Thread: Time, what is it? (again)

Can someone tell me what the current ACCEPTED theory of time entails? Is it merely the perception of movement, or does it concretely exist as space does? If it is merely the perception of movement, then time travel would only be possible if you could get the matter that you are made of to reverse its movement according to each particle’s world line. That would be impossible, as each particle that you are made of would have been involved in many other interactions only a short time before you came together.

I know this has been raised many times before. A one-liner would suffice.
Danke

Time is a doorway of space we are cuaght in. The flux, the change, of space is apparent as the movement of time through that doorway. We are trapped in that doorway because that is how we are wired to perceive. It's more than just an arbitrary measurement, it is a conundrum we can't escape. Everything as we perceive it seems to head into a process of decay, even our own lives, if not for our ability to construct processes of regeneration........because always at the future end of this tunnel is that which we think happened a long time ago.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Can someone tell me what the current ACCEPTED theory of time entails? Is it merely the perception of movement, or does it concretely exist as space does?

This is an excellent question. Unfortunately there is no excellent answer to match it.

One point of view, espoused by Netwton, is that time is embedded in the structure of the Universe, that is a dimension within which events occur: it can be measured. Others, for example Kant and Leibniz, felt time is part of human thought, an aspect of how we perceive: it is a measure. [SS seems to fall in that school.]

It is my understanding that all mainstream physicists would now follow the Newtonian view. I am not convinced this is valid. The nature of time arguably lies at the heart of all philosophy and has been debated by far greater minds than mine for many centuries without clear agreement. The physicists view may be more a reflection of their process than of their reality.

Time exists as a mathematical quantity.

Depending on what stance is taken, does it influence any equations or interpretations of experiments? Have any experiments yielded results that would seem to support a particular view? Are their any currently accepted theories that would require one or the other to be valid? (Streamsystems, no offence but I’m not referring to yours )

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Depending on what stance is taken, does it influence any equations or interpretations of experiments?

No, time is NOT a physical quantity in that anything depends on it or is influenced by it. In other words, nothing changes if you shift in time any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

Ok. So what, if any, different causes of time dilatation are inferred from relativity, when time is looked at from these opposing views? For instance, would time dilatation be a feature of length contraction from the “time is movement” viewpoint?

Since I am currently re-reading the excellent The Ascent of Science by Brian Silver, may I make the point, not necessarily a satisfactory elucidation in this context but nevertheless, that the only physical law that implies the direction of time is, of course, the second law of thermodynamics. And consequently, as I suspect, time can be thought of as that which travels in the same direction as entropy, and might even be measurable (?) in terms of increasing entropy. Any thoughts?

Since I am currently re-reading the excellent The Ascent of Science by Brian Silver, may I make the point, not necessarily a satisfactory elucidation in this context but nevertheless, that the only physical law that implies the direction of time is, of course, the second law of thermodynamics. And consequently, as I suspect, time can be thought of as that which travels in the same direction as entropy, and might even be measurable (?) in terms of increasing entropy. Any thoughts?

Sound like it is related to the "time is movement" argument. But, I am far from an expert on such matters.

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

the only physical law that implies the direction of time is, of course, the second law of thermodynamics.

You beat me to it! It is a startling fact (perhaps) that the laws of mechanics hold good under time reversal - every mechanical process works just fine.

Regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it seems to be rather more subtle. I'm no expert, but here is my understanding:

Clausius stated the 2nd Law something like this; it is impossible for heat to flow from a colder body to a hotter body.

Boltzmann showed that this is not quite true. He argued, and apparently all now agree, that the 2nd Law is statistical in nature, that is, Clausius's word "impossible" is too strong. Entropy reversal (without work) is not impossible, but is so extremely unlikely, statistically, that for practical purposes can be discounted.

I take the implication to be this: if, as you imply, that increase in entropy is the "arrow of time" (to quote Eddington) there is no absolute prohibition on its reversal.

Conclusion? Either increase in entropy is not the arrow of time (assuming time is irreversible) or entropy is the arrow of time, potentially reversible, and that the direction of time is statistical in nature. Take your pick (I don't like either of these)

Time is the change in something.

Why? You think if nothing changes, no time passes? How can this be?

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Why? You think if nothing changes, no time passes? How can this be?

What do you percieve to be change?

If nothing changed they'rd be no point in having time.

Guys guys guys, let's be scientific. If I can quote myself:

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Time is a doorway of space we are cuaght in. The flux, the change, of space is apparent as the movement of time through that doorway. We are trapped in that doorway because that is how we are wired to perceive. It's more than just an arbitrary measurement, it is a conundrum we can't escape. Everything as we perceive it seems to head into a process of decay, even our own lives, if not for our ability to construct processes of regeneration........because always at the future end of this tunnel is that which we think happened a long time ago.

Let me explain. e = m c(squared). energy = mass multiplied by (distance/time) squared.

TIME squared therefore equals mass multiplied by a 2-d surface manifold of the window area of energy (distance squared) per energy (per energy exchange).

This is what I am saying: time is a WINDOW, a DOORWAY, a 2-D surface area manifold, THAT WE ARE CAUGHT IN.

I also consider time to be a duality, not a singularity, to be "time squared" as we would know it (which I eloquently explain at leangth as a theory of "time before meets time after").

As we know by "entropy" in space-time, time is a unidirectional flow.

C'mon then. Let's be scientific: let's stick to a very well-agreed general equation. I know I am. I mean, my theory doesn't contradict Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. It just looks at space-time through the view of time.

time can be thought of as that which travels in the same direction as entropy,

But for entropy to have a direction there must be time, so this definition is self-referential (circular).

