Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Does "time" exist at all?

  1. #1 Does "time" exist at all? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Whoo.. my first topic on this place. Hello all
    I am mostly a philosopher, not a wellestablished scientist. Hope youĀ“ll bear with me.

    So. Time.
    My question is this. Does time really exist on itĀ“s own?
    What I mean is, what if every single atom in the universe stoped?
    For 1 bilion years nothing happened at all. Then they resumed their natural course again.
    Will infact 1 bilion years have passed?

    Or is time useless without motion? And is then time = motion, period?
    Well I would be happy with that, but since I am such a nutjob I always dig deeper.

    When plotting a position in space, you need time in order to get a proper location. Easy example, say you are gonna hook up with somebody at the pub. Without time, the info isnt helpfull. And as useless would it be if you told someone to hook up with you at 8, but not where.

    So. Space-time seems tied together. Some might call it the very fabric of space. But then where does motion fit with in?
    Are "space-time" and "motion-time" infact two seperate things?

    Hope I didnt bore you. And I hope someone has some insights in this to help me sleep at nights..
    Cheers


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Time is an observable factor. If time were to stop everywhere at the same period then no time will pass. It would not be observable.

    I hope that clears it up slightly I know it's not a full explanation.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Time is a relative entity. It is frame dependent. It needs events to describe itself. Now, if all atoms stop, no events, no time in the reference frame of this universe
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    If energy is still mobile such as bosons, time can still be measured, but if even that were stopped time would not exist. There are no "time particles".

    I started a thread on this very topic on my first post too, it is buried somewhere down in the bowels of the forum.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    there could be time particles. that we haven't detected.

    i'm not sure how such a thing would work, maybe all the time particles in the universe are connected in another dimension and the position of each particle relative to another determines the time passed.
    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I also proposed a time particle theory a couple of months ago on this forum.

    The problem with people it that they see time in a manner that allows them to think of something 5,000 years ago, and perceive it through a grey lens. Really, what happened 5,000 years ago might as well have happened 2 seconds ago. The only reason why that is not so, is because events have occurred since then that separate it from the present. If you think of the event as an entity entirely in of itself, then you should always perceive it as if it just happened.

    Me and Chaotic Requisition came to the conclusion a while ago that Time=Energy. I find it reasonable for what we can currently perceive.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Does "time" exist at all? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Whoo.. my first topic on this place. Hello all
    I am mostly a philosopher, not a wellestablished scientist. Hope youĀ“ll bear with me.

    So. Time.
    My question is this. Does time really exist on itĀ“s own?
    What I mean is, what if every single atom in the universe stoped?
    For 1 bilion years nothing happened at all. Then they resumed their natural course again.
    Will infact 1 bilion years have passed?

    Or is time useless without motion? And is then time = motion, period?
    Well I would be happy with that, but since I am such a nutjob I always dig deeper.

    When plotting a position in space, you need time in order to get a proper location. Easy example, say you are gonna hook up with somebody at the pub. Without time, the info isnt helpfull. And as useless would it be if you told someone to hook up with you at 8, but not where.

    So. Space-time seems tied together. Some might call it the very fabric of space. But then where does motion fit with in?
    Are "space-time" and "motion-time" infact two seperate things?

    Hope I didnt bore you. And I hope someone has some insights in this to help me sleep at nights..
    Cheers
    We measure time with moving objects. Comparing one to another and another. Then checking the ratios, and decide on names for the increments. Years, Months weeks, days, hours minutes seconds.
    The postal authority uses a clock with 99 minutes and 99 seconds.

    So it is really just how you want to break up time.

    However time is real, even without matter, time would exist. You may fall into a stupor at the thought of all eternity without matter. But it would exist. Just my opinion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    time is relative to space, and the movement of particles! How could time possibly exist as a particle itself??!!
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    So if time is a relative entity, without relation to something else time dont exist. But what is our universe in relation to? Can something be in relation to itself?
    For time to exist in this universe then there would have to be something outside it in which THIS universe can be in relation to?

    Or is this proof there has to be more then just our observable universe?

    ... sorry to go all philosophical on you guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    time is relative to space, and the movement of particles! How could time possibly exist as a particle itself??!!
    Let's try: Space is relative to time, and the progression of events. Could space possibly exist as an event in itself?

