exploring time and what it really is

T

thinking

Banned
Banned
time is first and fundamentally a mathematical expression of the movement by objects , comparatively

this is what time really is

time has no physical dimension

meaning that whether I add time to a physical situation or remove time , time its self has no bearing on the out come

but only does mathematically
 
BenTheMan,

I don't think that it was necessary to move this thread to Pseudoscience. Sure, Einstein believed that time was something that's physical and an integral part of space-time.

However, there are people, including me, that believe that time is just something humans use to measure the distance between two events. I believe that the speed of reactions in this universe is determined by the nature of those reactions, independent of any time factor.

Since, Einstein believed that time, as a entity, exists, and I believe that it doesn't, I should be assumed to be correct until someone can actually prove the existence of time. And, as far as I know, no one has done that yet.
 
Time is used in the measurement of change. To say that time is a man-made concept is an incorrect statement because if there truly is no such thing as time then there would have been no big bang, no galaxy, no sun, no earth, no life and no death (all of which happened well before humans where around to define time). To say time doesn't exist is to say that space does not exist because these two quantities are, for the most part, one and the same. To put it another way, there would be no space to make up the universe if time were nothing but a man-made concept. Time is malleable meaning that it can be different for different observers. This is something humans didn't even consider until 1905 (yet always held true). As far as the reverse symmetry of time is concerned, this can be thought of as a man-made concept because it has never been directly observed. We have never seen (nor will we ever) a broken egg reform into an unbroken egg even though the laws of thermal dynamics (& QM) don't dismiss this from ever happening. This highlights something called 'the arrow of time'. Why is it that time only moves in one direction? This is something that needs a better explanation and (in my mind) has something to do with why temperature only moves from hot to cold (a.k.a., entropy) which is a time related observation. Examples of man-made concepts would be good and evil, right and wrong, north and south, east and west. None of these concepts existed before humans defined them. This is not true for time.
 
Acitnoids said:
Time is used in the measurement of change.
Click to expand...

agreed

but based on what exactally ?




To say that time is a man-made concept is an incorrect statement because if there truly is no such thing as time then there would have been no big bang, no galaxy, no sun, no earth, no life and no death (all of which happened well before humans where around to define time).
Click to expand...

on what basis , though ?
 
To say time doesn't exist is to say that space does not exist because these two quantities are, for the most part, one and the same. To put it another way, there would be no space to make up the universe if time were nothing but a man-made concept.
Click to expand...

whattt.. are you saying that time creates space ?




Time is malleable meaning that it can be different for different observers. This is something humans didn't even consider until 1905 (yet always held true). As far as the reverse symmetry of time is concerned, this can be thought of as a man-made concept because it has never been directly observed. We have never seen (nor will we ever) a broken egg reform into an unbroken egg even though the laws of thermal dynamics (& QM) don't dismiss this from ever happening. This highlights something called 'the arrow of time'. Why is it that time only moves in one direction? This is something that needs a better explanation and (in my mind) has something to do with why temperature only moves from hot to cold (a.k.a., entropy) which is a time related observation. Examples of man-made concepts would be good and evil, right and wrong, north and south, east and west. None of these concepts existed before humans defined them. This is not true for time.
Click to expand...

time moves in one direction because otherwise there would be utter chaos

while one object forms , another would annihilate it and so on and I'll let your imagination go from here

stability would be completely absent

before we brought in this man-made concept of time , what governed the time of things was really the interaction of objects based on their , inner , mass , vibration , magnetic Nature , which created movement

and movement is the essence of time in the end

in my way of thinking
 
Thinking,
Time does not "create" space. Time is space. At the fundamental level there is nothing to distinguish one from the other (sort of like what mass is to energy). Time moves in one direction but nothing is preventing it from flowing in reverse because all of the laws of physics would still apply. What makes you think that objects would anninilate each other if time were to flow backward? Are you trying to say that before the human conception of time the universe was in a state of pure chaos? We know that isn't the case, just look at a galaxy more than four billion light years away (it would be older than the earth). Time has been working just as it always has regardless of human definition. Movement is a measurement of change. If time did not exist there would be no movement, no vibration, no expantion, no change. BTW, how does mass transpate into time? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with volume and density.
 
Last edited:
Prosoothus said:
I don't think that it was necessary to move this thread to Pseudoscience. Sure, Einstein believed that time was something that's physical and an integral part of space-time.
Click to expand...