The book I read, hoping for an explanation, was The Arrow of Time by Peter Coveney. It’s an excellent discussion of the 2nd. Law and so on, and highly recommended, but no epiphany was forthcoming and I am as much in the dark as ever.

Indeed.

But the only thing we really need debate regarding entropy is why IT is the singularity, why IT is different to TIME. The reason being, is because entorpy is itself a singular concept, whereas time should be considered as a 2-d manifold.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

But for entropy to have a direction there must be time, so this definition is self-referential (circular).

Why? I can point north, that's a direction. How does this require there to be time?

um, well, the “direction� of entropy is a metaphor is it not, just as the arrow of time is a metaphor? I’m not sure if yours was a serious question or a joke. Entropy’s direction is actually just another term for time.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by Bunbury

But for entropy to have a direction there must be time, so this definition is self-referential (circular).

Why? I can point north, that's a direction. How does this require there to be time?

Because where is north? Which dimension is it? Could be any.

Entropy is an observation of the performance of matter in time.

Time is not such an observation.

Entropy is an observation of space-time, a feature.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Entropy’s direction is actually just another term for time.

Now who's being circular? The issue at hand here, or so I thought, was: is increase in entropy equivalent to the "flow" of time. You have just assumed the truth of this, without coming up with an argument to back your case.

I am the Time Lord and your argument is trivial. Time is rate of change. Time is the 4th dimension (what you can understand to be).

Originally Posted by svwillmer

I am the Time Lord .

Of course you are. Now take your pill and lie down.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by svwillmer

I am the Time Lord .

Of course you are. Now take your pill and lie down.

I've had my lie down this afternoon actually. Actually I established a time dilation field and had a 3 hour power nap to be more precise, anyway argue away!

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Entropy is an observation of the performance of matter in time.

Time is not such an observation.

Entropy is an observation of space-time, a feature.

In continuing from that statement, entropy is a secondary effect we observe, secondary to something more directly related to our understanding of space-time........time. It is secondary to HOW time, as it is, as time "is" (as some have yet to properly consider as an a-priori entity) DEALS WITH mass. This statement is based on the priority we any provide for time in comparison to entropy, naturally so, instinctively so.

(I know this may sound like waffle, but bear with me If there is an explosion in the future that is always ahead of us, it would explode BACKWARDS in time, and carry with it the effect of a very disipated and shattered history, as we would perceive it from our reference..........the closer we get to the future, the closer we get to the initial stage of that theoretical explosion. The red-shift effect could still apply if the explosion of the big bang is in the future, and the ripples travel backwards in time, causing a red-shift effect in what we would perceive of the stars, an expanded history of the fabric of space-time. My point is, we have yet to PLAY with what TIME as a construct can offer us, as a theoretical construct.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Entropy’s direction is actually just another term for time.

Now who's being circular? The issue at hand here, or so I thought, was: is increase in entropy equivalent to the "flow" of time. You have just assumed the truth of this, without coming up with an argument to back your case.

I suspect there's thorny philosophical thinking whichever way we try to look at it. Further discussion will, I fear, have to wait for an uncluttered thread...

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Ok. So what, if any, different causes of time dilatation are inferred from relativity

The two primary causes of time dilation are velocity and gravity as transformed from one reference frame to another.

when time is looked at from these opposing views? For instance, would time dilatation be a feature of length contraction from the “time is movement� viewpoint?

Length contraction is another effect of velocity as transformed from one reference frame to another.

[quote="streamSystems"]Guys guys guys, let's be scientific. If I can quote myself:

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Time is a doorway of space we are cuaght in... blah blah

THAT is supposed to be scientific? At best, it's science fiction. B Grade movie stuff.

As we know by "entropy" in space-time, time is a unidirectional flow.

Horsepucky! Time does not flow.

C'mon then. Let's be scientific: let's stick to a very well-agreed general equation. I know I am. I mean, my theory doesn't contradict Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. It just looks at space-time through the view of time.

Seems more like it's looking at nonsense through the view of a crank.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

My point is, we have yet to PLAY with what TIME as a construct can offer us, as a theoretical construct.

Children play, scientists work.

Time is NOT a theoretical construct. It is well defined and understood, evidently not by some.

Let's "play" then!

Consider the path s of a system through phase space i.e.the path of all realized states of the system. Let's parametrize s with elements of the unit interval [0, 1] such that s(0) = initial state and s(1) = final state and for all 0 < i < 1, s(i) is some intermediate state.

Note the following: I do not require s(i) ≠ s(j) if i ≠ j in [0, 1]; neither do I require s(0) ≠ s(1).

I do not require there to be any preferred order on [0, 1], only that the element i occurs only once. I might as easily declare s(1) = initial, s(0) = final;

the above notwithstanding, I do not require that s(i) occurs only once.

So. Assuming for simplicity the usual ordering on [0, 1], must I conclude that, if i < j, s(i) "precedes" s(j)? I don't see why, in other words I don't need there to be any sense of time in this set-up.

Where does that leave us? I would venture that, given s(0) = initial state, there is an expectation state s(1), which is nothing more than a statistical statement.

What a fun game!!

Consider the path s of a system through phase space i.e.the path of all realized states of the system. Let's parametrize s with elements of the unit interval [0, 1] such that s(0) = initial state and s(1) = final state and for all 0 < i < 1, s(i) is some intermediate state. ETC ETC

Above my head

The two primary causes of time dilation are velocity and gravity as transformed from one reference frame to another. + Length contraction is another effect of velocity as transformed from one reference frame to another.

Can I then similarly say that time is caused by velocity/movement/change in a single reference frame? i.e. Are you then of the school of thinking that treats time as something caused my movement/change? That the illusion of time is then a psychological construct to make sense of the world and that it does not exist as a property of the universe?

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Let's "play" then!

