The nature of time...

[Byzantine Prince]

One only needs to take into account the history of the concept in order to disprove it. Someone probably thought about it, and invented it, like they invented God.

Man looks at movement, and thinks, something is different from my memory of that image. The fact that the position of the object is different in the memory, indicates to the man that [blank] has passed. Wait, he said, let's call it TIME!
What do you think?


PS: No Kant fanatics allowed!





EDIT: TK, the 4rth dimension is a theory. Not a fact. I cannot even consider it.

[Templar Knight]

So would you would disagree that time is the 4th dimension?

[Quietus]

Einstein said we're moving on an intertwined space-time; mass distorts/warps this space-time and one result is gravity. And how you see an event depends where you are in the space-time continuum.

[Byzantine Prince]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave , you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

[Strike For The South]

My clock is moving therefore so is time. Stop trying to blow my tiny mind!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Quietus]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave , you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

On equations, time does slow down. And since nothing is faster than light, they simply put that the distortions in time-space caused by mass is as fast as light.

It is theoretical. It doesn't have to be as fast as light, an object simply has to be very, very fast.

[Byzantine Prince]

On equations, time does slow down.

Assuming the variable of time is included. But I am arguing that the very origin of it is simply related to the function of memory. If you had no memory, time, as it is percieved, would not be noticed.

And since nothing is faster than light

If you can imagine something going faster then light then something probably can. This does not prove time.

Addition.... If something stop movement completely(no heat, therefore no collisions or movement between molecules or atoms) then the said mass would grow infinetly smaller until it dissapears completely. There is a formula for this. It's part of basic Chemistry. After something reaches a certain temprature(really low) it dissapears. It has never happened because the temperature is too low to be generated but it works perfectly mathematically.

"Mass cannot be created or destroyed."

You see the contradiction? If something stoped ALL movement however small it would cease to exist. BUT, then how does anything start to exist. For every effect there must be a cause, right?

Mathematically some things could make sense but they do not necessarily prove anything. But what I said does prove something.

[fret]

That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

If I understand you correctly, he is right. The faster an object travels, the slower the object travels through time.

[Quietus]

Assuming the variable of time is included. But I am arguing that the very origin of it is simply related to the function of memory. If you had no memory, time, as it is percieved, would not be noticed.

Haha. Don't trust your senses. Your senses are limited. Vision is simply light spectrum bouncing off objects, hitting your eyes and then coverted to electrochemical signals sent to your brain. There's no such thing as color. It's an abstract interpretation of your brain. There's no such thing as music either, it's only abstract of soundwaves.

But that speed of light is constant. Hence your vision is limited to how fast that light travels. Eg. Light travels from the sun to the earth in ~8 minutes (until it hits your eyes).

If you can imagine something going faster then light then something probably can. This does not prove time.

I don't know exactly how they arrived at E=MC2, then that invalidates that equation.

Addition.... If something stop movement completely(no heat, therefore no collisions or movement between molecules or atoms) then the said mass would grow infinetly smaller until it dissapears completely. There is a formula for this. It's part of basic Chemistry. After something reaches a certain temprature(really low) it dissapears. It has never happened because the temperature is too low to be generated but it works perfectly mathematically.

"Mass cannot be created or destroyed."

You see the contradiction? If something stoped ALL movement however small it would cease to exist. BUT, then how does anything start to exist. For every effect there must be a cause, right?

Mathematically some things could make sense but they do not necessarily prove anything. But what I said does prove something.

It would grow infinitely smaller? No, it it will not cease to exist. Mass can be created from energy and vice versa.

[solypsist]

the ever useful wikipedia strikes again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time


of particular interest is the "Time in Physics section" - whoa.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well, a very deep-thinker Physician well approaches to the core of philosophy. There were ancient Greek ones, correct me if I'm not wrong..

Briefly, Einstein may well be a quasi-philosopher..

[Reverend Joe]

*runs around screaming like a headless chicken for the next hour*

Why, why, WHY did I have to look at this thread?

Admittedly, though, it is more interesting than the usual political thread that clutters the backroom. And it's heavy ****.

[Byzantine Prince]

Haha. Don't trust your senses. Your senses are limited. Vision is simply light spectrum bouncing off objects, hitting your eyes and then coverted to electrochemical signals sent to your brain. There's no such thing as color. It's an abstract interpretation of your brain. There's no such thing as music either, it's only abstract of soundwaves.

Ok you sure love Spinoza.
I agree with it, I don't see this as a refutation of what I previously posted.

