dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
If no movement = no time then what do you understand under movement? Is there time in a vessel cooled down to 0.000001K? Is there time in outer space?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Time Explained
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If no movement = no time then what do you understand under movement?
explain
Is there time in a vessel cooled down to 0.000001K?
yes
Is there time in outer space?
yes
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
I ask you to explain what you consider to be a "movement". What is movement? What kind of movement can "generate" time? Is there movement in outer space? What kind of movement "generates" time inside of a vessel cooled to 0.000001K?
If time is caused by movement? What is movement? Explain.
If time is caused by movement? What is movement? Explain.
I ask you to explain what do consider to be a "movement". What is movement?
movement
change in position
What kind of movement can "generate" time?
interaction(s) between object(s) and their Natures
Is there movement in outer space?
are there objects in this " outer space " ?
What kind of movement "generates" time inside of a vessel cooled to 0.000001K?
vibration
My word.
Time is simply the measurement of the transformation of energy on a universal scale.
yes
If all energy in the universe, at all levels, ceases to transform from one state into myriad others; time, effectively, ceases to exist. (as we know it)
yes
People have trouble with the concept of time because they make it too complicated. Consider what Einstein said in the preface to one of his books.
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.
It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms., not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.
Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.
It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
I consider expanations more complex than the above to be misleading, confusing, & likely erroneous.
- When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.
- It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.
- In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.
- There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.
It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms., not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.
Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.
It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
I consider expanations more complex than the above to be misleading, confusing, & likely erroneous.
further ;
does time have any physical property at all ?
no
As above: time is the human measure of the transformation of energy from on a universal scale. Since time is contained in the physical universe; it does have a physical property.
In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.
this is the key to understanding time
order
order is the way we try to and understand things , its natural
hence > time zones
Originally Posted by thinking
further ;
does time have any physical property at all ?
no
As above: time is the human measure of the transformation of energy from on a universal scale.
yes
but that does not make time an influence on the physical dynamics of things
Since time is contained in the physical universe; it does have a physical property.
I disagree
time is contained in the physical Universe , yes
but time is a consequence OF the physical Universe , a potential measurement
if you introduce time into any physical dynamic , in and of its self , does this introduction of time physically change the dynamics of object(s) interaction ?
no
My word.
Time is simply the measurement of the transformation of energy on a universal scale.
If all energy in the universe, at all levels, ceases to transform from one state into myriad others; time, effectively, ceases to exist. (as we know it)
Actually, time and its conjugate, energy, is unchanging on a cosmological scale
Originally Posted by Hypnogog
My word.
Time is simply the measurement of the transformation of energy on a universal scale.
If all energy in the universe, at all levels, ceases to transform from one state into myriad others; time, effectively, ceases to exist. (as we know it)
Actually, time and its conjugate, energy, is unchanging on a cosmological scale
define conjugate gluon
in respect to your thinking here
I am not a scientist, but I like to play, what if. What if all of time is preformed, and already exists, the past, the present and all future events. Perhaps all the mass that we know exists only as a standing wave in the present yet somehow retains its position in the past and is yet to be realized in the future. The present as we know it could be the crest of a wave moving through some sort of medium of space time. Matter would not actually move but would appear as a standing wave in the spot of its preformed future position. The only motion that would occur would be in wave form.
Perhaps everything that has ever happened still exists yet only has mass and reality when a crest of a "present" time wave passes over it. Our future would be a preformed branching future dependent upon the combined choice of all life. The act of free will would determine the change in position of mass from one moment to the next for this planet thus altering the path of the future.
Perhaps everything that has ever happened still exists yet only has mass and reality when a crest of a "present" time wave passes over it. Our future would be a preformed branching future dependent upon the combined choice of all life. The act of free will would determine the change in position of mass from one moment to the next for this planet thus altering the path of the future.
I am not a scientist, but I like to play, what if. What if all of time is preformed, and already exists, the past, the present and all future events. Perhaps all the mass that we know exists only as a standing wave in the present yet somehow retains its position in the past and is yet to be realized in the future. The present as we know it could be the crest of a wave moving through some sort of medium of space time. Matter would not actually move but would appear as a standing wave in the spot of its preformed future position. The only motion that would occur would be in wave form.
Perhaps everything that has ever happened still exists yet only has mass and reality when a crest of a "present" time wave passes over it. Our future would be a preformed branching future dependent upon the combined choice of all life. The act of free will would determine the change in position of mass from one moment to the next for this planet thus altering the path of the future.
time is really about and came about because of the understanding seasons , survival really , food
and then there was the " time zones " to order the world
if there was no " need " to understand seasons and to order the world
what then of the concept of time ?
is not the concept really of time , nothing more than trying to understanding of the movement of things ?
I would think-so since time has no physical aspects to it , directly
I think of time as being a shift of mass that we perceive from one location to another. An object that appears to be at rest does not have the same physical location that it did just a few seconds ago. As we move about on this planet there is a shift in the center of gravity, but as our planet revolves around the sun there is also a shift in the center of gravity. This shift in the center of gravity no matter how slight happens as each moment of time that goes by. If we take a snapshot we see a static image yet we perceive time to be flowing and perceive matter to move from one location to the next.
I am only playing what if. So what if space time as we know it is like a roll of movie film not 2D like film but 4D and the what we call the present is like light illuminating one frame at a time. The illuminated frame at that instant appears to have mass as in a standing wave. As the frame loses illumination it also loses mass and is incapable of being perceived again yet is still there but without perceivable mass to us. As future frames are illuminated it appears as if mass has traveled yet it has not in this view of reality. The future is a branching future with infinite time lines. In this view of reality all of history exists but we can only perceive the present moment and time seems more like a wave that passes through this 4D "film" where mass appears as a standing wave at the crest of this wave of time. Mass itself would not really travel, but the time wave would. Perhaps the speed of light would be the distance that light could travel in the reality of the present moment, and anything faster would jump out of phase of our present time and we could never experience it. Perhaps reality is like riding the crest of a wave much like a surfer.
I am only playing what if. So what if space time as we know it is like a roll of movie film not 2D like film but 4D and the what we call the present is like light illuminating one frame at a time. The illuminated frame at that instant appears to have mass as in a standing wave. As the frame loses illumination it also loses mass and is incapable of being perceived again yet is still there but without perceivable mass to us. As future frames are illuminated it appears as if mass has traveled yet it has not in this view of reality. The future is a branching future with infinite time lines. In this view of reality all of history exists but we can only perceive the present moment and time seems more like a wave that passes through this 4D "film" where mass appears as a standing wave at the crest of this wave of time. Mass itself would not really travel, but the time wave would. Perhaps the speed of light would be the distance that light could travel in the reality of the present moment, and anything faster would jump out of phase of our present time and we could never experience it. Perhaps reality is like riding the crest of a wave much like a surfer.
Q: How long will it take to get to London?
A: What do you mean long?
Not long at all thank you, I'll take the rocket.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.