Consider the path s of a system through phase space i.e.the path of all realized states of the system. Let's parametrize s with elements of the unit interval [0, 1] such that s(0) = initial state and s(1) = final state and for all 0 < i < 1, s(i) is some intermediate state.

Note the following: I do not require s(i) ≠ s(j) if i ≠ j in [0, 1]; neither do I require s(0) ≠ s(1).

I do not require there to be any preferred order on [0, 1], only that the element i occurs only once. I might as easily declare s(1) = initial, s(0) = final;

the above notwithstanding, I do not require that s(i) occurs only once.

So. Assuming for simplicity the usual ordering on [0, 1], must I conclude that, if i < j, s(i) "precedes" s(j)? I don't see why, in other words I don't need there to be any sense of time in this set-up.

Where does that leave us? I would venture that, given s(0) = initial state, there is an expectation state s(1), which is nothing more than a statistical statement.

What a fun game!!

I think I got some of that. But, if s(i) is a function, it might be a recursive one (potentially a chaotic one therefore)? Or is that disallowed in your definition?

If it is recursive, isn't it a necessary part of the system that it is ordered and, if i<j then s(j) is, however many iterations removed, dependent upon s(i)?

I may have gone well outside my copetence zones here, but it seems to me that you may have defined a system without the 'cause and effect' notion we take for granted when speaking of entropy, or time.

I'm happy to drop cause and effect (I'm a fan of Hume anyway), but I wonder if that would take all context out of the question and therefore make it unrecognisable.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

But, if s(i) is a function

No, s(i) isn't a function, it's a point on the path s. Let's see; if s were a function, s(i) would be an evaluation of the point i. Here we have almost the opposite - s(i) is an evaluation of s at the point i, loosely speaking.

it seems to me that you may have defined a system without the 'cause and effect' notion we take for granted when speaking of entropy, or time.

Yes, I did define such a system and that was quite deliberate; cause and effect presupposes a notion of before and after, i. e. time.

But you are falling into the trap I was careful to walk around; you are assuming cause and effect when talking about entropy and therefore (tacitly, it's true) assuming the connection between entropy and time.

This was my whole point

I'm a fan of Hume anyway

Cardinal or David?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Consider the path s of a system through phase space i.e.the path of all realized states of the system. Let's parametrize s with elements of the unit interval [0, 1] such that s(0) = initial state and s(1) = final state and for all 0 < i < 1, s(i) is some intermediate state. ETC ETC

Above my head

The two primary causes of time dilation are velocity and gravity as transformed from one reference frame to another. + Length contraction is another effect of velocity as transformed from one reference frame to another.

Can I then similarly say that time is caused by velocity/movement/change in a single reference frame? i.e. Are you then of the school of thinking that treats time as something caused my movement/change? That the illusion of time is then a psychological construct to make sense of the world and that it does not exist as a property of the universe?

This is interesting, because, if you think about it, energy and velocity are two of time's most concreted manifestations.

IE. the relationship between an object's mass, it's velocity, and it's kinetic energy relative to the objects around it requires some concept of time in order to be logically meaningful.

So, if we throw out time, we have to throw out energy too. If we argue that there is no such thing as absolute time, then there must also be no such thing as absolute energy.

.......... and strangely that's true. An object's velocity, or kinetic energy is only measureable relative to the other objects near it. It's internal potential energy on the other hand, I don't know.........

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Entropy’s direction is actually just another term for time.

Now who's being circular? The issue at hand here, or so I thought, was: is increase in entropy equivalent to the "flow" of time. You have just assumed the truth of this, without coming up with an argument to back your case.

I suspect there's thorny philosophical thinking whichever way we try to look at it. Further discussion will, I fear, have to wait for an uncluttered thread...

I think I was just reiterating that Shanks' claim that time is the direction of entropy has no explanatory value. It amounts to a precis of the observed facts of thermodynamics. Admittedly things at the quantum level might throw a spanner in the works, but most of us live in the world of the second law. :P

It's Turkey Day here. I probably won't be around much.

An uncluttered thread? Dream on.

I think entropy is only meaningful relative to what we define as non-entropy. To an unintelligent observer, or one with a very alien mind, the change in a closed system could look like a move *away* from entropy.

What we're really saying is that, left to itself, a system that has been artificially placed in a specific state will move away from that state, because without an intelligent manipulator it's motion becomes random, and the random odds of it choosing exactly what we (as intelligent beings) want it to choose is very poor.

That's because it has a lot of options, and only one of those options is the one we want, so if it's randomly choosing......... it's less likely to be that one specific option than another of the many.

My point is that I don't think entropy is really a law. A system that defines itself naturally has no reason to change. It's only systems we define or create on purpose that require us to maintain them.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

But, if s(i) is a function

No, s(i) isn't a function, it's a point on the path s. Let's see; if s were a function, s(i) would be an evaluation of the point i. Here we have almost the opposite - s(i) is an evaluation of s at the point i, loosely speaking.

it seems to me that you may have defined a system without the 'cause and effect' notion we take for granted when speaking of entropy, or time.

Yes, I did define such a system and that was quite deliberate; cause and effect presupposes a notion of before and after, i. e. time.

But you are falling into the trap I was careful to walk around; you are assuming cause and effect when talking about entropy and therefore (tacitly, it's true) assuming the connection between entropy and time.

This was my whole point

I'm a fan of Hume anyway

Cardinal or David?

David o'course. I'm an atheist.

I'm still thinking about the whole ordering issue (I'm deeply suspicious of the notion of a space/phase/thingname with no ordering - would it be possible to describe it, even 'over' the interval [0,1], without some ordering of the interval?), but won't challenge a real mathematician on that yet.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

sunshinewarrio wrote:
Guitarist wrote:
Bunbury wrote:
Entropy’s direction is actually just another term for time.
Now who's being circular? The issue at hand here, or so I thought, was: is increase in entropy equivalent to the "flow" of time. You have just assumed the truth of this, without coming up with an argument to back your case.