    Cheap, I know, but this tastes like a brainstorming thread to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Can something be in relation to itself?
    what does this mean?

    Time isn't relative to space and neither vice versa. Time and space are dependent on frame and on each other. Relativity comes into play only when both are studied from 2 different frames having a mutual , constant relative velocity wrt each other.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Can something be in relation to itself?
    what does this mean?

    Time isn't relative to space and neither vice versa. Time and space are dependent on frame and on each other. Relativity comes into play only when both are studied from 2 different frames having a mutual , constant relative velocity wrt each other.
    I might have missunderstood what relativity means here, English isnt my first language after all.
    Well, IĀ“ll try to explain what I meant with an example.

    If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by? My standpoint is no. No matter, energy, distance or movement.. = no time.
    So now letĀ“s put something in this infinite vacuum. Like an atom.
    Would this cause time to start in that vacuum? My standpoint is no.

    It would just sit there and nothing would happen. Even if it did move or whatever, thereĀ“s nothing else to meassure it against. No distance, no relative speed or anything at all (if we take away the observer in the example obviously).

    Put another Atom there and voila, you can meassure things! Relative distance, speed and divide into events.. Time!

    So what I was thinking is what if our Universe is like that first Atom. Would time exist then? Well unless thereĀ“s something else outside our Universe I dont see how. Our Universe would be dead in the vacuum without relation to anything.

    Unless itĀ“s relative to itself somehow.. if thatĀ“s the right word
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    I still dont get the "relative to itself" line, but forget about it.

    If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by? My standpoint is no. No matter, energy, distance or movement.. = no time.
    Perfectly correct. Since time doesn't exist if we cant measure it using events.

    So now letĀ“s put something in this infinite vacuum. Like an atom.
    Would this cause time to start in that vacuum? My standpoint is no.
    Of course, the answer should be YES. This is b'cos, in an atom, there are a million things going on which can be called as events occurring in time. So, as time can be measured, it exists.

    So what I was thinking is what if our Universe is like that first Atom
    Well, typing this should have made you realise this. If the univ can be compared to an atom, just as in the universe, there are many events in the atom, defining time.

    English isnt my first language after all.
    It isn't mine either :wink:
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Can something be in relation to itself?
    what does this mean?

    Time isn't relative to space and neither vice versa. Time and space are dependent on frame and on each other. Relativity comes into play only when both are studied from 2 different frames having a mutual , constant relative velocity wrt each other.
    Twixly is right about not being able to compare the universe to something else.

    However, no one ever has proven that there is not more then one universe. No one has ever proven that there are more then one universes.

    That is where Omniscience was at a couple hundred years ago. They realized oh my God, my little world is a pitiful zone of ignorance. I have only begun to set basics in order. And I am not taking the new basics well, I can only grasp bits at a time, because they buck 5000 years of chaos. Maybe more.

    They became men of God and devoted their lives to science. Because they woke up from a stupor. And realized that they had everything they could possibly imagine and much more.

    But not to many individuals to share it with.

    Then colleges used these fine works to make a nice place to live for themselves. They played them up and down. To maintain control over them.
    A five minute task, turned into a hundred board committee, and a new building on campus dedicated to the project. With life long jobs for those that would work out the five minute problem.

    It is a neat scam if you are such a despot that you cannot do things to earn your keep without taxing others.
    If you are not hiding simplicity from regular individuals that could use the simple basics everyday, I have no problem with you.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Can something be in relation to itself?
    what does this mean?

    Time isn't relative to space and neither vice versa. Time and space are dependent on frame and on each other. Relativity comes into play only when both are studied from 2 different frames having a mutual , constant relative velocity wrt each other.
    I might have missunderstood what relativity means here, English isnt my first language after all.
    Well, IĀ“ll try to explain what I meant with an example.

    If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by? My standpoint is no. No matter, energy, distance or movement.. = no time.
    So now letĀ“s put something in this infinite vacuum. Like an atom.
    Would this cause time to start in that vacuum? My standpoint is no.

