# Thread: Does Time Move At All?

1. ## Does Time Move At All?

The only evidence for time moving, is alas only a psychological function. Recently, i've read quite a few postulations, from physicists such as Dr. Kaku, Dr. Wolf, and among others that time does not flow at all.

It turns out from the perspective of any flux in time is not bound by the present... But this is kind of strange, because the present time, according to our frame of references is certainly the only real time ever present; and the present time is what we experience flickering from second to second.

But does time move into the future and leave the past?

If time moves, what is it moving relative to? What is it moving in reference to...? The answer would have to be itself, but that is illogical.

Dr. Wolf explains that relativity states that our histories are layed out before us, frozen in time. This grim picture would mean that every timeframe would all be sitting side by side, existing in an all-time state. This means that when big bang occurred, a big crunch quickly followed, and anything happening in-between is merely a product of our derranged minds.

In a more geometrical sense according to relativity, time is much like how we envision space, like an expanding balloon, except time has a wobbly surface which is distorted by the presence of matter in space. But since matter and space are the same thing (because the vacuum is physical as well), and since space is already one continuum with time, then time can't really move relative to space, nor can it move relative to matter. It simply doesn't make sense.

So Time cannot have a flow. Nor does it really move. It actually encompasses both the past and the future (1), and our minds seem to drag in-between them. If there is any time dimension that moves, it is purely a psychological one. That's why i have postulated that we can use mathematics to describe an extra time dimension for the mind (2).

The psychological interpretation of time, allows a series of starts and stops in time, which we always percieve in present time. Time does expand however, and we can percieve this as a simple imaginary expansion, or the passing of time relative to the expansion. But we should no longer look at our clocks on the wall and imagine each second pass us by, but imagine the second that just passed us, is in fact the same time as the second you move into, as counterintuitive as it might sound.

(1) - Though Dr. Wolf might not agree with that, since he summarizes the mind creates what it observes... so he might also consider the same rule for the present time. Speaking to Dr Wolf, he said,

''We really do not experience a time flow
at all. Time does not flow for if it did it would need to flow with respect
time which makes no sense. We experience motion as a flow or a series of
stops and starts.''

Frank J. Tipler has made some use of the idea of time starting and stopping in such a sense. He has set a theory stating that things flash in and out of existence in (quite possibly) the Planck Time.

(2) - Actually, the math i did was very basic. I would need to sit a while and work out some other variables. There has also been a professor recently at the USC proclaiming the laws of relativity incomplete, proposing a second time dimension.

2. Does Time Move At All?
On a Friday, at work, 30 minutes before quitting time...time is motionless.

3. Lol... yeh i suppose

4. Originally Posted by Reiku
...But does time move into the future and leave the past?....
Nobody says so, so it has no sense to refute it. The time is dimension and the dimension cannot move, being just an abstract attribute of space-time geometry.

5. Asking if time moves is like asking if change makes any difference.
Time doesn't move, time is "movement", geddit? Like the way distance is a gap between two places.

6. I keep asking myself what reference time would need to flow in respect to. Couldn't a second time dimension be a refenence, instead of saying the oxymoronic statement, ''Time in reference with time.''

7. Originally Posted by Vkothii
Time doesn't move, time is "movement", geddit?
Nope, you should supply some testable prediction, which follows from such concept. if you don't find some it's supposedly better to spend the time by cooking, for example.

The above stance shouldn't be considered as a manifestation of arrogance and/or negativism - it can just serve as a simple criterion of relevance of whatever claim of personal preference.

I've nothing against the fundamental claims like "the time is energy" "the time is motion" "the time stays at rest" or whatever else - I just don't see any testable applications of them.

8. Come on, time is an artifact of observation. If things didn't move or change, there wouldn't be any time, or anything to observe.
But time itself isn't anything more than a way to measure, or the way we measure the gap between things.

Time "exists" because distance "exists".