I suspect there's thorny philosophical thinking whichever way we try to look at it. Further discussion will, I fear, have to wait for an uncluttered thread...


I think I was just reiterating that Shanks' claim that time is the direction of entropy has no explanatory value. It amounts to a precis of the observed facts of thermodynamics. Admittedly things at the quantum level might throw a spanner in the works, but most of us live in the world of the second law.

It's Turkey Day here. I probably won't be around much.

An uncluttered thread? Dream on.

Entropy may or may not add explanatory power, I'm not philosophe enough for that, but it seems to me to be more easily measured, and to relate time (which otherwise, when you think about it, seems mind-bogglingly abstract) to other tangible physical measurements in space. That was the reason for my interjection on this thread to begin with, but I suppose you're right - it's a doomed cause.

And yes, you're also right about the vain hope of uncluttered threads...

cheer

shanks

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by streamSystems

My point is, we have yet to PLAY with what TIME as a construct can offer us, as a theoretical construct.

Children play, scientists work.

Time is NOT a theoretical construct. It is well defined and understood, evidently not by some.

Q, you need to pay more attention to the posts/answers already made in this thread. The entire debate here is, "OK, if time is a well-defined and understood concept, define it, and have us all understand".

Capiche?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Q, you need to pay more attention to the posts/answers already made in this thread. The entire debate here is, "OK, if time is a well-defined and understood concept, define it, and have us all understand".

Capiche?

There is no debate. And, I've already done that in other posts, that apparently you were supposed to read as they were direct responses to your nonsense. Clearly, your the one not paying attention.

Time can be described as anything, how long a Sunday roast takes to cook, how long a toilet takes to flush, or how long it takes for an object to travel to another area of space. The point is is that even if you use vectors, tensors, anything, time remains one thing and one thing only; change. You can make change look more complicated as you can, but at the end of the day it is change. If you want to find out what time really is KALSTER, you have to make your own decision on what it is. The only thing we have on time is that it is change. So instead of furthur prooving that like many people do using vectors whatever, focus on why change exists in the first place, why change occurs and what exists in the universe to make time, why there is a time dimension. Thats all I can really say.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Time can be described as anything, how long a Sunday roast takes to cook, how long a toilet takes to flush, or how long it takes for an object to travel to another area of space. The point is is that even if you use vectors, tensors, anything, time remains one thing and one thing only; change. You can make change look more complicated as you can, but at the end of the day it is change. If you want to find out what time really is KALSTER, you have to make your own decision on what it is. The only thing we have on time is that it is change. So instead of furthur prooving that like many people do using vectors whatever, focus on why change exists in the first place, why change occurs and what exists in the universe to make time, why there is a time dimension. Thats all I can really say.

Perhaps, but what you're describing is absolute time, which does not exist. One must compare the rate of change with another rate of change, which may not be the same dependent entirely on the frame of reference and environment. That's why the math (ie. vectors, tensors, etc.) are SO important.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Time can be described as anything, how long a Sunday roast takes to cook, how long a toilet takes to flush, or how long it takes for an object to travel to another area of space. The point is is that even if you use vectors, tensors, anything, time remains one thing and one thing only; change. You can make change look more complicated as you can, but at the end of the day it is change. If you want to find out what time really is KALSTER, you have to make your own decision on what it is. The only thing we have on time is that it is change. So instead of furthur prooving that like many people do using vectors whatever, focus on why change exists in the first place, why change occurs and what exists in the universe to make time, why there is a time dimension. Thats all I can really say.

Perhaps, but what you're describing is absolute time, which does not exist. One must compare the rate of change with another rate of change, which may not be the same dependent entirely on the frame of reference and environment. That's why the math (ie. vectors, tensors, etc.) are SO important.

Of course, thats what I meant. But absolute time, and time iteself relative to us is change.

Would a new "theory" for time that is able to LINK all theories of space "together as one", as we know them, quantum physics, relativity physics, and so on..........would/could a NEW thoery for time that LINKS all theories of space be allowed by the scientific halls of justice?

Here we are all debating what time is and what time is not.

We also presumably are interested in the idea of a unified theory of space (and only space, if time is some type of arbitrary thread of thought that notices change).

What then if a unified theory for space could be arrived at using a NEW theory for time, by making "time" a substantial concept, substantial enough to represent it's own signature, in a way that links ALL theories of space (that we have). If that theory for time, that new axiom concept for time, were able to link commonly known and understood concepts of space, would we "allow" it? Would it be "allowed"? If so, why?

Maybe, if it is not allowed, we should ask ourselves "why" it is not possible to employ a theory for "time" to LINK all known concepts of space. Why does time not link concepts of space, laws of space, as we know them?


You all say time is merely "flux", change, that we observe.

GREAT! It is like a piece of clay then, as a concept, putty in our fingers.

Can we use that simple flux concept with a little more interest and vigor to see if it can actually LINK all the known field forces of space? If we can, if one of us HAS, how do we get that message across?

"Time" is a concept that we can USE more theoretically and constructively than we have as scientists. So, what is stopping us? Conventionality?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Here we are all debating what time is and what time is not.

No, there is merely confusion as to what people think time is.

"Confusion" to what people "think" time is?

If there was no confusion, we would not THINK what time "is", time would be a completely automated and robotic substrate of change.

Change can be measured along ANY type of length of determinationj.

Time itself is a more fundamental concept than space.

All our sciences are leading us to realise the more intricate sub-structure of time and space, do you not think?