    It would just sit there and nothing would happen. Even if it did move or whatever, thereĀ“s nothing else to meassure it against. No distance, no relative speed or anything at all (if we take away the observer in the example obviously).

    Put another Atom there and voila, you can meassure things! Relative distance, speed and divide into events.. Time!

    So what I was thinking is what if our Universe is like that first Atom. Would time exist then? Well unless thereĀ“s something else outside our Universe I dont see how. Our Universe would be dead in the vacuum without relation to anything.

    Unless itĀ“s relative to itself somehow.. if thatĀ“s the right word
    Omniscience delved into this in some detail. And by scientific method deduced that there is such a thing as God. Not necessarily Buddha, or Jehovah, or Mohammed. However that a superior force, not under our control or understanding. Did in fact create the universe.

    Since most of these scientists just realized that their fat lazy king or Kaiser was a retard in charge of a kingdom of retards and cowards.
    They knew that God was not among them. There only tie to God was the wonderful basics in science they had discovered. And the almost remarkable way each simple find unlocked truly better life for the community.

    As soon as the retards had real information, they were no longer retards. They in fact quickly figured out that the king had kept a few of these simplicities a secret from them. Even if he did not totally understand them himself. Maybe that was the reason completely.

    Look at America it has become a fifth world nation. We buy learn, change, and throw out technology faster then they can make it. To no goal whatsoever. Well maybe to the goal of eternal suffering.

    You are a soul, it has been demonstrated that men have over come the pain of a fatally injured body to perform feats of bravery in unselfish acts to keep others from receiving their fate.
    Acts that could not be performed by a body itself. Because of the damage already absorbed, and the destructive force placed upon the body to perform the brave acts.
    Most of our systems cut out and will even try to force you to the ground. When you apply to much force to damaged organs or other parts of the body. Yet souls have overcome these safety systems. Including moving a body with no heart beat. To save others.

    I do not know or pretend to know what happens to your soul when you die. However, I know the universe is an awesomely thought out universe. It is so simple it is mind-boggling. I am sure who ever designed it, created its parameters and checks to keep both matter and souls in line.

    You will have to figure out how that works. If you even wish to. I am just content with my own behavior and the Omniscience that created the universe.

    I built human muscles years ago. And if there is such a thing as perpetual motion, it is the human muscle.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick


    Omniscience delved into this in some detail. And by scientific method deduced that there is such a thing as God. Not necessarily Buddha, or Jehovah, or Mohammed. However that a superior force, not under our control or understanding. Did in fact create the universe.

    Since most of these scientists just realized that their fat lazy king or Kaiser was a retard in charge of a kingdom of retards and cowards.
    They knew that God was not among them. There only tie to God was the wonderful basics in science they had discovered. And the almost remarkable way each simple find unlocked truly better life for the community.

    As soon as the retards had real information, they were no longer retards. They in fact quickly figured out that the king had kept a few of these simplicities a secret from them. Even if he did not totally understand them himself. Maybe that was the reason completely.

    Look at America it has become a fifth world nation. We buy learn, change, and throw out technology faster then they can make it. To no goal whatsoever. Well maybe to the goal of eternal suffering.

    You are a soul, it has been demonstrated that men have over come the pain of a fatally injured body to perform feats of bravery in unselfish acts to keep others from receiving their fate.
    Acts that could not be performed by a body itself. Because of the damage already absorbed, and the destructive force placed upon the body to perform the brave acts.
    Most of our systems cut out and will even try to force you to the ground. When you apply to much force to damaged organs or other parts of the body. Yet souls have overcome these safety systems. Including moving a body with no heart beat. To save others.

    I do not know or pretend to know what happens to your soul when you die. However, I know the universe is an awesomely thought out universe. It is so simple it is mind-boggling. I am sure who ever designed it, created its parameters and checks to keep both matter and souls in line.

    You will have to figure out how that works. If you even wish to. I am just content with my own behavior and the Omniscience that created the universe.

    I built human muscles years ago. And if there is such a thing as perpetual motion, it is the human muscle.
    Don't waste our time 8)
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    What did that have to do with anything
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    What did that have to do with anything
    It has to do with the basics in science that are being thrown away. Because most are afraid to look at the whole basic workings of the Universe.

