questor Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 From another post: Re: Moments and events - Today, 10:13 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it seems that this discussion involves ways to measure time, which is about all we can do. as far as i can tell, time does not travel, it just exists. it has no mass, no speed, no particles, no force, but exists everywhere.was there a time when there was no time? how could that be? was time born at BB?what evidence is there of that? time is not esoteric like gravity, it just IS.the only thing we can do is measure the passage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Traditionaly, to the present, time is viewed as a referencing tool by which one can measure the change of state of events. Distance is often considered another such referencing tool by which one can measure separation of phenomena. Special relativity shows that these two referencing tools change between velocity based references. But special relativity also says that the laws of physics are the same in all references. This last statement implies that time and distance must be more than referencing tools; they also need to be potential based entities or substances similar to mass. The reason this is so is that for the laws of physics to be the same, independant of reference, would imply that changes within mass, distance and time relativity, is sufficient to alter the behavior of the four forces of nature to account for the higher kinetic energy of all the particle at higher relativistic velocity. If time and distance were only referencing tools, this would imply that mass changes alone could explain, say, pertubation in the EM force. This logically implies that if time and distance are just referencing tools, Einstein was wrong about the laws of physics staying the same in all references; Or it he was correct, time and distance must also both be potentials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Traditionaly, to the present, time is viewed as a referencing tool by which one can measure the change of state of events. Distance is often considered another such referencing tool by which one can measure separation of phenomena. Special relativity shows that these two referencing tools change between velocity based references. But special relativity also says that the laws of physics are the same in all references. This last statement implies that time and distance must be more than referencing tools; they also need to be potential based entities or substances similar to mass. The reason this is so is that for the laws of physics to be the same, independant of reference, would imply that changes within mass, distance and time relativity, is sufficient to alter the behavior of the four forces of nature to account for the higher kinetic energy of all the particle at higher relativistic velocity. If time and distance were only referencing tools, this would imply that mass changes alone could explain, say, pertubation in the EM force. This logically implies that if time and distance are just referencing tools, Einstein was wrong about the laws of physics staying the same in all references; Or it he was correct, time and distance must also both be potentials. Tarantism 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 This logically implies that if time and distance are just referencing tools, Einstein was wrong about the laws of physics staying the same in all references. :hihi: Einstein wasnt the first one to state this. It was Galileo. Natural phenomena can be observed and laws of physics can be measured by space and time. In order for these laws of physics to remain identical in all inertial frames we will need to change the way we measure them (space and time), in certain situations of course( especially when we introduce the motion of light into the picture). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jamongo Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Lindagarrette wrote:Hogwash. I am sorry you didn't enjoy the referenced paper. (Not really, but I thought I would be polite and say that). The world is full of people that have different opinions and thoughts about many many things. So are pretty far-fetched. But "hogwash"? Hogwash - 1. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense. 2. Garbage fed to hogs; swill. I assume you were referring to the first definition. "Hogwash" is hardly an informative critique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 The world is full of people that have different opinions and thoughts about many many things. So are pretty far-fetched. But "hogwash"? Hogwash - 1. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense.It's important to distinguish between nonsense and valid hypotheses. Scientists have a system of peer review that attempts to weed out the false notions. Otherwise, we would be innundated with useless and misleading information. The internet has no such system so it's up the each individual to research the sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 what do you figure..paste:I was going to post a new topic, and I may, but I finally discovered what time is, and that it really is a function! I have not thought out the descriptions very thouroughly yet. Time is a function of space, it is a property that is tied to that of which is mass, and is perportional to mass at a specific value. When we think of time as the fundamental fabric that makes up space we see that when time is slown down, mass increases and when time speeds up mass reduces. Time is the type of frequency atoms are operating at. Lets use an example that shows time exists and what it does. If I take a titanium needle about 1 inch long, and I attach one end of this needle to an ocilating device that causes the needle to flip side to side, pointing left then right. As I beging to accelerate it and acclerate it, more and more energy is required, as the time between directions decreases, the mass of the needle becomse more significant. So it is obvious time is related to function of matter. As I speed this occilation back and forth even more eventually the needle bends right over. Now if we see how mass increases when time becomes less between specific spaces we see it as a function of how things operate. Possibly in the same way a video camera can cause rotating objects to look at hault, reversed, or in other words different motion in time atoms may respon in the same nature that as frequencies change in their operation they begin to pick up different values of surrounding energy which will change how they see the world around them, but more importantly it would require or cause them to be invloved to the world around them at different absorbing and emmittion frequencies, resulting in the material to function in a different way than atoms which are presumably at rest. It is obvious that the fastest force we logically can use is the speed of light, and if we were to harness it, the acceleration would become 0 at the momenmt C is attained. I am wondering if when you speed up towards C that the atoms are forced to act in the way that fluctuates mass. Be it they spin faster which adjusts there reponse to frequencies around them, where frequencies of Electromagnetic radiation is the very thing that causes the atom to to have an expected life time fromt he relentless pounding of frequency. However, In this thinking, I am wondering, that even if time dialtion is applicable, I question whether or not light is always the same velocity. Through studying the michle and morley (?) experiments I saw a different reasoning for explaining the results in light apearing to be the same speed. And other examples and experiments that can debunk their findings. But the possibilty of time dialtion would yet still be available through this frequency response reasoning.