WHEN WE ARE ADVANCED SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH WITH OUR SCIENCES, we will realise that time is one of the basic FORCES.......an IMPENETRABLE WALL OF OPINION itself.

Time In Physics

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently everywhere, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate, in this view. Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.

I presume this is the current accpeted definition of time within physical sciences.

The question rather was about weather it is merely the perception of movement or does it exist as a fundemental property of the universe like space. It seems to me, at the moment, that which ever one you think is right, it does not effect any calculations or predicted outcomes of experiments or indeed affect the current model of the universe one way or the other.

I think Kastler you are saying it is more a matter of philosophy and metaphysics than of physics. In this I would agree completely.

Well, in that case I'd say time is eternal

We will have difficulties these days to fathom time, due to the fact that no one of us or our relatives was around when
human mankind first began to measure time. bearing this in mind, as a fact, the following sentence of the wikipedia
article to me still seems to be most enlightening. That's what I best can understand time as to be. I will copy the text
here in case the article was edited and the sentence was cleared off in some way.

In order to measure time, one might record the number of times a phenomenon which is periodic have occurred. (In English usage, these occurrences are termed events -- event might now also refer to a coordinate in spacetime and not only a UTC timestamp.)

Please notice, the first sentence ends after 'occurred' (odd usage of parenthesis, I believe ).

What else can time be being good what for? Sorry, I have to come down.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Well, in that case I'd say time is eternal

Earth time will not be eternal. Which time do you mean?

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Earth time will not be eternal. Which time do you mean?

Steve

I mean time itself, not relative to anything :wink:

I think Kastler you are saying it is more a matter of philosophy and metaphysics than of physics. In this I would agree completely.

Yup

Given that fact, it is probably nothing but movement. An arbitrary measure derived initially from the length of a year/day/lunar cycle that is used as a basic frame of reference for the rate of change of a system.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Given that fact, it is probably nothing but movement. An arbitrary measure derived initially from the length of a year/day/lunar cycle that is used as a basic frame of reference for the rate of change of a system.

Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,� and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation� for phase non-existence, etc.)

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock�, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

Had curious feeling of déjÃ* vu just then....
Thanks, all that makes sense in terms of time, velocity and phase. But space also? Is space not defined as the medium of dimension? The fact that space can bend (gravity) does not make it a little different to these other examples? (Ah, the questions of laymen, hey? )

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Is space not defined as the medium of dimension? The fact that space can bend (gravity) does not make it a little different to these other examples? (Ah, the questions of laymen, hey? )

Strangely and simply enough, space is defined as the distance between two objects. Gravity actually affects the paths (geodesics) of objects moving through space.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Time In Physics

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently everywhere, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate, in this view. Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.

I presume this is the current accpeted definition of time within physical sciences.

It seems that the contemporary version of time is relevant to time being a coordinate?

Yet have we not argued in this forum, especially against one forum member, that time is not intrinsically related to coordinates of space?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Earth time will not be eternal. Which time do you mean?

Steve

I mean time itself, not relative to anything :wink:

In your eyes, was time a person? Sounds the like..... (When you say 'time itself' you'll not regard space-time as (a ) time? )

Who else, exempt from human mankind, would have set time as a measure ( that way and distance I would trace times roots
to be )?

May sound surreal, since there was a huge amount of effort put in the job eternal times ago? To reckon time as to bear the
capabilities and to fix time as a measure. Those are also processes that are well going on and on. In navigation, computers
things like that. everywhere time was found to be useful. Although there are restrictions as well.

As for computers, time makes not much sense being stated more precisely. The volume of information that will have to have
time preferences are ample, else in sports.

Measuring a tenth of a second in running or a hundredths of a second in car races was sufficient to determine who won the
race.

The usefulness of time to me speaks volumes. Time was not new, and has not to be either reinvented or modernized nor to
be blurred. People on the planet will not be as well connect to each other as to get, hey it's being unimaginable, but it's
being working.

Steve

Time is a conceptual quantifier of linear temporal displacement.

Great, I missed half the discussion... thought someone new wanted to know what time is, and therefore thought this discussion would be boring.
But as I read your posts, I couldn't stop reading.

Yet I have found a problem. One that causes the whole confusion, of what time is.

there is the dimension Time and the movement of object in time which then change (the one humans measure)

some (e.g. svmiller) believe that time is the movement of objects [in time dimension] (which change each step of movement[in time dimension])

others (e.g. me) believe time is a dimension.

Both ideas of time are correct, because scientists do not seperate these two from eachother. It is like if we would not seperate speed from our spatial dimensions.

Now, if we are debatiing if time is a "dimension" or "the movement of an object though time which then changes though each step" it wouyld indeed be philosophical. But if we are discussing one of them (time as a dimension or the other thing), it is very scientific.

Do you agree?

The perspective of time is philosophical. The quantification and association of time as a property of change is scientific.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Time In Physics

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently everywhere, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate, in this view. Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.

I presume this is the current accpeted definition of time within physical sciences.

Should we not all agree?

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

In your eyes, was time a person? Sounds the like..... (When you say 'time itself' you'll not regard space-time as (a ) time? )

NooOOoOo! I don't mean a person :wink: Time isn't anything physical, conscious or anything and it can't be altered or changed. It's actually nothing more than a man made concept. It's perception of change :-D

Originally Posted by Obviously

It's actually nothing more than a man made concept. It's perception of change :-D

But why is there change? In what context does change take place? Within a dimension? Is the unidirectional character of time real, or an aspect of human perception?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

But why is there change? In what context does change take place? Within a dimension? Is the unidirectional character of time real, or an aspect of human perception?