    We do not have it all figured out.

    But universal scientists did have the basics worked into a demonstrable model. The first thing these guys did was give credit to something higher. And these guys were good. They could lay waste to a planet before breakfast and work up a sweat. War did not exist for them.

    We must give acknowledgement to something higher, then ourselves. We are a bungling group of losers that hide awesome science for a cheap thrill or monetary gain. We are not God or even in his light.

    To go on as some kind of God or Omniscience, is a sin in my opinion, something self-destructive, unscientific. Some of you guys write stuff like it is written in stone. I have over the years seen these particles flip flop a hundred times in meaning, purpose, size, mass, spin, and charge.

    Yet the few basics we can easily demonstrate are attacked. The real science is treated like a disease.

    So maybe I just hope that there is a God, but from my observations there is a God. Scientifically speaking.
    Just like there is one subatomic particle the electron. That has no mass no weight, does not touch another electron ever and can never be destroyed. But we can never see it. That does not mean that we should change its definition or how it works.
    Neither should we try to alter what God is. God is the whole ball of wax. That we do not understand. And, we are moving away from, his ultimate knowledge. With all these retarded new particles with no scientific basis whatsoever.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    What did that have to do with anything
    Nothing at all. William is more interested in the foundations of physics than where it is going to now.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman madmonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flat Earth
    Posts
    60
    quote:
    Fortean: http://www.toequest.com/forum/time-t...not-exist.html


    Time Does Not Exist !
    This is because it's an abstract concept created by any intelligent being that makes use of technology. Nowhere in the natural world is time required. The natural world is no more than a series of events, movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. We may apply the measurement of time to these things but it is not required.
    Where we do measure time we do it with devices that actually just count events for us. The clock counts rotations of a wheel, the digital watch counts vibrations in a crystal and the atomic clock counts vibrations in a caesium atom. All time measurement devices we have count events or movement through space.
    Some argue that as you travel closer to the speed of light, time slows down. They attempt to prove this by measuring the difference that occurs in recorded time by two atomic clocks; one moving faster than the other. All they have achieved is to slow down the vibrations of the caesium atom. This could just as easily have been accomplished by cooling the clock. The cooler something is the slower it is at a quantum level. Einstein predicts that as an object gets closer to the speed of light its mass increases. This increase in mass causes a slowing at the quantum level and so appears to effect time. All it really does is effect the properties of the element whose events we are counting.
    Those who believe time travel is possible, specifically the ability to travel back in time, miss a very important fact. At any given point in the past all the elements in the universe were in a particular state and in a particular place. This includes the matter and energy that the time traveller is made of. If all these elements were returned to their original location for a particular time in the past then this would also include the components that make up the traveller. The traveller could not possibly know that they had travelled under these circumstances. How much energy would be required to put everything in the universe back to where it was? And where would this energy come from? The fuel you needed to create the energy would itself have to be returned to its original location in space.
    So there it is. Time is an abstract system of measurement. It is required to make use of technology but not to grow food or reproduce. It may take 9 months to create a child but what it really takes is a vast series of events and conversions of matter to energy and energy to matter. Once theses events have completed the child is born. It will still be born even if you do not know what time is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Madmonk, that post sums up my toughts pretty well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Mmmm.

    If one is to ask the question of "time", one may as well also ask what "perception" is, namely the faculty that allows us to be aware of "change".

    Possibly, the concept of "time" and "perception" are linked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    I am looking for an article I read about exactly that, time and perception. And why there is no laws in physics, in principle that should prevent us to percieve and access ("browse") future memories just as we do with memories of the past.

    But I canĀ“t find it sadly.. if anyone knows which one I am talking about, help would be appritiated.

    Edit : I think it was something with formulas that "go both ways", past and future somehow in physics..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    If time doesn't exist, life hasn't been worth anything. What are sundials used for? Wrist watches? Calenders?

    Time is real, don't be silly saying it doesn't exist. If your adamant it doesn't call it something else, but it has to explain what we see as time now.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    28
    I have to agree. Time is relative to the observer.

