I agree, I think man in general has a false idea of the importance of time, movement can occur without time being a factor, age isn't about time, it's about the breakdown of the structure, so we can measure that lifespan or the movement but it doesn't mean it's a factor.
"My only thought at the moment is that if time does not exist, did it ever exist? If so, when?" Hehe, that's either sarcasm or you missed the total contradiction of the question. If there's no time, there's no moment, nor a "when" for time to have existed, nor an "ever", nor an "exist", all of which are reliant on time to make sense. I suppose thought is a process that takes time too.
Yah, it's partly sarcasm, but with meaningful intent. It just took me 4 seconds to type my prior sentence. If time is truly relative, then a part of me is ALWAYS typing that sentence. If that's true, when did I first type that sentence, or think of that sentence? I just don't think physical reality (or human consciousness) can truly escape the concept of before, now, and later. It's like a circle within a larger circle, within a larger circle, and so on.
To say "time doesn't exist" is one of the most sillies comments to ponder. If time didn't exist, then neither would we. Time is more that just a perception of our mine. Physicis dictates that in order to tavel a distance time must pass. Mathematically the inverse is also true. In order for time to pass a distance must be travel. As a result even when not moving we are indeed traveling. This universe is based on a two fold interaction between time and space. With out either neither would be meaningfull and nothing would be tangible.
In order for time to pass a distance must be travel. I don't see how that would work.. can you explain what you mean by that ?
Not quite, by GR I declair myself stationary, and yet time still passes. What your mathmatical example means is that we can only measure time's passing if something is moving (Although, I don't mean to imply that this is the only way to do so), but it doesnt mean time has stopped. ie: speed (something moving a distance as you worded it) = d/t If no time exists, then the entire equation becomes meaningless, we are missing a variable. But if the speed is 0, it simply means we cannot calculate the time, since t=d/v where when v=0, t=d/0, which is undefined (t could be anything.) -Andrew
Saquist ''To say "time doesn't exist" is one of the most sillies comments to ponder. If time didn't exist, then neither would we. Time is more that just a perception of our mine. Physicis dictates that in order to tavel a distance time must pass. Mathematically the inverse is also true. In order for time to pass a distance must be travel. As a result even when not moving we are indeed traveling. This universe is based on a two fold interaction between time and space. With out either neither would be meaningfull and nothing would be tangible.'' What your taking about is simply relativity. But you are not generalizing what it all really means. Of course a distance in space (in miles), for us, is in lightyears for time, because time moves at 186,000 miles per hour. This distance though is imaginary. But relativity says more. The truth of time is that if we look back at our histories, everything is stuck. Its as though our whole lives are set out in amber. Also, from special relativity we learn that time is a observer-dependant model. We know this because the observer described by special relativity is an invariant system. Thus the obcerver is intrisnic when we talk about measurement. For this final reason, time is observer-dependant. andbna ''Not quite, by GR I declair myself stationary, and yet time still passes. What your mathmatical example means is that we can only measure time's passing if something is moving (Although, I don't mean to imply that this is the only way to do so), but it doesnt mean time has stopped. ie: speed (something moving a distance as you worded it) = d/t If no time exists, then the entire equation becomes meaningless, we are missing a variable. But if the speed is 0, it simply means we cannot calculate the time, since t=d/v where when v=0, t=d/0, which is undefined (t could be anything.) -Andrew'' Thats not actually quite true either. You see, everything is relative. You yourself might be saying that you are not moving, but you are moving relative to other moving objects. This is how relativity measures everything in relative units. The train is relative to the moving earth, the earth to the sun, the sun to the galactic center, ect. I don't see why the activity of time is relevant in this case. We experience time the way we do, because we move so very slowely through space, and time is ever-pervasive [on organisms that actually define its existence]. Reiku
Nope he was talking about the basic equations of motion. You what? Arrant nonsense. Time "moves" at a set distance per unit time?