It's really hard to try and comprehend time. We can only live in the present, but still time seems to be "moving" in our minds. Perhaps time is just the present, where change happens, and therefore we percieve it as "moving"?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

But why is there change? In what context does change take place? Within a dimension? Is the unidirectional character of time real, or an aspect of human perception?

It's really hard to try and comprehend time. We can only live in the present, but still time seems to be "moving" in our minds. Perhaps time is just the present, where change happens, and therefore we percieve it as "moving"?

Perhaps. We know though that time, something once happened along time ago in the past, and will happen a long time in the future; we know that time has been and forever shall be.

We know that time has existed and that past events have occured-we have lived them, and we know that the future will happen also. So there has to be some future also.

My family once upon a time argued that you can travel to the past but not to the future because it hasn't happenend. But we have to assume that it has happened because when we get to the future we remember looking ahead to the future (in which we are there)-so therefore our past selves are looking to us in the future so when we did they existed to (us). So time has to exist beyond and before us.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Perhaps. We know though that time, something once happened along time ago in the past, and will happen a long time in the future; we know that time has been and forever shall be.

We know that time has existed and that past events have occured-we have lived them, and we know that the future will happen also. So there has to be some future also.

My family once upon a time argued that you can travel to the past but not to the future because it hasn't happenend. But we have to assume that it has happened because when we get to the future we remember looking ahead to the future (in which we are there)-so therefore our past selves are looking to us in the future so when we did they existed to (us). So time has to exist beyond and before us.

But how do we know that time "exists"?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Time In Physics

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently everywhere, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate, in this view. Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.

I presume this is the current accpeted definition of time within physical sciences.

In following on from that, for the third time, if the speed of light is a constant, and by our interference in the field of space-time we challenge that constant speed of light, as it would seem, relative to other stationary observors, we are changing TIME, in which case "time" would be something substantial to a unique observor reference, still though a part of the greater space-time "whole". This could also explain why one and all seems to have their own definition for "time".

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Perhaps. We know though that time, something once happened along time ago in the past, and will happen a long time in the future; we know that time has been and forever shall be.

We know that time has existed and that past events have occured-we have lived them, and we know that the future will happen also. So there has to be some future also.

My family once upon a time argued that you can travel to the past but not to the future because it hasn't happenend. But we have to assume that it has happened because when we get to the future we remember looking ahead to the future (in which we are there)-so therefore our past selves are looking to us in the future so when we did they existed to (us). So time has to exist beyond and before us.

But how do we know that time "exists"?

Obsrvation and querying I guess. We made it up so it must exist.

Originally Posted by looking4recruits

Originally Posted by Obviously

Time In Physics

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently everywhere, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate, in this view. Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.

I presume this is the current accpeted definition of time within physical sciences.

In following on from that, for the third time, if the speed of light is a constant, and by our interference in the field of space-time we challenge that constant speed of light, as it would seem, relative to other stationary observors, we are changing TIME, in which case "time" would be something substantial to a unique observor reference, still though a part of the greater space-time "whole". This could also explain why one and all seems to have their own definition for "time".

An observation inaccurate?

Originally Posted by looking4recruits

An observation inaccurate?

No, I don't think so. But then again, I'm not an expert

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Perhaps. We know though that time, something once happened along time ago in the past, and will happen a long time in the future; we know that time has been and forever shall be.

We know that time has existed and that past events have occured-we have lived them, and we know that the future will happen also. So there has to be some future also.

My family once upon a time argued that you can travel to the past but not to the future because it hasn't happenend. But we have to assume that it has happened because when we get to the future we remember looking ahead to the future (in which we are there)-so therefore our past selves are looking to us in the future so when we did they existed to (us). So time has to exist beyond and before us.

But how do we know that time "exists"?

Obsrvation and querying I guess. We made it up so it must exist.

The past was existing long before there was a time and future will be existing without time. So does space I guess.

Objects, or person, or things, or situations... are existent without time. They are not bound to time, and don't
change as time does. Does time change?

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Perhaps. We know though that time, something once happened along time ago in the past, and will happen a long time in the future; we know that time has been and forever shall be.

We know that time has existed and that past events have occured-we have lived them, and we know that the future will happen also. So there has to be some future also.

My family once upon a time argued that you can travel to the past but not to the future because it hasn't happenend. But we have to assume that it has happened because when we get to the future we remember looking ahead to the future (in which we are there)-so therefore our past selves are looking to us in the future so when we did they existed to (us). So time has to exist beyond and before us.

But how do we know that time "exists"?

Obsrvation and querying I guess. We made it up so it must exist.

The past was existing long before there was a time and future will be existing without time. So does space I guess.

Objects, or person, or things, or situations... are existent without time. They are not bound to time, and don't
change as time does. Does time change?

Steve

If there was no time there would be no space. Objects without time would stand still forever, so if time is not a dimension there would be no objects that we see today.

Originally Posted by Obviously

But how do we know that time "exists"?

The same way we know number '1' exists.

Originally Posted by Wolf

The same way we know number '1' exists.

Time exists as a mathematical quantity (it can be measured), so I see your point. But everything can be measured in some way. And we measure time the way we percieve it, but not neccessarily the way it really is. ?

let me change my view from "Time is movement" to "Time is caused by movement. the past is nothing more than where things were relative to now and the future only exists as a list of predictions.

As I said before, time is a conceptual quantifier of linear temporal displacement. It's all there.

You see, jackson33? It's really quite hilarious.

Let's all imagine something, and then debate our imaginativeness.

You see, jackson33? It's really quite hilarious.

Let's all imagine something, and then debate our imaginativeness.

Fair enough. As the thread creator, would you say I have a general idea of what you said or not, based on my posts? If my posts seem to disregard what you had said, it would be because I misunderstood your explanations, which I assume is the currently accepted idea of time in physics.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Fair enough. As the thread creator, would you say I have a general idea of what you said or not, based on my posts? If my posts seem to disregard what you had said, it would be because I misunderstood your explanations, which I assume is the currently accepted idea of time in physics.