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmo Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The one thing about time we can be certain of is that it always moves forward. There's alot of things about time I think about often and just don't understand. One being the aging process, particulary in humans. To let the obvious be known, humans have an average possible life expectancy of 120 years, give or take a few. I don't know if anyone has ever lived longer than this, but we'll go with this for now. This applies to everyone and sometimes I wonder why is it that number? But even something deeper to think about is, just using this information of the age expectancy of humans, we can clearly say that time has a value of progress. You can't say time is just here and thats that. It has to have some type of formula or working method. It has to have some sort of speed of operation. If this is true, then if time were slower then every living thing on Earth would live longer and if it were faster then vise versa yada yada more obvious information. Its actually mind boggling if you ask me. Personally, I don't think the mystery of time will ever be figured out or calculated to a level of understanding its speed of operation and I don't think we should tamper with it. Tinkering with time is like tinkering with God. It is amazing though, how its all put in place to work. Space and time and the continuance of life based on these concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 well to further explain myself. Time is a function that exists whether we are alive or not. Remember how I said you can only wiggle a needle back and forth so fast before it breaks or falls apart. The fundemental nature of quantum movement will also be constricted by what should be the fundemental time frequency. Mass at the smallest level can only do its thing so fast before exceeding a cirtain stress to atraction ratio.This is the time as we see it, where you measure linear seconds of action.But as for time dialation, and life molecular life expectancy, I think is not a warping of time as a property, but a result of taking on an action that allows it to collect more than it loses to length its life (the half life). Which would appear as a warping of spacetime as the data output and action of molecules would change, and give an observation of it experiencing slower time. But it can be said the time it takes for action is longer, which would not create this confusing time warpage idea, which could be right, but i think logically we can understand here, that time can take on a few meanings and is as a base that which a clock measures. But this does not mean time can be an adimit object. In other words, can atoms take on a dead battery effect, when blasting through electromagnetic radiation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Hello Time is simple, it does not care what man thinks, it just ticks along. Man wants to complicate time by trying to shorten , lengthen, dimesion it, add it to equations and so on. It does not matter if you travel 100 C, the actual time never changes only the relative time. When we look into deep field 13 billion years, we look into the past. 13 billion years ago thereis the same as 13 billion ago here. The only difference is the time line for communication which is measured by the speed of light. The Big Bang theory places rediculous time scale on its evolution of the universe. I could discuss this but! let it go for another TIME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmo Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 You know if you go even deeper into the subject, you can say that we don't really know the life expectancy of humans or anything for that matter. We measure the life of someone or something based upon our measurement of time. Our measurements could be wrong or they could be right. But thats also something to think about is how long our life expectancy really is. But, I guess we can't be too far off course if we are at all, given we do have the seasons that occur only once in every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Arkrain:The fundemental nature of quantum movement will also be constricted by what should be the fundemental time frequency. Mass at the smallest level can only do its thing so fast before exceeding a cirtain stress to atraction ratio.I suspect you are talking about the smallest time interval that exists? If not, oh well.Let's change the focus a little. Yesterday exists...where? Nowhere.Tomorrow exists...where? Nowhere.Now exists...right now. Something is driving existence and providing us with what we are and what we perceive. what is it that drives 'now'?the light from my monitor strikes my retina and as moment by moment goes by (bye) my retina will be struck with different photons. Photons that are driven by something which is driven by something else and so on all the way down to the bottom of the chain, which is ...what?Where does the action come from? What is the fundamental action? what is the driver of all physical laws?What is the driver of now?We understand a moment because our minds freeze it internally. Yesterday is an implication or a memory. tomorrow is a prediction but there is no guarantee that we'll see it. What if the driver stopped? The driver we don't even understand or believe exists. What if whatever it is changed its nature somehow and everything just stopped and all the physical laws changed. We assume they can't. I don't think we know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike89 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 i believe time is just a measurement of something that has and always will exist if no matter existed then there would still be time, if that matter by some means that had "magically" dissapeared before, "magically" reappeared there would have to be a measurement of how long it did not exist. I believe time is looked at and examined too difficultly. Time exists as it is, as we made it to be, the infinately large past, infinitely large future, and the infinitely small present. Time to deal with it everyone no on is going to time travel to the past or the future.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 mike89:i believe time is just a measurement of something that has and always will exist I don't believe that time exists as an entity except within our minds. Outside of ourselves is just now. The past is gone..forever. The future hasn't happened yet. Time is a construct we use to comprehend change, the patterns of those changes we call 'laws'. But outside of ourselves is just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike89 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 what i said wasnt said completely as i had wanted... i agree with you completely on what you said "I don't believe that time exists as an entity except within our minds" this actually clears up what i myself believe, thank you for that. I guess its not really "time" that happened in the past an event happened in the past that can be explained with a date using time. The future hasn't happened and i will agree with you there as well, it really does not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Sometimes we lose ouselves. Time is simple, try not to complicate TIME. It has no physical properties and does not require imaginary thoughts to go with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Sometimes we lose ouselves. Time is simple, try not to complicate TIME. It has no physical properties and does not require imaginary thoughts to go with it. I totally agree, everyone here wants to complicate time. I tell them the simple and logical defenition in various threads concerning time. And yet people then ask questions like 'where is yesterday?' because they feel the need for time bieng mystical. I even remember Michio Kaku saying 'time is the most complicated thing in the Universe because you cant touch it or smell it'(well i cant touch 2+2=4 but it doesnt seem complicated) All respect to everyone on these forums and Michio Kaku, but its just my opinion that time is only complicated because we try to mystify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.