    Going way back to the foundations of this thread you said:

    If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by? My standpoint is no.
    While theoretically correct, beyond the point of the creation you are observing it, therefore comparing it to yourself, therefore creating your own time. Time is a way of measuring position just as much as x, y and z axis. You could agree with a fair chunk of the science world and proclaim it as the fourth dimension (reduce the width of everything in the universe and nobody would/could notice, same as time).

    To sum up, time is a human concept, not a physical concept.
    Just to be clear - I'm a student in IT. I am not a scientist, or trained philosopher, I'm just trying to portray my ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence
    I have to agree. Time is relative to the observer.

    Going way back to the foundations of this thread you said:

    If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by? My standpoint is no.
    I also said :
    (if we take away the observer in the example obviously).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence
    To sum up, time is a human concept, not a physical concept.
    ThatĀ“s why I feel itĀ“s an important discussion. While Time fits in all currently known physics (as far as I know), there might be things we miss or overlook because of our obsession with time. And if time is just a manmade concept, maybe we need to try thinking in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman madmonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Flat Earth
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence
    I have to agree. Time is relative to the observer.

    Going way back to the foundations of this thread you said:

    If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by? My standpoint is no.
    I also said :
    (if we take away the observer in the example obviously).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence
    To sum up, time is a human concept, not a physical concept.
    ThatĀ“s why I feel itĀ“s an important discussion. While Time fits in all currently known physics (as far as I know), there might be things we miss or overlook because of our obsession with time. And if time is just a manmade concept, maybe we need to try thinking in new ways.
    [quote]If you were to have a completely empty space of infinite vacuum. Would time go by?

    What made up the complete empty space???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Your intelligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Demons are real, ask God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The world which I rule...
    Posts
    39
    But doesn't entropy show that time exists? If you left an ice cream outside in the sun, it will melt due to entropy, so as entropy increases does time as well? Also if the ice cream was left outside and it didn't melt (provided factors such as temperature stayed the same) would that suggest that time, for the ice cream at least, had stopped?
    Fat people are harder to kidnap.

    "Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Your intelligence.
    Oh nice one..

    Anyway... I took the following phrase literally in that you were referring to the atom example, not the example with just the void.
    "(if we take away the observer in the example obviously)"
    Just to be clear - I'm a student in IT. I am not a scientist, or trained philosopher, I'm just trying to portray my ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    If you exist in a moment (the one just then), think back to this, well, that, moment, and what has changed, and "why"?

    Things have changed, right?

    Yes, of course they have.

    "Time" is a concept that represents a measuring stick of change, like a few seconds or few thousand milliseconds.

    The great thing about this measuring stick, this arbitrary measuring stick, is that we use it in TWO directions, forward, and reverse. We use it in reverse with our perception (that is what our memory is), and forward, well, no one can predict. Our memory, just to make more difficult, no one can really prove, unless there are enough witnesses of course (God is our greatest witness).

    A theory of time that addresses the inexorable movement of the unknown that we call space-time needs to also address our ability to "perceive" time, and thus "two-times" is what we really should be thinking about.

    Any ideas (from anyone)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I can't remember who exactly... some folks in South America... see themselves traveling "back" through time. To illustrate, it is like sitting in a train caboose, watching the the track and scenery recede... only, no caboose, just the world unfolding in this way. So they say let that go "before us" meaning something that will happen we can later get the whole view of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Thanks Pong. I doubt though the extension of their perception into their own past allowed them to also look ahead, the other way, so to speak. It sounds like they pioneered single-time theory? Very good insight. These folk in South America you speak of seem to have pioneered the scientific thinking of today. They depend on seeing the past in what can only be a linear fashion. That is science: science depends on what is written, the past, more than what can be "hypothesised". And when a hypothesis is presented, it is based on patterns of previously observed phenomena with the aim of simply suggesting that knowing the patterns of the past can indicate with realtive certainty the continuation of those patterns into the future.

    It's a pity pop-science does not not recognise this south american tribal ideology of perception.

    But, it could also be argued that this south american tribe could have been visted by scientists from the future, no?

