First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply A chat about time.
10214 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/11/13
Time is alive. It is not a stagnant phenomenon that simply exists as a dimension of existence. It is dynamic. Its length varies with its moods. We do not perceive this because we measure time, by itself.

Discuss:

Is time a tangible idea (not the passing of time)? What makes up time? Does it depend on the existence of our conception of time, to exist?

What is beyond the measure of time? What is time's experience of the existence of space?

Is time made up of any sort material?

Does the past or future exist? Is time not similar to a pin's point, in that it only exists now?

Additionally discuss:

Its experience of us.

Whether it is a constant or is dynamic.
Aryth 
41215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/11/13 , edited 7/11/13
We often take advantage of the concept of time. Almost everyone uses it to put 'order' to things.

The first major view of time was defined by Newton. He came up with the concept of "mathematical time". He figured that time must be mathematical, because it is not disrupted by any of the natural forces of the universe. He did go on to say that time was REAL, because it could be measured (regardless of the measure that we attribute to it). This was referred to later as absolute time, in that time is forever unchanging (later we see Einstein's view of time, which contradicts this view, but you can probably see the appeal of absolute time).

Einstein first challenged Newton's view with his paper on special relativity. He showed that time IS, in fact, physically involved in the universe. He contended that time was a dimension woven into space, and called the entire thing spacetime. At high speeds, the time that we experience is different from those at lower, more normal, speeds. These findings were the first to understand that time is affected by physical phenomena, thus contradicting Newton's view.

The one thing that Newton and Einstein both shared in their views, however, was the fact that time is intangible, and that time was absolute (it's existence is absolute). So, even though we each may experience time differently, time is an integral part of our universe. Einstein shared one view of Newton's (though he never put it to paper), and that was that time was meant to sequence things.

I unfortunately cannot answer any questions that deal with time's perspective of anything. No one knows what it is like to see or experience the universe from "time's" point of view. That being said, the past and future definitely exist, we refer to them temporally, but the objects of past and future are most certainly spacial in nature, and are arguably real.
16073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Lake Elsinore, CA
Offline
Posted 7/12/13
Time is mans biggest enemy...
10214 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/12/13 , edited 7/12/13

Aryth wrote:

We often take advantage of the concept of time. Almost everyone uses it to put 'order' to things.

The first major view of time was defined by Newton. He came up with the concept of "mathematical time". He figured that time must be mathematical, because it is not disrupted by any of the natural forces of the universe. He did go on to say that time was REAL, because it could be measured (regardless of the measure that we attribute to it). This was referred to later as absolute time, in that time is forever unchanging (later we see Einstein's view of time, which contradicts this view, but you can probably see the appeal of absolute time).

Einstein first challenged Newton's view with his paper on special relativity. He showed that time IS, in fact, physically involved in the universe. He contended that time was a dimension woven into space, and called the entire thing spacetime. At high speeds, the time that we experience is different from those at lower, more normal, speeds. These findings were the first to understand that time is affected by physical phenomena, thus contradicting Newton's view.

The one thing that Newton and Einstein both shared in their views, however, was the fact that time is intangible, and that time was absolute (it's existence is absolute). So, even though we each may experience time differently, time is an integral part of our universe. Einstein shared one view of Newton's (though he never put it to paper), and that was that time was meant to sequence things.

I unfortunately cannot answer any questions that deal with time's perspective of anything. No one knows what it is like to see or experience the universe from "time's" point of view. That being said, the past and future definitely exist, we refer to them temporally, but the objects of past and future are most certainly spacial in nature, and are arguably real.


Thank you for responding.

Do you think that the idea of time in some way - pushes the idea of a, 'Creator'? I mean, time - being intangible - is almost like... a by-product of God's own make up. I mean, as a mortal - I relinquish the right to pass judgement and conjecture of what God is, but I feel, 'time' is a good indicator of something/someone far beyond understanding and that, that being possess some form of incredible power.

Do you think time is a constant? Do you think it is beyond the known universe? Or would you maybe say that time is interwoven into the thread OF the universe - essentially - making it THE universe, minus matter.

With regards to your past, future comment. I think... I think we carry experiences FROM the past into the present. And the future is not yet present. Thus, the only point of time that exists, is almost like the tip of a needle. If time is a spectrum of sorts - then the needle's tip on said spectrum is the only reality. If we picture the spectrum moving linearly - left to right, let's say - the all that is on the left side of the needle has decayed and is out of existence - only it's phantoms carry into the present. And the future will be determined BY the present, through the experiences and memories of the past.

