What is time??

**Dywyddyr** · 07-24-11, 08:10 AM

Which is not a reply to what I wrote.

And what about compression of space (from relativity)?

"Space-force"?

**hansda** · 07-24-11, 08:19 AM

When the ' space-force ' works in the reverse direction , it causes compression of space .

**Dywyddyr** · 07-24-11, 08:30 AM

Tell me, do you specialise in inane drivel?

**hansda** · 07-24-11, 08:40 AM

Give some thoughts to 'space-force' .

**Dywyddyr** · 07-24-11, 09:40 AM

How about the last two words in my previous post?

**hansda** · 07-24-11, 10:03 AM

Do you still believe that TIME is slowing down the atomic clock ? It is this "space-force" which slows down the atomic clock ( in the experiment) .

**hansda** · 07-24-11, 10:06 AM

So , take some TIME and think about the " space-force" .

**Dywyddyr** · 07-24-11, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by hansda

Do you still believe that TIME is slowing down the atomic clock ?

No. And neither does anyone who knows anything about it.

It is this "space-force" which slows down the atomic clock ( in the experiment) .

Wrong.

Originally Posted by hansda

So , take some TIME and think about the " space-force" .

Why don't you take some time and get an education?

**juliet2011** · 07-26-11, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Shadow1

what is time??

who can answer, will understand my question without explinations to it

no really, what is time? is time missunderstood? i mean, it's not like, a misterious something, well, it is, but it's also related to gravity in some part of it

time is like water, once elapse, will not appear again.

**Hesperado** · 07-27-11, 12:47 AM

I tend to agree with Henri Bergson rather than Einstein on time.

Time is real, not an artificial construct.

The uni-directionality of time ("time's arrow") is weird, is it not?

The irrevocable aspect of time.

How is it that modern Western atheist scientists have become Zen Buddhists, anyway? The Now is All there is, eh?

**Hesperado** · 07-27-11, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by birch

technically time doesn't exist, there is only the present. we understand past, present and future because of memory and thus can examine processes and think ahead.

We experience time passing. Are you saying all humans are having a collective illusion? How arrogant of modern natural Western scientists.

**James R** · 07-27-11, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Hesperado

I tend to agree with Henri Bergson rather than Einstein on time.

Time is real, not an artificial construct.

Einstein didn't say time was an artificial construct, as far as I am aware.

The uni-directionality of time ("time's arrow") is weird, is it not?

Not really. It seems to follow quite sensibly from the concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

How is it that modern Western atheist scientists have become Zen Buddhists, anyway? The Now is All there is, eh?

Which western atheists scientists say that? Got a few links?

**hansda** · 07-27-11, 11:17 AM

There must be something absolutely static with respect to which all the movements ( relative or non-relative ) are happenning . Then it can be said that , flow of time with respect to this absolute-static is uniform .

**Big Chiller** · 07-27-11, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by hansda

There must be something absolutely static with respect to which all the movements ( relative or non-relative ) are happenning . Then it can be said that , flow of time with respect to this absolute-static is uniform .

Non-relative movements? How is the "flow of time" uniformly relative to this absolute static?

**wellwisher** · 07-27-11, 11:44 AM

Consider a cloud of stella gas and dust becoming a star. We begin with maximum gravitational potential and lower this potential into a star. As this potential lowers there is space-time contraction due to relativity.

Unlike the other three forces of nature, which give off energy when the force potential lowers, gravity does not appear to give off energy when it lowers potential. We don't see photons like in electron transitions. But there needs to be conservation of energy. Wit gravity, the potential energy appears to go into distance contraction and time dilation. Time dilation contains potential energy.

If we look at SR the same thing happens. If we start at zero velocity and increase velocity toward C, we need to add energy. One result of this energy addition will also be time dilation. Dilated time has potential with I call time potential. If we slow down and shed the energy, time will expand with the potential released.

**hansda** · 07-27-11, 12:20 PM

Till the time relativity was discovered , it was believed that space is static ; but discovery of relativity proved it wrong . Now , we know that space is not absolutely static because of the effect of relativity. By non-relative motion , i meant motions with space as static and relative motion is with space-dilation .

When the space is uniform ( static or no-dilation ) , time is uniform . When the space is non-uniform , time is also non - uniform . So , with respect to the absolute static ( where there is no dilation ) , time should be uniform .