Indeed, I never said that nothing was moving relative to me, but I am 100% correct in stating that I am not moving. However, Maby I really am not moving relative to anything else either. Cnosider if my worldline never intersects any other event or object (perhaps the universe is expanding faster than the light from any objects around me can reach me.) Then I can say that I am completly stationary... Of course, except that the molecules within me would be moving (and I could keeptrack of time based on that too) So, let's consider a single particle instead of me in that situation, does time exist for it? Well, we can't tell based on distances travelled (the case still holds if we add another particle which is stationary relative ot the first, and thus the 1 measurable distance stays constant), but if it were a Muon, then we would know time passed based on it's decay into an electron. -Andrew
andbna Would you mind and hold your question until i reach Oli some quantum physics? Oli Yes. Time moves at lightpeed... I'm not saying this becaiuse i just thought of it, it is well stated in a quantum physics course. When using imaginary concepts, we must use complex numbers... nothing too complex about them, so don't be scared off! We need the calculus in concepts that are imaginary - not quite existing in the realms of the real - but are ''real'' nonetheless... we use it when calculating the imaginary dimension of time, and even concepts beyond ''c'' - imaginary mass. To understand this better, we must consider the pyhagorean theorem.Complex numbers deal with square roots. Now, you might remember square roots from high school. A number that is multiplied by itself produces the square root - thus, the square root of 4 is (2 x 2). The square root of 9 is (3 x 3). The square root of 16 is (4 x 4), ect. Note however, that the square root of 1, is (1 x 1). complex numbers move into the negatives; thus, it helps mathematicians work out the improbable square root of -1, for instance, which is 'i' x 'i' = -1. The 'i' stands for ''impossible'', and it helps us in calculating numbers that are not in the real world. Another example is the square root of 4, which is (i2)^2 = -4. Quantum Physics and Relativity would be impossibility, without complex numbers, and so would our ability to calculate time as an imaginary dimension of space. In a standard course of geometry, one will inventually learn the pythagorean theorem. As you will probably know, the theorem applies to length of the right sides of a right triangle. It is a simple formula, and it tells us that if one was to work of the angles on the sides of the triangle, the sums of two of those angles will equal the sum of the remainding value angle. We say that the third angle is the one raised on the hypotenuse. The formula is: a^2+b^2=c^2 The sides of the triangle are similar based to how we work out the lengths of space and time. Because time is a universal invariant, we say that the imaginary time dimension is an invariant relationship. If we appy this triangle as an invariance of space, we find some interesting results... explanations to why time is relative and why we move so very slow through space, and so very fast through time; or it can be seen that time moves through is very fast - at the speed of light actually. If you regard time as a dimension of space, you create, according to Minkowski, right triangles with one side adjacent corresponding to time and the other to space. Both legs of the space triangle remain in in ''real space'', whilst in the time triangle, its legs remain in ''imaginary space.'' So long as the imaginary side of the triangle remained longer than the real side, the hypotenuse will have a ''timelike'' order... But if one speeds up, then the traingle becomes warped, and if we where to reach ''c'' then both sides become exactly the same. In this sense, time stops and you aren't really moving at all! If you exceed this value, then the real leg becomes longer than the imaginary leg, and you are now oscillating through the time dimension. This is what we mean by speeds that are bradynic, photonic or tachyonic. There is a boundary created at ''c'', and this is highlighted through the spacetime triangle. For this sense, time also has a speed. This speed determines the limit on speeds which are bradyonic, photonic and tachyonic matter. Reiku
''Indeed, I never said that nothing was moving relative to me, but I am 100% correct in stating that I am not moving. However, Maby I really am not moving relative to anything else either. Cnosider if my worldline never intersects any other event or object (perhaps the universe is expanding faster than the light from any objects around me can reach me.) Then I can say that I am completly stationary... Of course, except that the molecules within me would be moving (and I could keeptrack of time based on that too) So, let's consider a single particle instead of me in that situation, does time exist for it? Well, we can't tell based on distances travelled (the case still holds if we add another particle which is stationary relative ot the first, and thus the 1 measurable distance stays constant), but if it were a Muon, then we would know time passed based on it's decay into an electron. -Andrew'' I just find it difficult thinking of it like this.
And your grandmother to suck eggs while you're at it? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Maybe explanation isn't your thing? In addition to which which you missed the point of my question: time cannot move at a "speed" since speed involves time - it's self-referential to the point of absurdity.
It seems crystal clear you don't know the Transactional Interpretation by John G. Cramer. In this imaginary model, quantum waves come in forms of echo waves and offer waves. We have the original wave that was sent from the source of the signal, and then we have its complex conjugate. An echo wave comes from the future and an offer wave comes from the past, and they multiply to create a final answer. Or a collapse in the wave function... Reiku :m:
As for your comment on time, it moves at light speed. Everything in relativity is referenced with ''c'', but you act as though it is some disaster... why?
Well, how do we know that anything exists? We look around ourselves, observe the world, and come to some conclusions about it. Time seems to be a very useful concept in making the world make sense. Human observations of the world about us are perfectly acceptable scientific reasons for stating that time exists. Science is incapable of proving anything, and although some people seem to think that some scientific theories are infallible, and therefore can be relied on to prove things about the world, such notions are really not compatible with true science - science rests on observation, NOT on theory. Theory simply helps make sense of the observations. The first thing in a scientific approach to anything is measurement. Can we measure time? Yes! To fractions of a picosecond, these days.
This seems like a weird question, but is the fact we can't observe a flower grow in real motion a question of the perception of time within our minds, We know flowers grow we observe them with special cameras yet cannot perceive there growth through our own vision. ok just a thought as I was sitting here reading posts about the speed of light Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