It would grow infinitely smaller? No, it it will not cease to exist. Mass can be created from energy and vice versa.

After a certain temperature it would completely dissapear, theoretically. We don't really know what would hapen because we cannot reach that point of cold.

Well, a very deep-thinker Physician well approaches to the core of philosophy.

A physician is a medical doctor.

[Papewaio]

Time is as measurable as distance.

As for getting to near zero temperature the substance does not cease to exist it forms (ironically given above statements) a thing called a Bose-Einstein condensation.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...mperature.html

On earth, muons are created when a charged pion decays. The pions are created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation and have a very short decay time--a few nanoseconds. The muons created when the pion decays are also short-lived: their decay time is 2.2 microseconds. However, muons in the atmosphere are moving at very high velocities, so that the time dilation effect of special relativity make them easily detectable at the earth's surface.

Essentially if it wasn't for time dilation muons would not reach the earth... one of many proofs that Relativity works.

Can add things like entropy to the mix of things that are time dependent...

[Reverend Joe]

No, it just becomes infinitely small, and therefore, infinitely dense. It loses no mass- that is impossible.

Edit: this is in response to BP.

[Quietus]

Ok you sure love Spinoza.
I agree with it, I don't see this as a refutation of what I previously posted.

Who is Spinoza? It simply meant that time is independent of human memory and senses. That's why mathematics is used, because your senses are just your senses and it is very limited (special only to the confines of the earth where the body evolved)

After a certain temperature it would completely dissapear, theoretically. We don't really know what would hapen because we cannot reach that point of cold.

What is "it" in the sentence?

[_Martyr_]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave , you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

There is a lot wrong with the above paragraph, scientifically. Coming from a scientific point of view rather than a philosophical point of you as you seem to, I would suggest that you read Hawking's most excellent "A Brief History of Time". The last few chapters are somewhat dedicated to your question and its written in laymans terms. Also, there are many laymans explanations of Relativity and perhaps some Quantum theory to be found. You seem to be treating science like philosophy here, its not a matter of just arguing a case and saying it is so, we are talking about the scientific process here. By all means if you can refute any of Einstein's equations in particular (you mentioned you disagreed with most of what he has ever said) then I'd love to see your work, but please dont think you can argue science, especially physics in terms of pure subjective philosophical observations. Eistein's theories have been verified many many times over, time is not a constant, and varies with velocity, the speed of electromagnetic radiation through a vaccum is, namely c. That is not to say that Physics, specially on the cutting edge is and should be very intertwined with Philosophy, but it is a case of implications and insights rather than mixing and matching approaches, conclusions and methods.

I dont exactly understand your point either, you are saying that if it wasnt for memory, we wouldnt know that time exists? And thus we cant prove it exists. Sure, but memory is a result of time passing (or at least is a product of of it passing and is enabled by it) so it's the equivalent of saying without the force of attraction we wouldnt knowei about gravity. But we DO know about the force of attraction and we DO have memory, so we can percieve the passing of time. Calling it time and perceving it as we do is of course a very human invention, but it is a fundamental quality of the physical Universe. Observation, theorisation and verification is ultimately the only way we can make proper determinations about the Universe. This is in essence what the Scientific Process boils down to. What this has led to is the determination that there is a characteristic of the Universe which is completely non-spacial, non-massive and uni-direction (always from past to present to future) which determines the order of events and which is apparently irriversable. Humans call this characteristic of the Universe time. What exactly do you dispute? Due to the fact that you can remember things, you acknowledge there is a fundamnetal characteristic of the Universe as described above. Calling it time, perceiving it and writing equations describing it is totally specific to humans, or conscious beings, but the quality of the Universe still exists, even if we were not around to see or perceive it. If a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around does it make any noise? (Now Im starting with Philosophy , and somehow I have a feeling that you will disagree with me on the tree as well... ) Anyway, 2AM here and Im going sleepy sleepy!

[Kraxis]

Actually the speed of light varies depending on the substance it passes though, or the lack of it of course. In water for instance it is very very slow compared to our general image of 300,000 km/s. Even passing through our atmosphere it slows down considerably. This shows a relation to mass, despite the fact that light isn't a particle.
But in general we consider the speed of light to be the one in absolute vacuum.

[_Martyr_]

Eh, read what I wrote... I did indeed mention vacuum. Why else would refraction exist?

[Kraxis]

We wrote it at the same time... I was answering Quietus.

[Quietus]

We wrote it at the same time... I was answering Quietus.

Yes, speed of light is a given depending on the medium.