I hope that made sense. I'm struggling with this idea.
Posted 7/13/13
It does. Nature obeys time, as it is easily observable. Humans invented a system to measure it, but not time itself.
47577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/15/13
Time is a dimension, like space is a dimension. We're part of that dimension. But we can't feel or see it.
The only reason you're able to feel things on Earth are because it's filled with air particles, atoms, matter etc.

Hypothetically, when you're in outer space without any spacesuit, you're not supposed to feel anything or be able to breathe anything, because space is supposed to be a vacuum, free of any atom, it's just a dimensional "space" that atoms exist in. Humans are made up of atoms.

The concept of time is the same as space, it's a dimension that we are not able to feel because it's not made up of atoms.


Time is relative, like Einstein said in his Theory of Relativity, time requires a frame of reference. For example, hypothetically, if a person was on a spaceship going at the speed of light orbiting the Earth, he would see everything on Earth standing still, nothing is moving or happening.
This is because for the person on the spaceship, time has been affected, time has slowed down tremendously for that person on the spaceship.


Space-time is affected by huge objects or mass, for example the Earth has curved space-time, so imagine an object x100 as heavy as the Sun, it would curve space-time further, therefore any biological beings living on that object would experience time slower than biological beings on Earth.

Why is the person on the spaceship mentioned earlier affected by time? Things going at the speed of light will affect space-time curvature as well, refer to the equation E=mc^2 where c=speed of light.



Does the past or future exist? Is time not similar to a pin's point, in that it only exists now?

I can't answer this question, because nobody knows the answer to this, it can only be guessed.


Its experience of us.

It's not a biological being, therefore it cannot "experience" anything. Emotions are properties of biological organisms with a brain.

Do you think that the idea of time in some way - pushes the idea of a, 'Creator'?

The components in this universe are not proof of a creator. They have always existed by themselves and reactions occur by the laws of physics during that particular point in time.





Aryth 
41215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/16/13

Squisky wrote:


Aryth wrote:

We often take advantage of the concept of time. Almost everyone uses it to put 'order' to things.

The first major view of time was defined by Newton. He came up with the concept of "mathematical time". He figured that time must be mathematical, because it is not disrupted by any of the natural forces of the universe. He did go on to say that time was REAL, because it could be measured (regardless of the measure that we attribute to it). This was referred to later as absolute time, in that time is forever unchanging (later we see Einstein's view of time, which contradicts this view, but you can probably see the appeal of absolute time).

Einstein first challenged Newton's view with his paper on special relativity. He showed that time IS, in fact, physically involved in the universe. He contended that time was a dimension woven into space, and called the entire thing spacetime. At high speeds, the time that we experience is different from those at lower, more normal, speeds. These findings were the first to understand that time is affected by physical phenomena, thus contradicting Newton's view.

The one thing that Newton and Einstein both shared in their views, however, was the fact that time is intangible, and that time was absolute (it's existence is absolute). So, even though we each may experience time differently, time is an integral part of our universe. Einstein shared one view of Newton's (though he never put it to paper), and that was that time was meant to sequence things.

I unfortunately cannot answer any questions that deal with time's perspective of anything. No one knows what it is like to see or experience the universe from "time's" point of view. That being said, the past and future definitely exist, we refer to them temporally, but the objects of past and future are most certainly spacial in nature, and are arguably real.


Thank you for responding.

Do you think that the idea of time in some way - pushes the idea of a, 'Creator'? I mean, time - being intangible - is almost like... a by-product of God's own make up. I mean, as a mortal - I relinquish the right to pass judgement and conjecture of what God is, but I feel, 'time' is a good indicator of something/someone far beyond understanding and that, that being possess some form of incredible power.

Do you think time is a constant? Do you think it is beyond the known universe? Or would you maybe say that time is interwoven into the thread OF the universe - essentially - making it THE universe, minus matter.

With regards to your past, future comment. I think... I think we carry experiences FROM the past into the present. And the future is not yet present. Thus, the only point of time that exists, is almost like the tip of a needle. If time is a spectrum of sorts - then the needle's tip on said spectrum is the only reality. If we picture the spectrum moving linearly - left to right, let's say - the all that is on the left side of the needle has decayed and is out of existence - only it's phantoms carry into the present. And the future will be determined BY the present, through the experiences and memories of the past.

I hope that made sense. I'm struggling with this idea.


Time is a very interesting topic, and is currently on the forefront of physical study. The problem most scientists (myself included) often encounter when studying time is the sudden realization that you know nothing about time except how it is measured.

Ask yourself this: If we were no longer able to measure time anymore, would time still exist? If it did, how would we know it? (We may not be aware of how time works, but we may still be able to show that time exists).

