Time doesn't exist...?

[rezaeima]

1-Time is the ratio of the speed of motions of two moving objects in univse.

2-All objects in the universe are moving and have motion.

3-There are two kind of motions in the universe -Geometrical motion and -Non Geometrical motion.

4-Each object has its own and indivitual time .It can be compared and measured with respect to the Absulete Time (Motion of Light) , which is called reletive time.

 

CONCLUTIONS:

1-

2-

...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

When I read the first post, then the next and the next I thought it was horse manure too, but after contemplating it a bit, there might be another way of looking at it.

 

If no life existed anywhere in the universe, there would have been no perception of the passage of time. It's the old 'falling tree in the forest-sound' conundrum.

 

I'd say that for all practical purposes, as soon as the first life form exploded (or poofed) on the scene, that signaled the first possible perception of change. Prior to that, change took place, but strictly speaking (assuming that time is the perception of change), time didn't.

 

So, perhaps all conundrums have at their heart a switching frame of reference. Contradictions don't exist in nature (I'm assuming this to be true), only in our models of it.

[niviene]

I agree that time is an independent entity, but I do not think that space, or anything within it, can exist separate of time. Time may exist on its own, but space requires time to exist. I would say instead that perhaps time is irrelevant, because it is relative and we measure it with respect to our own world.

[infamous]

What a pile of horse manure.

 

Really Linda, where do they all come from?????

 

Out of the woodwork, maybe.

[niviene]

Woah.... I thought maddog and starrmtn001 were the same person because of their icons... that was confusing

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Far from being an esoteric subject, the question of whether or not time is a fundamental property of existence is a valid question. A fundamental property is one which cannot be broken down into component parts. That is, if time as we know it, - a steady beating metronome - were able to be expressed in terms of another property or properties, time should not be one of them or at least the idea of a constant rate of change should not be one of them. A fundamental property has no cause, it just is. It's the closest thing in nature to an axiom.

 

The problem is that all measurements of time are relative to the standard we choose.

All measurements of size are relative to the standard we choose.

 

Here's a question for all of you: if one of these standards changed or was constantly changing, would you be aware of it?

[karlfreak]

the question you are all overlooking here is do we exist?

say for the purpose of this argumeent we do. well then time would have exist this is due to the fact that we did give it meaning and we are here

 

on the other side

 

the question you are all overlooking here is do we exist?

say for the purpose of this argumeent we don't then time would not exist because we gave it meaning

 

you are also proposing the fact that there are other forms of time that don't go by that name (sorry about that bit could not find the right words) this is quite interesting and would like top disscus it further

[Queso]

no. we have physical evidence of time. read the rest of the thread. most of us think it's the fourth dimension, too! ;) pretty crazy stuff.

[infamous]

the question you are all overlooking here is do we exist?

 

While I was in the military, I used to box in competition just for the sport of it. Believe me, when you get thumped on the jaw real good, you'll know the answer to that question.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

The contemplation of time should not be equated to a mystical exercise. That's a common mistake that is made by even intelligent people and care should be taken when drawing conclusions about it.

 

Time is something we've named, measured and can reference. I can say what it is, you can verify it, and therefore it is fact. It is part of every action in our universe and it permeates it. I could probably make a case for every word we use having a component of time within it (certainly they took time to invent). If that is true, you'd be hard pressed disproving time using words.

 

So, time is a fundamental property of existence.

 

Another is size.

 

Another is physical structure. Here I mean stable configurations of things - and by that I mean things that stay the same long enough for us to become aware of them. Contained in the concept of 'configuration' is the concept of a component part. And down we go to the smallest component, whatever that is. (let's, for the sake of discussion, assume one kind of smallest component. let's call it a photon).

 

James Putnam, et al (including me), says another is intelligence. Without it, I daresay we couldn't discuss the other three. So intelligence is the faculty which is aware of time, size and structure. For the sake of discussion please let's don't include any emotive responses to things.

 

Here's the kicker. Awareness resides in structures we call living things. We have a physical structure and by extension are made up of component parts...all the way down to the 'photon'.

 

If something was causing all of these 'photons' in the universe to be changing size at the same time, would we be aware of that change? There are three possibilities: getting smaller, staying the same and getting larger. If change was happening, what would the net effect be?

[bartock]

defination(if i'm not mistaken)of time:it is a concept to define the movement of matter. in maths we do calculations about time approching 0 and infinity.according to maths and physics the universe was created out of nothingness(meaning no matter=no time...no space)so time began when mater started moving i.e. when the sub atomic particles came into existance(if u brake ddown the sub atomic particles u would get energy,energy=?) before the BIG BANG.

culture thing= some ppl have their calander according to the movement of the sun and some according to moon.

[Little Bang]

Webster's defines time as ( The orderly occurrence of events). I think that events have been happening long before we got here.

[tolworthy]

Maybe somebody has already mentioned Julian Barbour's 'The End of Time' but I missed it. Highly recommended.

 

Everything happens in the present. What we call the past or the future is just someone else's present.

 

Some realities are so close, so certain, that we call them the past. Some realities are so close, but uncertain, we call them the future. Some realities are so alien, so exotic, that we have to imagine going back to the beginning of time (the Big Bang) and imagining different conditions and what they imply.

 

Time is just a filing system for endless 'now's.

[bartock]

;)

Webster's defines time as ( The orderly occurrence of events). I think that events have been happening long before we got here.

;) what is orderly occurrence of events(=movement of matter. i think) ;)

[bartock]

the question you are all overlooking here is do we exist?

 

While I was in the military, I used to box in competition just for the sport of it. Believe me, when you get thumped on the jaw real good, you'll know the answer to that question.

we do exist no doubt about that. the question is how the reality of existance is because we r perceving only the electrical signals that our sensory appratus sends up to the brain. has any one tried vertual reality gluves or any other games? ;) if not try it

[Guy]

I agree agree somthing has happened...but time is somthing we made as a measurement...its not a flowing thing that we can tap into and travel in. Things happen, I agree, they exsist as i said.

 

Op5

If at 2:00 i stood still for 5 minutes, i traveled in time... i traveled from 2:00 to 2:05 (you really dont have to stand still i just put that to make my pont more clear and easy to write)

[Boerseun]

The notion of time being a way to define the movement of matter brings up interesting questions.

 

1) Would time stop at absolute zero?

2) Would light be able to travel through a lens at absolute zero, or would a normal, clear lens turn black to an observer once it reaches zero?

 

If not, then time can't be defined as having anything to do with motion, seeing as there's no particle motion at 0.

 

We're all travelling through time, every second, every day. In one direction only. Trying to reverse it, to travel backwards in time, would include changing the Laws of Nature, so that effects can preceed causes. That's gonna be a bit hard.