[Byzantine Prince]

but please dont think you can argue science, especially physics in terms of pure subjective philosophical observations. Eistein's theories have been verified many many times over

And philosophers have argued many times over that time does not exist.

I dont exactly understand your point either, you are saying that if it wasnt for memory, we wouldnt know that time exists? And thus we cant prove it exists. Sure, but memory is a result of time passing

No. Merely that images are engrained in our heads as memories. We see and percieve things change position and we think that it is somehow in our past, when in fact the past doesn't exist, nor the future, only the present.

If a tree falls in a wood and nobody is around does it make any noise? (Now Im starting with Philosophy , and somehow I have a feeling that you will disagree with me on the tree as well... )

That is not philosophy.

The past is just memories, and future merely our exagerated imaginations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BP:

I'm no physicist, but from what I've been able to read that summarizes the work of Planck and a few others, I don't think theres much difference between philosophy and high-end physics.

Pappy:

Nice proofs. Are you aware of any data collected so far that disconfirm Einstein's relativity ideas?

As to E=Mc2:

It's a "simple" derivation of F=Ma wherein:

Energy is the ultimate expression of force;

Mass is our constant for substance;

and the speed of light squared is just the use of an assumed maximum constant speed (the square of which is its accelaration).

If you characterize lightspeed as the fastest possible speed, it must be constant in a formula for all energy, the rest is Newton redux.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

You are right, the past doesn't exist (though some scientists have argued for timetravel), it has passed, and the present is. That alone argues that every moment passes us by as in a stream and its flow is thus time.

[Byzantine Prince]

There's no reason to assume it's time that flows. You have to think, why can I think differently about this? and then ask yourself, why am I not thinking the way I am not supposed to?

Ask yourself, why is it I have to name this such a broad concept ?

[Kraxis]

Call it what you will but the present is everchanging and it is never the same. What is has been has passed us by in a flash (well less actually). The rate of the passing by is time. That of course is not physical but so isn't thoughts.

[Quietus]

There's no reason to assume it's time that flows. You have to think, why can I think differently about this? and then ask yourself, why am I not thinking the way I am not supposed to?

Ask yourself, why is it I have to name this such a broad concept ?

If Einsteins theory is correct and you have a superfast ship, you can go back and forth from Earth and you would age in your timeframe while the earth's inhabitants will have aged aged considerably. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a superfast ship.

ps. I just looked up Spinoza. I agree with some of his points but not entirely. For example I disagree with your signature: "If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil. -". Men aren't born free ever, since the body is a machine.

[Byzantine Prince]

The_Unreality_of_Time


PS: In philosophy, time is treated as unreal by Spinoza, by Kant, by Hegel, and by Schopenhauer.

Those are some heavy names in the world of philosophy. I think that the problem is that physics pays no regard to philosophy for the most part, and in doing so, will always be foundamentally wrong.

BUT, I do however understand why time needs to be used in physics. Now, I think, I understand. It's a framework in which we are able to think of change. That's all. Just a tool that we need to use.

For example I disagree with your signature: "If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil. -". Men aren't born free ever, since the body is a machine.

Most men are not free, not in the way that they should anyways. That's why they believe in good and evil.

[JimBob]

Time is simply a measure of distance. In the space that thing a moves x thing b moves y. Thing b used to be the sun, moon, stars. Now its clocks and such. So who cares if it is 'real' (no idea what that could mean, it's as real than what we use for distance, we chose some numbers and there you go), it is useful. Two cents.



Three cents: Geometric Infinity damnit.

[Soulforged]

I don't agree with almost anything Einstein says. The man was a physics genius NOT a philosopher. How can one prove that time exists anyways, it's impossible, even if you somehow moved something in the speed of light, which is pretty hard without the object itself being a wave , you would still not know what hapened to that object for it would dissapear. That is assuming he's right and that moving at the speed of light really DOES slow down the time for that wave.

This is just wording. Time exists because we call certain phenomenum time, simple as that, the perceptible phenomenum is out there. Now analizing it some scientists discovered that it's in fact the forth dimenssion. In the essence of time there's nothing phylosophical (at least that you want to discuss philosophically logintude and height too), you can "go backwards" and "go forwards" in time too, at least in theory.

PS: In philosophy, time is treated as unreal by Spinoza, by Kant, by Hegel, and by Schopenhauer.
Those are some heavy names in the world of philosophy. I think that the problem is that physics pays no regard to philosophy for the most part, and in doing so, will always be foundamentally wrong.

Yes and some idealists too, not the perfect subject to talk about physics (Hegel specially )