What is time?

[HydrogenBond]

What should have dispelled the philosophical time myth is relativity. In the simple situation of one stationary and one moving reference, the two references have two different flows of time relative to each reference. For example, people moving near C appear to experience just a normal flow of time in their space-ship. But to us, here on the earth, we see their time appearing to slow down. Time as a thing makes more sense, since the energy input within the moving reference creates more time potential. It will take longer to use it up making the moving reference last longer.

 

One way to look at it, is the idea of time potential gives us an explanation that takes about two sentences to achieve and close the deal. The alternative is a very long winded explanation that still leaves doubt after it has all been said. Common sense says simplicity is closer to the truth. An illusion require much more double talk to create the proper abstract ambience.

[Thunderbird]

Time has no independent conceptual meaning without a contextual opposite.

 

The Singularity is a point that has no conceptual meaning without its contextual opposite.

 

The Time-singularity create an oscillation that manifest as the wave-partial duality, from this archetypal duality all other dualities manifest. Past-Future, Positive-Negative, Male-Female, Up-Down, Birth-Death, and so on.

 

No comments on this post...:xparty:

[LaurieAG]

There is, admittedly, a challenge with this, since the very concept of duration requires an idea of time a priori.)

 

Wiki goes into this circularity of definition and talks about the units of time.

 

The official SI definition of the second is as follows:

 

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

 

At its 1997 meeting, the CIPM affirmed that this definition refers to a caesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 K. Previous to 1967, the second was defined as:

 

the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.

 

The current definition of the second, coupled with the current definition of the metre, is based on the special theory of relativity, which affirms our space-time to be a Minkowski space.

 

Hmm, I didn't think we could currently get to 0 degrees K or an absolute vacuum?

[InfiniteNow]

Hmm, I didn't think we could currently get to 0 degrees K or an absolute vacuum?

 

We cannot, but we can get really really really (did I say, really?) damned close. ;)

[Rade]

What should have dispelled the philosophical time myth is relativity. In the simple situation of one stationary and one moving reference, the two references have two different flows of time relative to each reference. For example, people moving near C appear to experience just a normal flow of time in their space-ship. But to us, here on the earth, we see their time appearing to slow down....

"Relativity theory" does not dispel a "time myth"--not if you correctly define time as "that which is intermediate between two moments" (see Aristotle, Physics, Book IV). So, for the stationary and moving reference in relativity theory, the exact same time, because it is continuous, can be either short (eg, your people moving near C) or long (your people on earth relative to people moving near C). Time does not fail for either reference. Time is no more a myth than mathematics--for time is a type of number--the number of things that are counted as the measure of motion or rest between two moments.

[Doctordick]

Time is no more a myth than mathematics--for time is a type of number--the number of things that are counted as the measure of motion or rest between two moments.

Ah, but doesn't that presume "motion" is not a myth? :shrug:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[steve 9]

Ah, but doesn't that presume "motion" is not a myth? :steering:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Are you suggesting that this thing you call time, is a force that creates motion?

[steve 9]

Originally Posted by steve 9

So time, do you think it exists as a physical thing or a consideration (idea).

 

Both.

 

Both.

 

Alright freeztar, lets break this down. You say that time is both a physical thing and a consideration. Lets start with physical. In what way does time exist as a physical thing? What form of energy does it have? A wave or a solid? You do not have to choose between these two things, I just wanted to mention some ways in which a physical thing could exist.

[steve 9]

Even moreso, freez... It's a false dichotomy.

 

It's like he's asking, "A banana. Is it a rock or a hot air balloon? Simple question."

 

Rubbish.

 

 

So what is it? In what way do you think time exists? You do not like my choices, then tell us what you think time is. You know I have asked you this before and you have yet to give a definition of time. Here is your chance.

[modest]

Are you suggesting that this thing you call time, is a force that creates motion?