I would be happy to clarify any point you misunderstood.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

If there was no time there would be no space. Objects without time would stand still forever, so if time is not a dimension there would be no objects that we see today.

But what's on the moon? There was no time, or was there? How? Does time stretch from earth since men have been on the moon?

And further, wasn't that like earth was the center of space, or sun revolves around earth? It's like the sound question, it sound was
audible with no one around. Do know that? Men where on earth without to know about time. Earth self doesn't have a time schedule,
and so doesn't nature. So why should time be something to materialize?

Steve

Q; It is easy to understand, frustrations by those understanding current accepted theory and this thread is all over the board. Myself, I suffer somewhat when discussing US History or our US economic system. However, for some reason, this *TIME* thing and probably coming from *Relativity* many are IMO honestly trying to understand its relevance to other issues. A person, however, posting or creating a thread on a forum, is asking or offering some opinion, AT THEIR LEVEL. They could just as well google a number of words, getting what to them (in many cases myself) mumble jumble, which makes no sense. They then are making an effort. It is this effort, which I respect and feel deserves some respect...

But what's on the moon? There was no time, or was there? How? Does time stretch from earth since men have been on the moon?

From what I have understood (hopefully), time exists as a consequence of the constant movement of matter. The inherent vibration/temperature/kinetic energy of particles is movement. If there was no movement, including the kinetic energy of particles, there would be no time. As far as I know, this inherent vibration of particles cannot be discontinued, even at absolute zero. Even if it would stop, it would still be moving relative to something else. We measure time in relation to units of time we derived from arbitrary sources based on earth. One might as well have taken the rotational period of Alpha Centaury as a basic unit of time and all the physics would still make sense.

Q, if what I just said is wrong, then I indeed did misunderstand you

I could now, easily, turn this thread into what I regard as to be made from true sciences. I mean rhythm. But,
I, myself, did not expect this thread to go there. You find myself being surprised.

What I find quite amazing, why you folks associate matter to motion and motion to time, as KALSTER did, or
matter to time. To me matter can exist, and there was no time. You, apparently, grasp time as to be some
material.?

And, time was not a good Idea, so to speak, to count on matters motion. This won't yield much, scientifically.

You, apparently, grasp time as to be some material.

No, as the perception of movement of matter.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

You, apparently, grasp time as to be some material.

No, as the perception of movement of matter.

Sorry KALSTER,

I edited my post several times. Did you see?

Steve

This won't yield much, scientifically

Why not?

Such was handicraft, not science.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Q; It is easy to understand, frustrations by those understanding current accepted theory and this thread is all over the board. Myself, I suffer somewhat when discussing US History or our US economic system. However, for some reason, this *TIME* thing and probably coming from *Relativity* many are IMO honestly trying to understand its relevance to other issues. A person, however, posting or creating a thread on a forum, is asking or offering some opinion, AT THEIR LEVEL. They could just as well google a number of words, getting what to them (in many cases myself) mumble jumble, which makes no sense. They then are making an effort. It is this effort, which I respect and feel deserves some respect...

In that context I would agree. It's the sticklers to cranks not of your description which gives rise to a lack of respect as they themselves show no respect.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

From what I have understood (hopefully), time exists as a consequence of the constant movement of matter.

Not really. Time is the measurement based on units of measure we prescribe. It is not a consequence of anything.

The inherent vibration/temperature/kinetic energy of particles is movement. If there was no movement, including the kinetic energy of particles, there would be no time.

Again, not really. You put the cart before the horse on this one. If there were no movement, we would not need time as a meausuring tool and could not choose the units of measure. Time would be a meaningless concept under those criteria.

We measure time in relation to units of time we derived from arbitrary sources based on earth. One might as well have taken the rotational period of Alpha Centaury as a basic unit of time and all the physics would still make sense.

Precisely, by the simple rythmic tapping of a pen on a table, one has created time.

Q, if what I just said is wrong, then I indeed did misunderstand you

Again, I'm only happy to help your inquiries.

It's both. Time is both energetic (linear displacement) and massive (non-linear transformation). This resonates with Einstein's equation: E=MC^2.

Most people perceive only the linear aspect of our non-linear hyper-dimensional continuum. And since it's paradoxical, it's very difficult for people to accept or observe the true nature of it, not to mention theories describing it.

Linear time is not dimensional, like spatial dimensions. That's why linear time has no future or past - it has no extension. It's observable only as a present moment or state. However, we project a future and past onto the linear present using our memory and anticipatory neural networks, which are manifestations of non-linear time, and therefore have dimensional extension.

Non-linear time is a change in state from one level of order to another. From mass to energy, or energy to mass. This kind of change is transformational. It is irreversable, unlike linear time. In linear time you can go back and forth all day long because there is no future or past, but in non-linear time things emerge in one direction, in other words, if you squash an orange, it ain't gonna re-emerge as an orange, ever. It will sit there and decay.

Non-linear time is dimensional in that non-linear transformations extend inwardly and outwardly. If an atom emits or obsorbs a particle, its entire non-linear time line (inward and outward levels of order) changes.

In other words, if that finiky gene in your skin is hit by a cosmic particle and mutates, and a cancerous tumor grows and kills you and leaves your children homeless and they grow up to be criminals and end up with the wrong crowd and are used by the globalists to poison the water supply of a city, etc...... and then Earth explodes, sending massive pieces of Earth into the orbit of mars, pushing mars into Jupiter, which thens taks out all the other planets and leaves the Sun to collapse into a black hole, etc....

