First off, as you should know time isn't constant, it can be easily manipulated through the objects velocity or through gravity and space. Out of this arose Einstein's Theory of Relativity where he explains time's relative and the only way to witness a change in time is to be an observer and compare your own passage through time with that of whomever's causing the time dilation. The need for an observer is due to the fact that there's no universal constant time to compare it to.

So we know velocity and gravity can influence time. Theoretically an object with velocity will have time dilation differing from an object at a different velocity. As well an object with no velocity should experience no dilation. In reality its impossible for an object to have no velocity due to its relative velocity of objects in motion (I.E planets, stars, atoms). Instead one would either have to bring a halt to every piece of matter in the universe or they'd have to experience absolute zero since energy and velocity are interrelated. Unfortunetly for an object to experience zero energy would mean it'd no longer have mass. This is nothing more than a depiction of space.

If I'm correct space, having no matter, cannot be accelerated. So with no velocity there also exists no gravity. Both aspects which have currently defined time dilation do not exist in space, only in matter.

Now the question is, If there was no matter would there be time?

If not, that would mean that if time has always been then so has matter. Or Vice-versa.

If so, then it would seem that time which exists in space is absolute and constant, always has been and always will be which formulates the possibility that matter and energy WAS created at SOME point in time. If that's the case then something had to create this matter. As well, I claim that we would be able to time travel. With time dilation being comparable to a constant, observers would no longer be needed, a person would be able to manipulate time without another point of reference, an idea which goes against Einsteins theory of relativity.

There's an endless list of possibilities. Alas, the latter seems very very improbable which leads me to believe that matter has been and always will be, since time has as well.

What about space being warped by gravity?

Also, this isn't philosophy. It's physics.

you seem to be talking in circles. yes no matter, no time. there are energy fluctuations in a vacuum. no creation needed.

also prince, gravity doesn't warp space...it is the result of warped space.

you seem to be talking in circles. yes no matter, no time. there are energy fluctuations in a vacuum. no creation needed.

also prince, gravity doesn't warp space...it is the result of warped space.

The point of the thread was to discuss the relationship between matter and time and I demonstrated that time cannot exist without matter in the most basic fashion possible. Unless...of course you'd like to argue against Einsteins theory or the existence of god...but this isn't the topic for that.


As for energy fluctuations, that's a whole other theory. I just heard about this theory from you, let alone actually sit and try to understand the fundamentals. But from what I scanned over, its seems that virtual particles don't "exist" long enough to be detected. Because of this they aren't considered "real" and therefore their momentum and energy don't have the usual relationship. If it doesn't share the property of real particles, especially when this discussion puts a major emphasis on the relationship between momentum and energy, then I don't see how your statements relevant, unless I missed something.

Not sure whether I have the time or whether it really matters, but here goes...
As far as I understand it, space-time and matter came into being billions of years ago, as a result of the big bang. At the time of the big bang there was a tremendous release of energy and the universe was very small and very hot. As it cooled, the energy went through a number of 'phase transitions' (rather like water changing from vapour to liquid and then to solid) which created the matter (trapped energy) we see today. In addition the cooling and phase transitions also created the fundamental forces of nature and the very space-time that we observe.

This being the case, time exists (as 'space-time') in a universe with matter.

In a place where there is no matter, there is no time. For example, a black hole. Black holes consume matter, and perhaps can be thought of as the opposite to a big bang, a 'big squash' if you will. Whilst nobody knows for sure what goes on inside a black hole, it's possible that the matter with which we are familiar with in our space-time is destroyed, being broken down to a more fundamental form of matter/energy and undergoing a (reverse) phase transition. The space-time around a black hole is also 'squashed' and at the point where light itself is trapped time and space cease to exist (from our perspective).

The above does not mean to say that in a region of our universe where there is empty space and not much matter, there is no time. Quite the opposite, at such a place space-time is less dense and therefore there will exist more time compared with a region of the universe where there is more matter/energy which squashes space-time and therefore reduces the amount of space and time (the black hole being the extreme example of such).

Incidentally, those wondering where the 'edge' of our universe is should consider that the 'edge' is a place where the space-time stops, and this equates to black holes. Therefore, black holes are the edge of our universe, they're just not the type of edge with which we are conceptually familiar.

Faulty premiss: "...time isn't constant, ...".

At best, all we can say with regard to the constancy of time is that it is our perception of time that isn't constant. Whether or not this is a function of our perception or of time itself is undetermined (as of yet). Given that what's being examined here is the nature of the relation between time and matter (if indeed there is one) this determination must be made. Of course, to achieve that, at the very least we'll need some working definitions, as well as some sort of discussion with respect to the ontological status of the two key concepts.

Incidentally, those wondering where the 'edge' of our universe is should consider that the 'edge' is a place where the space-time stops, and this equates to black holes. Therefore, black holes are the edge of our universe, they're just not the type of edge with which we are conceptually familiar.

I don't think the "edge" of the universe = black holes. It is simply the farthest back in time we can "see". I.E beyond 15 billion years ago all was nothing and thus we see nothing 15 billion light years away.