Oh on the contrary..it was quite necessary to move this thread to pseudoscience.

There is absolutely nothing scientific about the OP. It is a grammatically incorrect statement of opinion, with absolutely no scientific content whatsoever.
 
Acitnoids,

Time is malleable meaning that it can be different for different observers. This is something humans didn't even consider until 1905 (yet always held true).
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. It is well known that the speed of all kinds of reactions can be slowed down or sped up. This DOES NOT mean that time slows down or speeds up. If a reaction slows down, how would you prove that it's because time slowed down and not simply that the forces that are responsible for the reaction have changed?
 
Prosoothus said:
Acitnoids,
I totally disagree.
Click to expand...
Then you're wrong to do so.

It is well known that the speed of all kinds of reactions can be slowed down or sped up. This DOES NOT mean that time slows down or speeds up. If a reaction slows down, how would you prove that it's because time slowed down and not simply that the forces that are responsible for the reaction have changed?
Click to expand...
The speed of a chemical reaction isn't taken (or offered) as examples of the malleability of time, that's the province of relativity.
 
Dywyddyr,

The speed of a chemical reaction isn't taken (or offered) as examples of the malleability of time, that's the province of relativity.
Click to expand...

I never said chemical reactions. I was referring to all reactions.
 
Such as?
Regardless, relativity is what shows the malleability of time, not "reactions".
 
Dywyddyr,

Such as?
Click to expand...

I think there's some confusion hear. Let's say that an atomic clock is traveling at high speeds. The clock shows that it slowed down relative to a clock that wasn't moving. How do you prove that the time slowed down for the travelling clock instead of just the reactions slowing down in the clock independent of time?
 
Prosoothus said:
I think there's some confusion hear.
Click to expand...
There certainly is some confusion here.

Let's say that an atomic clock is traveling at high speeds. The clock shows that it slowed down relative to a clock that wasn't moving. How do you prove that the time slowed down for the travelling clock instead of just the reactions slowing down in the clock independent of time?
Click to expand...
Occam? :rolleyes:
How do you separate atomic motion from time itself?
Anything to suggest that's the case?
Anything to suggest how it could be like that?
 
Dywyddyr,

Occam?
How do you separate atomic motion from time itself?
Anything to suggest that's the case?
Anything to suggest how it could be like that?
Click to expand...

Occams razor would would say that you first have to prove that reactions in the clock did not slow down for other reasons before creating a new factor (time) and implying that it has changed.

As for the clock, maybe the clock slowed down because the speed of light in that clock has changed.
 
Prosoothus said:
Occams razor would would say that you first have to prove that reactions in the clock did not slow down for other reasons before creating a new factor (time) and implying that it has changed.
Click to expand...
Isn't the main thrust of Occam that you don't add complications?
One of those complications being the slowing down (somehow) of reactions.
New factor? Time?
Your education really is sparse isn't it?

As for the clock, maybe the clock slowed down because the speed of light in that clock has changed.
Click to expand...
And that be done by...?
 
Dywyddyr,

Isn't the main thrust of Occam that you don't add complications?
One of those complications being the slowing down (somehow) of reactions.
Click to expand...

Slowing down or speeding up of reactions is not something new or complicated. Just put a roast in the oven and see how much faster it burns at higher temperatures. If your roast did burn faster, wouldn't Occam's razor state that you should find other reasons why it burned faster instead of first assuming that time sped up in your oven?

And that be done by...?
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a relationship between light and gravitational fields.
 
Prosoothus said:
Slowing down or speeding up of reactions is not something new or complicated. Just put a roast in the oven and see how much faster it burns at higher temperatures. If your roast did burn faster, wouldn't Occam's razor state that you should find other reasons why it burned faster instead of first assuming that time sped up in your oven?
Click to expand...
So you want to introduce other factors into the basic calculations of Einstein, Lorentz & c to account for some specious "slowing down of reactions"?

Maybe there's a relationship between light and gravitational fields.
Click to expand...
Really?
And that would come into play how?
With what evidence?
 
Dywyddyr,

So you want to introduce other factors into the basic calculations of Einstein, Lorentz & c to account for some specious "slowing down of reactions"?
Click to expand...

Why use Einsteins calculations at all. Just replace them with a more logical theory.

Really?
And that would come into play how?
With what evidence?
Click to expand...

I've got the same evidence that relativity uses. I only interpret it in a different way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top