 

Normal definition of motion:

[math]\mbox{motion} = \frac{ \mbox{space}}{ \mbox{time}}[/math]

If time doesn't exist

[math]\mbox{motion} = \mbox{space}[/math]

That is nonsensical and is not acceptable as an answer. If time is motion:

[math]\mbox{motion} = \frac{ \mbox{space}}{ \mbox{motion}}[/math]

That is nonsensical and is not acceptable as an answer.

 

The point is, the only way to define motion is with time. If you say time doesn't exist then you necessarily say motion doesn't exist. You have been asked before - haw can you describe motion without time? What is the difference between 5 m/s and 10 m/s without using time? You have not and cannot answer that. Because - time is real. It is as real as the three spatial dimensions.

 

You want to say something is real if and only if it has baryonic properties. But, no one is claiming time has those properties that mass has. You think saying time diesn't have mass or force makes is not-real but you fail to properly do anything with that idea or notion. Why can a dimension not be real? Why? Why does a dimension have to have properties of baryonic matter to be real?

 

Please stop asking the same questions over and over while failing to respond to the answers you are given.

 

~modest

[steve 9]

Everybody, This whole time topic can be resolved by determining if time is a physical thing or not. That is the first step. Does time exist as a physical thing? If yes, than in what form does time physically exist? If no, than time is not a physical thing that exists in the physical universe. Simple. Go ahead and give it your best. Use all the scientific reference books you can get your hands on. Use all of your personal experiences, Ask your friends.

[steve 9]

Normal definition of motion:

[math]mbox{motion} = frac{ mbox{space}}{ mbox{time}}[/math]

If time doesn't exist

[math]mbox{motion} = mbox{space}[/math]

That is nonsensical and is not acceptable as an answer. If time is motion:

[math]mbox{motion} = frac{ mbox{space}}{ mbox{motion}}[/math]

That is nonsensical and is not acceptable as an answer.

 

The point is, the only way to define motion is with time. If you say time doesn't exist then you necessarily say motion doesn't exist. You have been asked before - haw can you describe motion without time? What is the difference between 5 m/s and 10 m/s without using time? You have not and cannot answer that. Because - time is real. It is as real as the three spatial dimensions.

 

You want to say something is real if and only if it has baryonic properties. But, no one is claiming time has those properties that mass has. You think saying time diesn't have mass or force makes is not-real but you fail to properly do anything with that idea or notion. Why can a dimension not be real? Why? Why does a dimension have to have properties of baryonic matter to be real?

 

Please stop asking the same questions over and over while failing to respond to the answers you are given.

 

~modest

 

 

So what is your point? Is Time a force that causes motion? Look, I have said that time is just a consideration. Others disagree. Just keep it simple. If time is not a consideration then in what way does it exist for all of us that have the concept of time. Is time a physical thing? Yes/No.

[InfiniteNow]

How long is it going to take you guys to ban this guy, who clearly is not here to learn or discuss, but to troll?

[steve 9]

Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

[steve 9]

How long is it going to take you guys to ban this guy, who clearly is not here to learn or discuss, but to troll?

 

I have been discussing time with many people. What is clear is that YOU have not yet answered the question. In what way do you think time exists? Why is it that you would rather censor me than just answer the question? Just answer the question. This is a form that is open to discussion on many topics. I have followed the rules, and yet you want me banned. Would you be happier if I, along with everyone else just agreed with you? This is a science form, so use science to state your disagreement with me.

[InfiniteNow]

Don't feed the trolls

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[modest]

So what is your point? Is Time a force that causes motion? Look, I have said that time is just a consideration. Others disagree. Just keep it simple. If time is not a consideration then in what way does it exist for all of us that have the concept of time. Is time a physical thing? Yes/No.

 

I've already answered and supported that last time you trolled these forums. What you failed to do last time is answer anyone's questions in a manner that demonstrates any willingness to converse. There are three fundamental units in physics:

• Time
  
• Space
  
• Mass
  

Which of those do you believe exist and why?

 

You need to offer something rather than ambushing people continuously with the same question that is nothing more than trolling bait. There is a rule special written for this kind of thing:

 

Typical reasons for banning

#5: Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little

 

Now, which of those units do you think are real and why?

 

~modest