This makes you struggle with the idea that time MIGHT be man-made. Our conscious minds are trying to make sense of a jumble of things and put them into some kind of order. We see that the time you can experience changes when you are moving very fast, the problems with that is that physics is quirky at incredibly fast speeds and doesn't imply that time exists outside of our minds.

Even if you believe that time is woven into the fabric of the universe, consider whether or not time existed BEFORE our universe did. What implications are there if time is completely contained in the universe, or if the universe is in a greater space where rules of time apply.

There's too many mysteries to say anything with certainty. Haha.
66 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/17/13
Time, as most of us know, is just a measurement, man-made, for the purpose of judging the distance between specific events. Time exists in different measurements, but all in all, is consistent, and never-changing, and something bigger than what we can comprehend at the current place we are now.

Without our measurement of time, we have a series of listed events that happened one after another with no concept of time.
4012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 7/19/13
Time is not fully understood yet; to make accusations on the existence of time beyond human understanding is irrational and dismissive. Personal outlooks of time is fine and all, but claiming wild theories on time is not accurate at all.

It's not fully understood yet, and will remain that way for quite some TIME (Hehe, get it?) I imagine; unless we fail to exist in our physical forms for that long.
Aryth 
41215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/21/13

Sharpxe wrote:

Time, as most of us know, is just a measurement, man-made, for the purpose of judging the distance between specific events. Time exists in different measurements, but all in all, is consistent, and never-changing, and something bigger than what we can comprehend at the current place we are now.

Without our measurement of time, we have a series of listed events that happened one after another with no concept of time.


You can't state this as fact. Here's a list of what you said and why it doesn't make a LOT of sense (not saying that it makes NO sense):

1. "Time, as most of us know, is just a measurement, man-made, for the purpose of judging the distance between specific events.

Wrong. The measurement of time is what humans DO, but we did not MAKE time. Einstein said that we UTILIZE time to sequence events in our brains, but that time was woven into the universe and that physical laws can have an impact on time. (At speeds close to the speed of light, things become infinitely long, infinitely massive, and essentially timeless).

2. Time exists in different measurements, but all in all, is consistent, and never-changing, and something bigger than what we can comprehend at the current place we are now.

What does this even mean? If time exists in different measurements, how can it be consistent and never-changing? Truly simultaneous events CANNOT exist. Einstein showed in his theory of relativity that even simultaneity is relative to the observer and their reference frame.

It's true that time is a mystery to us EVEN now, but this much we know to be true for the macrocosmic universe (as we know, relativity disagrees with quantum mechanics).
1192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
time is a man-made concept, and is a non sequitur being. it doesn't exist any more than our concept of it. therefore it is infinite, and never and always passes. simultaneously.
140160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Antique bookshop
Offline
Posted 6/26/14
time is a slut and she screws everyone
19535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/2/14
I have had so many similar conversations about time I've had enough.
And it's not alive.
1083 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/2/14
The Greeks had two words for time, each with a different meaning:

"Chronos"--the kind of time referred to in physics and math, as a unit or dimension with measurable length. For example, "How much time does it take for the next episode to air?"

Often overlooked (because there isn't a single word translation) is "Kairos"--the time to strike, the time to plant seed, the time to be born, and the time to die. It represents opportunity and chance, a single moment that can change the game.

"For everything has its season and purpose under heaven."
33533 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 8/2/14
Time is a thing a clock measures

But the thing about time, is that we don't know what it is really, we just have an idea. Typically, we say that time is another dimension like space, in the sense you cannot adequately describe your movement in space relative to another object without taking into account how fast your 'clock' ticks. Now, whenever I say 'clock,' I really mean how fast time is moving around you, it's just easier to think in terms of clocks. Loosely speaking, if I'm earth, and a very fast rocket passes by me at a constant speed, I would say that spaceship looks shorter and the clock seems to be running slow relative to someone on that spaceship.

That being said, time isn't like space--in particular, in the spacetime interval, it's actually the difference between time^2-distance^2 that remains preserved (if you want to be pedantic, it's the produce of time and the speed of light, but I consider such normalization constants a minor nuisance). I bring up the spacetime interval because it shows that time isn't the same as space--in particular, there's a minus sign in front of distance^2 where there isn't one in front of time^2.

I should mention, most laws of physics are actually valid in a time-reversed system. The only one I can think of is the second law of thermodynamics which is invalid in a time-reversed system (as it would imply entropy decreases in a closed system), but I'm too lazy to look up what the laws of physics lack time symmetry right now--I only know that it's a small handful.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.