# Time

• June 11th, 2009, 05:16 PM
dim
Time
hi
This is my first post so hi all.
I like discussions and theory,s on time and gravity so i have a few questions.

Time is the measurement of motion, if nothing moves will time stand still.

Does time exist when theres nothing there for time to measure :?:
• June 11th, 2009, 05:18 PM
(Q)
Re: Time
Quote:

Originally Posted by dim
hi
This is my first post so hi all.
I like discussions and theory,s on time and gravity so i have a few questions.

Time is the measurement of motion, if nothing moves will time stand still.

Does time exist when theres nothing there for time to measure :?:

Here's my opine:

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.
• July 3rd, 2009, 04:10 PM
crazyhorse
time
time is a system's rate of change. We measure time by measuring change in some system it could be the unwinding of a spring, the swing of a pendlum or vibration of an atom. They are all the same we measure time by measuring change. Einsteins relativity shows that time slows down as speed increases. As speed increases the external change increases to conpensate the internal change decreases. So change in our universe is constant. But the universe exists in eternity. The number one problem in eternity is boredom. The best way to combat boredom is change. The universe is a device to relieve boredom
• July 4th, 2009, 05:04 AM
TheBiologista
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
time is a system's rate of change. We measure time by measuring change in some system it could be the unwinding of a spring, the swing of a pendlum or vibration of an atom. They are all the same we measure time by measuring change. Einsteins relativity shows that time slows down as speed increases. As speed increases the external change increases to conpensate the internal change decreases. So change in our universe is constant. But the universe exists in eternity. The number one problem in eternity is boredom. The best way to combat boredom is change. The universe is a device to relieve boredom

That's nonsense. Logically if there were no universe there would be nothing to feel the boredom and therefore the function is redundant. And whose boredom are we talking about here? Presumably a creator? I'd love to see your evidence for that.
• July 4th, 2009, 03:18 PM
crazyhorse
time
It does not matter who's boredom, it could be the creator or creators but even you and I qualify as observers as ones to have there boredom relieved.
• July 4th, 2009, 05:04 PM
raptordigits
Re: Time
Quote:

Originally Posted by dim
hi

Does time exist when theres nothing there for time to measure :?:

Much depends on the definition of time. Time is only defined by other variables. When there are no other variables there is no time. There was 'no time' before the Big Bang. Even the word 'before' is used only because I can't think of a non-time related adverb that is suitable.

The Big Bang happened. There was not one second, or an hour, etc. 'before' the Big Bang....as you state, 'there was nothing there for time to measure'... in fact there was no 'there' at all.
• July 4th, 2009, 05:31 PM
kojax
I think time is just a dimension, like North/South, East/West, Up/Down.... Past/Future

Trouble is that, for some reason, we're not able to move ourselves faster or slower along its axis, or go backwards.
• July 4th, 2009, 06:22 PM
TheBiologista
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
It does not matter who's boredom, it could be the creator or creators but even you and I qualify as observers as ones to have there boredom relieved.

Again though, the logic is circular. Without a universe there's no one to entertain and thus no need for the entertainment in the first place.
• July 4th, 2009, 06:32 PM
drowsy turtle
Quote:

Originally Posted by kojax
I think time is just a dimension, like North/South, East/West, Up/Down.... Past/Future

Trouble is that, for some reason, we're not able to move ourselves faster or slower along its axis, or go backwards.

Hence, I believe it is not a dimension, if it exists at all.
• July 5th, 2009, 10:30 AM
crazyhorse
time
you are presuming all there is, is just the universe. Many theories say there is more to it than that.
• July 5th, 2009, 11:49 AM
TheBiologista
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
you are presuming all there is, is just the universe. Many theories say there is more to it than that.

Only if you define "the universe" as something other than "everything that exists". The universe is anything and everything that can be observed, so talk of things outside of it make little sense. Seriously, are you just going to continue with the speculative hand-waving or are you going to cite some evidence that supports these grand claims you're making?
• July 5th, 2009, 02:22 PM
crazyhorse
time
if you are looking for certainties you are not only on the wrong page you are on the wrong planet. there is such a thing in science as building a hypothesis.
• July 5th, 2009, 02:26 PM
TheBiologista
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
if you are looking for certainties you are not only on the wrong page you are on the wrong planet. there is such a thing in science as building a hypothesis.

If this is how you're going to respond to basic questioning then you're the one on the wrong page.

