such a way as to make that change occur more slowly. Seeing as how we can't get anything of any significance near the speed of light it becomes hard to prove or disprove this theory. Logic says matter slows and thus time. Time however is not the primary cause.

no we can't acually prove this but Einstein theory that the speed of light is constant is were this paradox is logically proven.
If you'r going the speed of light realative to earth and turn on a flashlight the light will apear as normal. meaning time relative to you is now much slower than time on earth

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

Time: is the interval between two or more events.

What does this even mean? How can such an interval be measured? Motion through space is required to measure time. This mechanism of measurement is far more than an "interval".

Hermes:
I think you're right. An 'interval' can mean a lot of things, I didn't qualify, but the operative meaning I had in mind is that the interval is one of some quantity of space, and, some quantity of motion (an interval of space-time). I think the same reply is equally applicable to the question, 'What is space?' - though Absolute 3-D Space is to be distinguished Non-Absolute 4-D Space. I think the issue - space-time intervals - automaticaly includes field phenomena in either case.

I think Freedom21's selection of 'What is time?', is timely.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

I think the same reply is equally applicable to the question, 'What is space?' - though Absolute 3-D Space is to be distinguished Non-Absolute 4-D Space.

Your questions about what is space and what is time are good questions. However, don't you feel that the most meaningful question of all would be what is space-time? After all, space and time are artificial divisions of space-time, which cannot ever be separated in nature.

Originally Posted by jcoop87

InSanity wrote

.If I freeze a living twin solid and revive them 20 years later then the other twin would have aged more rapidly.
The bottom line is there is not conclusive proof that the very movement (the speed) is not causing a change in the state of matter in such a way as to make that change occur more slowly. Seeing as how we can't get anything of any significance near the speed of light it becomes hard to prove or disprove this theory. Logic says matter slows and thus time. Time however is not the primary cause.

no we can't actually prove this but Einstein theory that the speed of light is constant is were this paradox is logically proven.
If you're going the speed of light relative to earth and turn on a flashlight the light will appear as normal. meaning time relative to you is now much slower than time on earth

Well, let's think about this for a second. If your travelling at the speed of light and turn on say a high powered laser mounted to the front of your ship. If the laser travels at the speed of light and appears normal then this would break the law that nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. The laser would have to be doing 2C in order to appear 100% normal.

Now lets say you were traveling at 3/4 the speed of light and did the same test. The laser may appear to you and measure out based on all the devices in your ship to actually move in a forward direction at a normal constant of C. What if however everything in your ship including the very instruments you are using to measure the speed have all been slowed to say 1/1000th (just as an example) of the speed they would be on earth. The light would still appear and measure out to be at the constant speed of C, however it may actually take seconds to move one foot.

More or less light may travel at C minus the speed of travel. So at the speed of light C - C would end up being zero. The objects in the craft would also suffer from this same slowing effect. Measurements would always produce the desired results relative to the craft. To an outsider they would see the craft moving at 3/4C and the laser moving at C.

Make any sense ?

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Well, let's think about this for a second.

Perhaps you should have tried a minute or more.

If your travelling at the speed of light and turn on say a high powered laser mounted to the front of your ship. If the laser travels at the speed of light and appears normal then this would break the law that nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. The laser would have to be doing 2C in order to appear 100% normal.

Either that or you misunderstand the implications of what is being described.

More or less light may travel at C minus the speed of travel.

More or less, light can travel at one speed, the speed of light.

Make any sense ?

No. Does it make any sense to you?

More or less, light can travel at one speed, the speed of light.

Yes, so you can't measure light as traveling at light speed while traveling at the speed of light. The light would be traveling at the same speed you are and thus not really move forward from it's point of origin. If you shot it away from your direction of travel it would still move at the speed of light. What if you shot it slightly forwards from say 89 degs. One would think the light would bend. It could still travel at the speed of light sideways, but only at the speed of light forward.

Ok, that just gives me a headache.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Yes, so you can't measure light as traveling at light speed while traveling at the speed of light.

I think that you should reconsider the notion that your own speed, however you might measure it, is somehow relevant when considering the speed of light relative to you. The speed of light relative to you will be the speed of light, and is so whether or not you are in motion, as though you could somehow measure that in a meaningful way.

We need a breakthrough. A new understanding. We are going in circles. Someone has change the flat world to round again and upset and frighten us all.