Time would be a measurement of movement no? If NOTHING were moving time would cease to exist no?
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
- Status
Time would be a measurement of movement no? If NOTHING were moving time would cease to exist no?
.
that leads to, time is attached to what exists, and what's movign and what's not, so, if time really exist, so;, when you find something don't move, so, when you enter that zone, time will be stopped, and you'll stop,
, it's kinda stupid, but it's theory, according to your saying
that leads to, time is attached to what exists, and what's movign and what's not, so, if time really exist, so;, when you find something don't move, so, when you enter that zone, time will be stopped, and you'll stop,
, it's kinda stupid, but it's theory, according to your saying
There is nothing that "doesn't move", you simply can not find anything that does not move in reality. Your assumptions does not bind universe and its rules.
Actually no. distance is the measurement of space between two points or objects regardless of motion/movement. IE: you can still get a distance measurement for two completely stationary objects so distance and movement share no relation.
Time however only exists as an artifact when measuring movement of points or objects in a space in context of past, present, future.
I would lean to think that "time" is a man made artifact that is used to keep track of "movement" or "change" of "points" in space.
Incomplete explanation: distance is required for movement and it's the distance moved that is the measure.
Also incorrect.
Time passes when there's no movement of objects.
Then you'd be wrong.
I'll agree distance is required for movement but time is also a requirement to measure movement.
You do realize absolutely everything in existence is in motion? Because space/universe is expanding/moving nothing within it can be motionless.
I would absolutely love to see an experiment that could be designed to illustrate or prove this claim.
Time cannot exist without movement there is absolutely no relevance for time in a motionless setting. Constructing a completely motionless universe is rather backwards but necessary to illustrate the point that time and motion are almost one in the same.
I will however concede that Time could exist and be relevant in some way outside of a living creatures concerns. In what manner I'm not entirely sure.
[/QUOTE]
and why exactly why would I be wrong? Elaborate a little please?
Um, no. Time isn't a requirement to measure motion.
My mug was there, now it's it's here.
It doesn't matter how long it took, it's still moved...
And?
Simply because time is required for motion to take place does not necessarily mean that if motion doesn't occur then time doesn't pass.
This is the equivalent of saying that plants grow in sunlight so if the plant doesn't grow the sun won't shine.
Ooh, what's the phrase I'm looking for?
Oh yeah -
Is there not?
See my reply above the last.
Almost...
Relevant?
Because it cannot be a "man-made artefact" since we have evidence that time passed before we existed.
Otherwise we wouldn't even be here.
Whoa! Hey there Siledre. Long time no see! Wow, umm... I'm not trying to be rude but... people been stressing you out or something? I know of this great anti- wrinkle cream. It turns raisins back into grapes.
Um, no. Time isn't a requirement to measure motion.
My mug was there, now it's it's here.
It doesn't matter how long it took, it's still moved...
And?
Simply because time is required for motion to take place does not necessarily mean that if motion doesn't occur then time doesn't pass.
This is the equivalent of saying that plants grow in sunlight so if the plant doesn't grow the sun won't shine.
Ooh, what's the phrase I'm looking for?
Oh yeah -
Is there not?
See my reply above the last.
Almost...
Relevant?
Because it cannot be a "man-made artefact" since we have evidence that time passed before we existed.
Otherwise we wouldn't even be here.
Interestingly enough I'm starting to agree in the sense that movement existed before man and for practical purposes man named that movement "time" Which is why they are apparently the same damn thing.
However I still don't know how you would be able to measure time or illustrate time without movement. Give me an example of how time would or could be illustrated when there is no movement at all.
heh, well no wrinkles but if you have some raisins pass em out.
I must be crazy. Time does have a clear observable effect.
We cannot define what causes time, but we can observe that it's subject to relativity, measure it and calculate upon it.
"Length" exists. Meters don't. Meters is just our measurement of that which exists.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Time is one of the four dimensions of the universe. Or however many dimensions they say it has now. The fact that we can't observe it (and all those other dimensions) is just because of the way we happen to be put together.
If our Hubble Volume were a solid unchanging sphere, that would not mean that time was not passing. What if the Big Bang had never happened and our Hubble Volume did not exist? Time was passing before our Hubble Volume came into existence and it will keep passing after it collapses and disappears. (If that's gonna happen; stay tuned for the latest news about Dark Matter.)
I prefer to use the term "Hubble Volume" instead of "universe." I reserve the word "universe" for the entire space-time continuum, although I generally try to avoid using it at all.
Time only exists in our minds. It's an illusion of consciousness. Without consciousness nothing can be measured (including time), and inherently change does not exist. This means time begins as a result of measurement which only exists as a result of consciousness.
We can't observe it but we can measure it based on statistics and previous observation. Just like you can use calculus to determine where something will land due to the forces of gravity and nature, you can use math to predict a number of dimensions.
But these dimensions do not truly exist unless observed.
I must be crazy. Time does have a clear observable effect.
We cannot define what causes time, but we can observe that it's subject to relativity, measure it and calculate upon it.
"Length" exists. Meters don't. Meters is just our measurement of that which exists.
Neither length or meters exist except in the minds of the observer measuring it.
This means if there were no minds, there would be no length, meters or dimensions of reality, there would be no change, there would be no "space" because there would be nothing alive or dead, there would be either all of one thing, or absolutely nothing. There would be no individual.
If all one exists, then the entire universe itself would be one entity. If all one does not exist, the entire universe would cease to exist when the final life form in the universe dies. When the last mind dies, and last spark of life goes out, the entire universe will be gone forever.
Before there was life there was nothing from which to measure any time. Before there was consciousness there was no time because distance is an optical illusion.
You believe in distance because your 5 senses tell you that you are a living object which exists in "space", and from here you can observe with your 5 senses to discover the dimensions, and through your 5 senses you can measure the changes and movements of the other objects in "space". What I'm saying is prior to there being consciousness there were no 5 senses, and there was no individual, no space, no change and no time.
At some point life came along which had a beginning and end, prior to this there was no beginning and end, and there was no change. Everything that ever existed already existed in a completely static dimension, or it never existed and we came along and created time and the 3rd dimension to measure the changes in relations to our concept of finite lifespan.
If there is no life, there would be no time.
- Status