**OnlyMe** · 07-27-11, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by wellwisher

Consider a cloud of stella gas and dust becoming a star. We begin with maximum gravitational potential and lower this potential into a star. As this potential lowers there is space-time contraction due to relativity.

This assumes a common misunderstanding about gravity, that it is proportional solely to mass density and distance. What seems to be a more accurate description is that the force of gravity is proportional to the absolute "amount" of mass and distance.

Consider the Earth and Jupiter. The earth has a greater mass density than Jupiter and yet the gravitational force/influence of Jupiter is far greater.

True, the gravitational potential at the surface of the stellar gas cloud would change as it condenses, however rather than lowering its over all potential, the gravitational potential at its surface would be increased while the potential at a distance consistent with its surface prior to condensing would remain the same. (This assumes that no mass is lost in the process.)

Originally Posted by wellwisher

Unlike the other three forces of nature, which give off energy when the force potential lowers, gravity does not appear to give off energy when it lowers potential. We don't see photons like in electron transitions. But there needs to be conservation of energy. Wit gravity, the potential energy appears to go into distance contraction and time dilation. Time dilation contains potential energy.

Here again the highlighted portion above makes an assumption we cannot confirm. We do not as yet know enough of how mass emerges, within the context of either GR or QM. And, since we do at least know that mass and our current understanding of gravitation are linked, without a better understanding of mass, we cannot really better understand the origin of gravitation, or how any necessary balance is maintained.

Although we often explore our understanding of gravity with hypotheticals suggesting changes in gravitational potential, we have yet to observe any supporting phenomena. It might be that a better model for understanding gravitational force is through the overall balance that seems to exist in the system (in this case the universe), as a whole.

I have intentionally left time dilation and length contraction out. While there is some evidence that supports time dilation, we have no evidence of directly measurable length contraction. Even what we know of time dilation cannot be assumed absolute as we do not know enough about either quantum or general relativistic conditions, to rule out all other possible causes.
----------

On the subject of time...

It would seem that there must be some underlying truth to what we experience as time. It would be unreasonable to assume that it would not exist without " us" to experience and measure it. What that underlying truth might be is at present beyond us and may perhaps be forever beyond our understanding. We are trapped within the frame work of the limitations of our own ability to perceive the world around us.

As many have suggested earlier in this thread, what we know of time is a product of our ability to compare past and present. It is a matter of awareness. We are aware of change, even as it happens. Time as we experience it is an artifact of our ability to be both aware of change as it happens and project that change into the future.

For the most part, time as a human experience is an issue for philosophical debate, as it has been for a very long time. What underlies that debate and experience, we may never be truly able to understand. All we can say at present is that it appears to move only in one direction toward the what we call the future.

**kowalskil** · 07-28-11, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Shadow1

what is time? ..."

Time is "duration." We need this concept to describe reality of existence.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

**hansda** · 07-29-11, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Big Chiller

How is the "flow of time" uniformly relative to this absolute static?

With respect to the Absolute-Static all the moving objects ( however big or however small ) will be either at absolute-rest or at absolute-motion . NO relative-motion is possible with respect to this absolute-static . As there is no relative-motion , there will be no relativity . If there is no relativity , there will be no time-dilation . If there is no time-dilation , TIME will be uniform . So , flow of time with respect to the absolute-static is UNIFORM .

**OnlyMe** · 07-29-11, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by hansda

With respect to the Absolute-Static all the moving objects ( however big or however small ) will be either at absolute-rest or at absolute-motion . NO relative-motion is possible with respect to this absolute-static . As there is no relative-motion , there will be no relativity . If there is no relativity , there will be no time-dilation . If there is no time-dilation , TIME will be uniform . So , flow of time with respect to the absolute-static is UNIFORM .

This does not make sense on at least two fronts.

First, even should we establish a FoR we could consider to be absolutely at rest, all motion in the universe would then be relative to that preferred "at rest" FoR.

Secondly, even should we establish some FoR we could consider to be absolutely at rest, the distinction would have to be relative to some other FoR. Take the CMB, should it be established that a FoR at rest with respect to the CMB, is at "absolute rest", not only would the first case above apply, we only know what the CMB looks like from where we are. We know nothing of what it might look like from say intergalactic space.