For myself I just can't see the universe any other way than a state of constant flux. Occilating between big bangs and coagulations of ever increasing blackholes, swallowing stars/galaxies/universes/realities growing and growing(or shrinking and shrinking?). As random or predictable as sands through the hourglass turned over and over and all of us with it, a speck of dust.

Faulty premiss: "...time isn't constant, ...".

At best, all we can say with regard to the constancy of time is that it is our perception of time that isn't constant. Whether or not this is a function of our perception or of time itself is undetermined (as of yet). Given that what's being examined here is the nature of the relation between time and matter (if indeed there is one) this determination must be made.

Well, actually there's a lot of evidence to support Einsteins theories of special relativity and general relativity which supports the premise that 'time isn't constant' and there is no Absolute Time, so it's not a matter of perception, but one of measurement and scientific evidence, and it has been determined already, over the last century! Indeed, the relationships between time, matter/energy and velocity have been determined and are used in practice by NASA for example.

Yet, were we to travel at, say, a velocity of half light speed, or pass closely through a strong gravitational field caused by a massive object where the rate of time would alter significantly, our perception of time would not be altered at all (locally), since we would slow down accordingly.

But, in ADDITION TO the science we all have our own perception of time of course. For example I am capable of judging pretty accurately the time it takes to shower, wash, shave and change to be ready to go out at 8pm whilst my wife appears to have a completely different perception of time and is never ready on time. Alternatively when I do anything on a computer time appears (to me) to pass incredibly quickly and a whole hour is consumed in what feels like about 20 minutes. Taking a 2 hour massage on the beach also appears to go by in about half the time. Yet shopping at Tescos can drag on for what seems like hours. Whilst I can get to grips with much of the science, I can't explain the varying perceptions of time which I and others appear to have. Perhaps the mysteries of the brain are on a par with those of the universe.

Well, actually there's a lot of evidence to support Einsteins theories of special relativity and general relativity which supports the premise that 'time isn't constant'...

All of which is empirical evidence; part of the scientific method paradigm which is itself entirely supported by observations which cannot be but perceived.



... and there is no Absolute Time,...

You cannot logically assert this.



... so it's not a matter of perception,...

See above.
You seem to be forgetting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.



...But, in ADDITION TO the science we all have our own perception of time of course. ...

Which is entirely subject to error. To say nothing of the fact that ultimately, one's estimation of time is nothing but a comparison of one's perception compared to the accepted 'standard' (sic).

Faulty premiss: "...time isn't constant, ...".

At best, all we can say with regard to the constancy of time is that it is our perception of time that isn't constant. Whether or not this is a function of our perception or of time itself is undetermined (as of yet). Given that what's being examined here is the nature of the relation between time and matter (if indeed there is one) this determination must be made. Of course, to achieve that, at the very least we'll need some working definitions, as well as some sort of discussion with respect to the ontological status of the two key concepts.

Well lets make a new premises then: "Time is constant"
Taking this into scenerio, Nasa created a series of tests supporting the theory of relativity. Now, granted that this is "empirical evidence" it still confirms the physical effects of general relativity, something which was already proven with the comparison of atomic clocks in orbit and on earth's surface. The clock in orbit was noticeably slower than the one on earth. If we take the premises that "Time is constant", this would suggest the slowing of the clock wasn't due to a change in time. Well what could have caused this? Unless you suggest our perception can also make physical changes...in which cause I should be able to stare at somebody and make them age to death.

This being the case, time exists (as 'space-time') in a universe with matter.

In a place where there is no matter, there is no time. For example, a black hole. Black holes consume matter, and perhaps can be thought of as the opposite to a big bang, a 'big squash' if you will. Whilst nobody knows for sure what goes on inside a black hole, it's possible that the matter with which we are familiar with in our space-time is destroyed, being broken down to a more fundamental form of matter/energy and undergoing a (reverse) phase transition. The space-time around a black hole is also 'squashed' and at the point where light itself is trapped time and space cease to exist (from our perspective).

The above does not mean to say that in a region of our universe where there is empty space and not much matter, there is no time. Quite the opposite, at such a place space-time is less dense and therefore there will exist more time compared with a region of the universe where there is more matter/energy which squashes space-time and therefore reduces the amount of space and time (the black hole being the extreme example of such).

Incidentally, those wondering where the 'edge' of our universe is should consider that the 'edge' is a place where the space-time stops, and this equates to black holes. Therefore, black holes are the edge of our universe, they're just not the type of edge with which we are conceptually familiar.

Your not applying General Relativity fully enough. Conceptually an observer watching an object go into a black hole will never see it enter it due to the massive amounts of gravity and its relative effects.

But otherwise, are you trying to say that time can exist without matter?

Well lets make a new premises then: "Time is constant"
Taking this into scenerio, Nasa created a series of tests supporting the theory of relativity. Now, granted that this is "empirical evidence" it still confirms the physical effects of general relativity, something which was already proven with the comparison of atomic clocks in orbit and on earth's surface. The clock in orbit was noticeably slower than the one on earth. If we take the premises that "Time is constant", this would suggest the slowing of the clock wasn't due to a change in time.
...

All of what you say is correct.

I was merely pointing out that one cannot rule out the effects of perception, even when we're speaking of empirical evidence in support of a theoretical approach.