There is some lag between inward change and outward effects, but this shows how the outward aspect, the outward dimensions exist as the future of the inward aspect (the past ). A change in the past (inward aspect) causes changes of the future (outward aspect). In this way, the whole is the future of its parts. It's the non-linear future, which means it exists, along with the past, AS the present. Unlike linear time.

The only way time can have any sort of bearing is if you accept that there is an absolute starting point for time (ie T=0) and/or an ending point. It is only in such a scenario that time can have any sort of meaning as an property outside of the perspective of thought. Even then you still have time as being merely a counter of displacement which just happens to have a static end point.

If time is lacking any end or beginning (infinite), then time is utterly void of being anything other than a thought-tool used to describe change.

A point within an unbounded infinite plane can only be a point in the idea that it is referencing itself or other points which have no relationship to the plane and only exist in terms of relationship to each other.

In essence, time is time itself.

I want to iterate, time syncs to other physical values as weight and distance. To find a (personal ) sight on time its being
one premise to comprehend time in line with these (other - there are even more, and more specific ones ) physical values.

Again, relevant processes where to observe back when no, let's say, mathematical time was understood to be measured,
no names to label distances where set, no value was known to get a certain portion of matter(s ) as a (uniform ) weight.

Interestingly this goes so far as also the past was not, as well as the future will not, be being bound on time, and,
nevertheless, there might have been events which still bother us today. The alleged big bang.... and others.

As this was the case it's not being a fear to me I could loose track when fathom time as a rather mathematical value first,
and the last only, and to get time in line with their counterparts (weight, distance, etc. ) since the reason to scale
times value must have been similar like with all the other values ( those of physical values ).

They are a shortcut of occurring events, if not a shortcut then they are bound to cultural needs and do stem from in fact
observable information.

It's being a plus to serious research not a minus. We should also not forget there was one person only, who probably led
to this confusion, when he associated time to space, and who began to start talking about space time.

Others, the observers, who yet have had have to be linked world wide in times when their network was still out of range of
what I could get as to be a scientific network, did well. They where observing repeating events and came to clues that let
crafts blossom. And back then, and thru the times there must have been many, and so it was being today. And all the
men and woman, and of whom who contribute, all of them do approve the accuracy of time being.

Thank you,
Steve

Originally Posted by Wolf

The only way time can have any sort of bearing is if you accept that there is an absolute starting point for time (ie T=0) and/or an ending point. It is only in such a scenario that time can have any sort of meaning as an property outside of the perspective of thought. Even then you still have time as being merely a counter of displacement which just happens to have a static end point.

If time is lacking any end or beginning (infinite), then time is utterly void of being anything other than a thought-tool used to describe change.

A point within an unbounded infinite plane can only be a point in the idea that it is referencing itself or other points which have no relationship to the plane and only exist in terms of relationship to each other.

In essence, time is time itself.

Nonsense. Time has no starting point or ending point as that would delineate that time is absolute.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Nonsense.

I wasn't saying that you should believe time has a beginning or end.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Time has no starting point or ending point as that would delineate that time is absolute.

So read the second part of my post, then.

I was expressing the two sides of the issue.

The only way time can exist as anything more than a purely conceptual measure, is if it actually has a beginning and/or an end.

So if you don't believe it has a beginning or an end, then obviously it can't be '...anything more than a purely conceptual measure'.

Are the clauses getting confusing or something?

Originally Posted by Wolf

Are the clauses getting confusing or something?

Under which clause does this fall?

"In essence, time is time itself."

This one:

A point within an unbounded infinite plane can only be a point in the idea that it is referencing itself or other points which have no relationship to the plane and only exist in terms of relationship to each other.

In essence, time is time itself.

Originally Posted by Wolf

This one:

A point within an unbounded infinite plane can only be a point in the idea that it is referencing itself or other points which have no relationship to the plane and only exist in terms of relationship to each other.

In essence, time is time itself.

Did you make that up yourself?

Much of this debate on this topic has been aimed at finding the most exact definition for time.

What one needs to focus upon is what definition of time, which one, precisely accounts for the latest results in theoretical-meets-practical physics.

In short, we define space and time based on the best "theoretical-meets-practical" physics results.

If a new theory for time though that can explain BETTER "theoretical-meets-practical" physics resaults than contemporary theories, that new theory for time WILL BE EMPLOYED.

The point being made here is that the definition for time and space is based upon our BEST RESULTS.

edit
Wise post, best ever.

Steve

(Q), Wolf is right. A variable that always has the same value is not of importance. Forinstance if you have lived your whole life in a room that is exactly 20C (discluding you having a fever, doing sports ect.).
You won't notice this temperature-value.

I feel ignored. Hasn't anyone read my post?

Originally Posted by miomaz

Great, I missed half the discussion... thought someone new wanted to know what time is, and therefore thought this discussion would be boring.
But as I read your posts, I couldn't stop reading.

Yet I have found a problem. One that causes the whole confusion, of what time is.

there is the dimension Time and the movement of object in time which then change (the one humans measure)

some (e.g. svmiller) believe that time is the movement of objects [in time dimension] (which change each step of movement[in time dimension])

others (e.g. me) believe time is a dimension.

Both ideas of time are correct, because scientists do not seperate these two from eachother. It is like if we would not seperate speed from our spatial dimensions.

Now, if we are debating if time is a "dimension" or "the movement of an object though time which then changes though each step" it wouyld indeed be philosophical. But if we are discussing one of them (time as a dimension or the other thing), it is very scientific.

Do you agree?

Still, you are still debating this Topic without further notice of this valuable information.

---
I agree in allot of points with (Q)&thinkofwhy:
-The starting point of time is not of importance.
-Time is dimensional
-Man experienced time is the change of position in time.