My testable prediction of this principle, is the following: it will take a certain (individually measurable) time, because of the number of words, to read to the end of this sentence.

Corollary: any distance necessarily is also a time; there's a relation.

9. Originally Posted by Vkothii
Time "exists" because distance "exists".
But the distance has nothing to do with motion. For example bellow is the animation of star sky twinkling, apparently existing in time. We can even define two time arrows here, each of different speed.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...twinkling1.gif

So we can experience time, but no apparent motion exists here. This effectively renders the claim "time is motion" refused.

Originally Posted by Vkothii
any distance necessarily is also a time; there's a relation
OK, we can say, the time is the immanent attribute of space-time by the same way, like the space. But this is somewhat trivial conclusion. What the time really is? If nothing else, our answer should enable to quantitatively predict the number of dimensions of particular space-time, or it will remain useless for physics.

10. Originally Posted by Vkothii
Come on, time is an artifact of observation. If things didn't move or change, there wouldn't be any time, or anything to observe.
But time itself isn't anything more than a way to measure, or the way we measure the gap between things.

Time "exists" because distance "exists".

I know you never specifically said consciousness, or mind, but with all that above, it begs the question that somehow the mind is time. Fred Hoyle believed this, and Dr. Wolf might also. He's certainly made reference to it in his book. To go as far as saying the mind is time, might we be able to say that then mind is somehow a dimension?
Wolf doesn't believe that the mind is a dimension... but i do. Treating it like one
$a^{2} + b^{2} + c^{2} + tdi^{2}$
Let $i^{2} = i *k^{2}$
Then the real part would be
$a^{2} + b^{2} + c^{2} - i^{2}*k^{2}^{2} = 0$
which simplifies to:
$a^{2} + b^{2} +c^{2} + k2^{2} =0$
The only solution is $a=b=c=k^{2}=0$

11. There's cetainly distances in time.

12. Originally Posted by zephir
But the distance has nothing to do with motion.
I'm afraid I can't see how this could be the case, try as I might.

Distance has very much to do with motion - if things didn't separate from each other there wouldn't be any space, for a kick-off.

13. Lovely question Reiku.
Certainly from a human perspective, it seems to have a direction.
Past Present Future.
Is that the same as having movement?

14. When I'm out having a great date with a beautiful woman and enjoying the evening very much it seems to go by so fast but if I'm out with a floozie then time passes very slowly.

15. Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
When I'm out having a great date with a beautiful woman and enjoying the evening very much it seems to go by so fast but if I'm out with a floozie then time passes very slowly.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and its longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Einstein

16. Originally Posted by Reiku
Dr. Wolf explains that relativity states that our histories are layed out before us, frozen in time. This grim picture would mean that every timeframe would all be sitting side by side, existing in an all-time state. This means that when big bang occurred, a big crunch quickly followed, and anything happening in-between is merely a product of our derranged minds.
Who is this Dr.Wolf ?

17. Dr Fred Alan Wolf is a leading pioneer in the new physics and consciousness.

18. Time always has an arrow with radioactive materials. When we measure a radioactive material, we always find that the number of atoms of the material [radioisotope] will decrease with the 'passage of time', following a radioactive decay law that is, itself, the solution of a differential equation.

19. Originally Posted by Reiku
Dr Fred Alan Wolf is a leading pioneer in the new physics and consciousness.
Dr. Wolf's ideas are childish and ad-hoced. His spherical particle waves are similar to pictures of string theorists: general concept is OK, but it's realization is schematic and apparently non-physical. No wonder, both theories are having problems with testable predictions and logic - they're both based on belief, not the understanding of principle.

http://www.glafreniere.com/images/Doppler_total.gif http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...stringint1.gif

20. reiku---

We've argued at length before about ``psychological time'', and such. I don't think that our opinions on this matter have changed. I don't agree wi th the notion that time is only a result of the fact that we percieve it---this much is clear from general relativity.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•