Hypotheses have to be consistent with some known evidence, consistent with logic and most importantly they must have testable implications. If a hypothesis is what you are proposing then so far it is failing on all three points.
• July 6th, 2009, 01:52 AM
crazyhorse
time
the evidence is all around you. Life is a struggle against boredom. There is nothing more boring than being dead. When we put someone in prison we are basically boring him that why people don't like being in prison. Anyway my preamble to the statement was evidence enough in itself. If its not to your liking you are free to ignore it . I am not ramming down your throat. In fact this conversation is getting boring so I say "SAJONARA".
• July 6th, 2009, 05:15 AM
TheBiologista
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
the evidence is all around you. Life is a struggle against boredom.

Assume I'm not too bright. Point out the evidence to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
There is nothing more boring than being dead.

Prior to being alive I don't recall being bored. I have no reason to assume death will be any different. Do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
When we put someone in prison we are basically boring him that why people don't like being in prison.

There are a lot of reasons why people don't like being in prison. Boredom would be pretty far down the list for me personally. Denial of access to my family and friends is not boring, it is upsetting. Denial of freedom is depressing, not boring. And the main motive behind imprisonment is not to bore the prisoner but to prevent them from committing further crimes for a set period. The emotional aspect is a secondary consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
Anyway my preamble to the statement was evidence enough in itself.

Not it wasn't and indeed your claim still makes no sense logically even when we ignore the total lack of evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
If its not to your liking you are free to ignore it . I am not ramming down your throat.

No but you're putting your claim up for criticism when you make it public. Just as I am free to ignore it I am also free to attack it. You may by all means ignore that if you wish.
• July 14th, 2009, 04:35 PM
johnnny92008
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyhorse
time is a system's rate of change. We measure time by measuring change in some system it could be the unwinding of a spring, the swing of a pendlum or vibration of an atom. They are all the same we measure time by measuring change. Einsteins relativity shows that time slows down as speed increases. As speed increases the external change increases to conpensate the internal change decreases. So change in our universe is constant. But the universe exists in eternity. The number one problem in eternity is boredom. The best way to combat boredom is change. The universe is a device to relieve boredom

Time only appears to slow, because of how long it takes for the light to reach the viewers eyes. When a vehicle zooms past me, it looks fast, but as it gets further away it appears to be going slower. Its not realy going slower. Nor is time realy slowing down.
• July 14th, 2009, 04:41 PM
drowsy turtle
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnny92008
When a vehicle zooms past me, it looks fast, but as it gets further away it appears to be going slower.

This is because your vision covers a certain angle only. When it is close to you, it passes rapidly through the angle which you can see, but when it is further away it takes longer to pass through.

This is because, the further you look, the more distance you can see in your field of vision, so an object travelling at the same speed will take longer to pass from one side of your vision to the other.
• July 14th, 2009, 06:02 PM
johnnny92008
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnny92008
When a vehicle zooms past me, it looks fast, but as it gets further away it appears to be going slower.

This is because your vision covers a certain angle only. When it is close to you, it passes rapidly through the angle which you can see, but when it is further away it takes longer to pass through.

This is because, the further you look, the more distance you can see in your field of vision, so an object travelling at the same speed will take longer to pass from one side of your vision to the other.

No man, thats not what im talking about.
If the car is right next to you, and you watch it drive away from you. Just like Einstein watching the clock fly away from him accelerating to the speed of light.

Do you understand that Einstein was saying the reason we see things is because light reflects off of it, to our eyes. But if it was moving away from us faster and faster, it would take longer for the light to reach our eyes. Making the clock to appear as if it were ticking slower?

But then he went and took it to the next level. Saying that time must realy be slowing down. If that was the case then when the clock reached the speed of light it would disappear (to our vision) b/c light could not catch it. But did the clock realy disappear? NO we just cant see it.
• July 15th, 2009, 11:38 AM
TheBiologista
Re: time
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnny92008
But then he went and took it to the next level. Saying that time must realy be slowing down. If that was the case then when the clock reached the speed of light it would disappear (to our vision) b/c light could not catch it. But did the clock realy disappear? NO we just cant see it.

Einstein didn't think time dilation effects where real just because they appeared so to an observer. Besides, we've tested the clock experiment. It works as Einstein says. Take two high precision clocks and synchronise them, accelerate one for a while and then bring it back and compare the clocks. They will be out of synch.

This experiment has been done numerous times, has been repeated on satellites, and the result has always been the same. The time dilation is real, not merely an artefact of observation.
• July 15th, 2009, 06:06 PM
kojax
If we're using special relativity, then time is just light's way of relating different locations in space.