    What about aliens from a past civilisation waving their hands saying, "look at us" as the strategy of keeping everyone looking in the past?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by madmonk
    quote:
    Fortean: http://www.toequest.com/forum/time-t...not-exist.html


    Time Does Not Exist !
    This is because it's an abstract concept created by any intelligent being that makes use of technology. Nowhere in the natural world is time required. The natural world is no more than a series of events, movement through space and the conversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. We may apply the measurement of time to these things but it is not required.
    Where we do measure time we do it with devices that actually just count events for us. The clock counts rotations of a wheel, the digital watch counts vibrations in a crystal and the atomic clock counts vibrations in a caesium atom. All time measurement devices we have count events or movement through space.
    Some argue that as you travel closer to the speed of light, time slows down. They attempt to prove this by measuring the difference that occurs in recorded time by two atomic clocks; one moving faster than the other. All they have achieved is to slow down the vibrations of the caesium atom. This could just as easily have been accomplished by cooling the clock. The cooler something is the slower it is at a quantum level. Einstein predicts that as an object gets closer to the speed of light its mass increases. This increase in mass causes a slowing at the quantum level and so appears to effect time. All it really does is effect the properties of the element whose events we are counting.
    Those who believe time travel is possible, specifically the ability to travel back in time, miss a very important fact. At any given point in the past all the elements in the universe were in a particular state and in a particular place. This includes the matter and energy that the time traveller is made of. If all these elements were returned to their original location for a particular time in the past then this would also include the components that make up the traveller. The traveller could not possibly know that they had travelled under these circumstances. How much energy would be required to put everything in the universe back to where it was? And where would this energy come from? The fuel you needed to create the energy would itself have to be returned to its original location in space.
    So there it is. Time is an abstract system of measurement. It is required to make use of technology but not to grow food or reproduce. It may take 9 months to create a child but what it really takes is a vast series of events and conversions of matter to energy and energy to matter. Once theses events have completed the child is born. It will still be born even if you do not know what time is.
    Madmonk, you made sense! O.O


    No, time does exist though. However, even with the stopping of all particles, it would flow. It does not necessarily 'exist' within our reference frame, nor can we measure it without moving, but it will still flow. Time exists in the fourth dimension--some believe that we live in only a 3-D world, but the first three are simply physical. The fourth dimension is the flow of time and the fifth dimension is space.

    The fifth dimension being space does mean that technically, there is something in all that 'empty space.' On Earth, it's all filled with air. But even in outer space, in a void of space in which nothing exists, it is still not empty. It has 'Space' in it. It is empty of 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D objects, but time still flows in it, and there is still the 'fabric' of Space in that location.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Does "time" exist at all? 
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    When plotting a position in space, you need time in order to get a proper location.
    Hello, Twixly!

    What do you mean by saying this? Did you map space already? Or someone else did? Am I missing something here?

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Does "time" exist at all? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Whoo.. my first topic on this place. Hello all
    I am mostly a philosopher, not a wellestablished scientist. Hope youĀ“ll bear with me.

    So. Time.
    My question is this. Does time really exist on itĀ“s own?
    What I mean is, what if every single atom in the universe stoped?
    For 1 bilion years nothing happened at all. Then they resumed their natural course again.
    Will infact 1 bilion years have passed?

    Or is time useless without motion? And is then time = motion, period?
    Well I would be happy with that, but since I am such a nutjob I always dig deeper.

    When plotting a position in space, you need time in order to get a proper location. Easy example, say you are gonna hook up with somebody at the pub. Without time, the info isnt helpfull. And as useless would it be if you told someone to hook up with you at 8, but not where.

    So. Space-time seems tied together. Some might call it the very fabric of space. But then where does motion fit with in?
    Are "space-time" and "motion-time" infact two seperate things?

    Hope I didnt bore you. And I hope someone has some insights in this to help me sleep at nights..
    Cheers

    In stead of focussing on "time", let us focus on the effects of time: "lfe and death", "growth and decay". "ying and yang". I mean, maybe if we introduced the idea of a ying particle and a yang particle, for instance, of a ying-spin and ayang-spin, we can avoid using the concept of time altogether. Any ideas? What if "space" wants to expand, get bigger, be all yang-like, in one sense, and then in another sense want to contract, be all ying-like, and that such a process is how we understand what we term as time, but ultimately things happen in cycles, cycles that we don't live long enough to see as a repetitious event?
    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
  •