Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is time physical reality or just a concept?

markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:59:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When thinking of cycles and myths, one cannot pass the idea of Kronos or Kali. That brought me to form some questions about the nature of time.

Three definitions for time:

a) Time is a measure of the change. Change is a result of the forces.
b) Time can be understood as a consciousness of history, present and future, which emerge from capable of memorizing.
c) Time is relative as per Einstein.

Time as a relative yet real "thing" is confucing (I'm probably not only one in the world :-). Everything on universum seems to be in a movement. Atoms, cells, inner human organs are in constant change, earth rotates and orbits around sun. Sun orbits and rotates on galaxy, galaxy rotates and orbits or expands or moves on space. Maybe a huge unisystem (contra ecosystem) of galaxies are still moving as a group. Now because there is so much movement and forces, how come one can say, that time slows in moving objects or that it is something real, something more than change and movement and concept of human mind?

It is told, that time is relative to gravity. What is the exact particle one measures and compares to the gravity then? Say our head is 72 inches above the ground. Time is slower on head than on toes. Does this mean that aging is different for different parts of the body, or that just atoms gets older, or that earth rotation compared to the sun is different for head and toes and so forth up to higher scale?

Primitive natural way to understand time is to see the change of days and years. Think of time traveller who takes a trip in speed of light years and comes back and sees everything is 5 years older that his clock says. Of course trip itself brings up plenty of paradoxes in physical sense, but what I'm thinking is if travellers aging process got slower, or did planets and sun, maybe whole galaxy change their speed relative to traveller and people on earth? Or was it only the atomic clock that slowed down?

I'm not sure if I'm able to to describe the problem I'm facing when trying to understand, what is really meant with special relativity theory. I quess its really something to do on atomic or quantum level and huge speeds, which brings me to question, if there is any real world usage with the theory?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.timephysics.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 3:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exert from Past Debate
http://www.debate.org...

An untimely Fool

Well nobody likes to find out that Santa clause doesn't exist, we tend to cling to that a little while longer even when we know it's true. If you are not ready to grow up, you might want to skip this part. For fresh knowledge is not always happy knowledge. It's interesting to me to see what people say that the universe has had an age so it must have been born; I never get the feeling of born-ness when I gaze as the sky from a hill top. For one thing most people don't grasp as clear as they think is time. What is time?

Young Fool: what is time master?

The True: time is what happens.

Young Fool: Everything happens, that doesn't help.

The True: You just need to ask the right question Young Fool. How does happens happen?

Young Fool: I don't know, all I see is happenings.

The True: How do you tell them apart?

Young Fool: in relation to each other.

The True: and you have your answer.

Young Fool: hmmm. Oh

The True: think! About the differences!

Young Fool: oh okay, time is the difference of happenings?

The True: exactly

Young Fool: Time is the difference of change between something and another. Hmmm. So our time must be the change between movement of the earth and its axis, while a year is relative to the location of the earth around the sun. Yeah. That makes sense, just as an hour is synonymous with sand moving through an hour grass or water from a bucket, or change of a season. Are time is simply, comparing the motion/change of the earth spinning with other change. P5.That is time does not exist in the universe outside our minds. For time is an illusion.

The Fool: but what about my birthday and Chrismas and happy fun day!!

The True: The calender is abritrary, we all have to grow up someday Fool!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 6:52:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:59:23 PM, markom wrote:
When thinking of cycles and myths, one cannot pass the idea of Kronos or Kali. That brought me to form some questions about the nature of time.

Three definitions for time:

a) Time is a measure of the change. Change is a result of the forces.
b) Time can be understood as a consciousness of history, present and future, which emerge from capable of memorizing.
c) Time is relative as per Einstein.

Time as a relative yet real "thing" is confucing (I'm probably not only one in the world :-). Everything on universum seems to be in a movement. Atoms, cells, inner human organs are in constant change, earth rotates and orbits around sun. Sun orbits and rotates on galaxy, galaxy rotates and orbits or expands or moves on space. Maybe a huge unisystem (contra ecosystem) of galaxies are still moving as a group. Now because there is so much movement and forces, how come one can say, that time slows in moving objects or that it is something real, something more than change and movement and concept of human mind?

It is told, that time is relative to gravity. What is the exact particle one measures and compares to the gravity then? Say our head is 72 inches above the ground. Time is slower on head than on toes. Does this mean that aging is different for different parts of the body, or that just atoms gets older, or that earth rotation compared to the sun is different for head and toes and so forth up to higher scale?

Primitive natural way to understand time is to see the change of days and years. Think of time traveller who takes a trip in speed of light years and comes back and sees everything is 5 years older that his clock says. Of course trip itself brings up plenty of paradoxes in physical sense, but what I'm thinking is if travellers aging process got slower, or did planets and sun, maybe whole galaxy change their speed relative to traveller and people on earth? Or was it only the atomic clock that slowed down?

I'm not sure if I'm able to to describe the problem I'm facing when trying to understand, what is really meant with special relativity theory. I quess its really something to do on atomic or quantum level and huge speeds, which brings me to question, if there is any real world usage with the theory?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.timephysics.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let me simplify this for you. Time is what it says on your time sheet or time card. This is reality. You can look at time in the most obscure and confusing ways you want to. But if it says 8:05 on your time sheet or time card and you are supposed to be at work at 8:00 you are late. That is reality. So if you think time is some obscure relative thing that can be defined a number of different ways. You go ahead and do that. You can even try to use it to explain your tardiness. But in the end your watch will be set to the time clock at work or you will add or subtract minutes from the time it says on your cell phone. The time card is time anything else is BS.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:01:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 6:52:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:59:23 PM, markom wrote:
When thinking of cycles and myths, one cannot pass the idea of Kronos or Kali. That brought me to form some questions about the nature of time.

Three definitions for time:

a) Time is a measure of the change. Change is a result of the forces.
b) Time can be understood as a consciousness of history, present and future, which emerge from capable of memorizing.
c) Time is relative as per Einstein.

Time as a relative yet real "thing" is confucing (I'm probably not only one in the world :-). Everything on universum seems to be in a movement. Atoms, cells, inner human organs are in constant change, earth rotates and orbits around sun. Sun orbits and rotates on galaxy, galaxy rotates and orbits or expands or moves on space. Maybe a huge unisystem (contra ecosystem) of galaxies are still moving as a group. Now because there is so much movement and forces, how come one can say, that time slows in moving objects or that it is something real, something more than change and movement and concept of human mind?

It is told, that time is relative to gravity. What is the exact particle one measures and compares to the gravity then? Say our head is 72 inches above the ground. Time is slower on head than on toes. Does this mean that aging is different for different parts of the body, or that just atoms gets older, or that earth rotation compared to the sun is different for head and toes and so forth up to higher scale?

Primitive natural way to understand time is to see the change of days and years. Think of time traveller who takes a trip in speed of light years and comes back and sees everything is 5 years older that his clock says. Of course trip itself brings up plenty of paradoxes in physical sense, but what I'm thinking is if travellers aging process got slower, or did planets and sun, maybe whole galaxy change their speed relative to traveller and people on earth? Or was it only the atomic clock that slowed down?

I'm not sure if I'm able to to describe the problem I'm facing when trying to understand, what is really meant with special relativity theory. I quess its really something to do on atomic or quantum level and huge speeds, which brings me to question, if there is any real world usage with the theory?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.timephysics.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let me simplify this for you. Time is what it says on your time sheet or time card. This is reality. You can look at time in the most obscure and confusing ways you want to. But if it says 8:05 on your time sheet or time card and you are supposed to be at work at 8:00 you are late. That is reality. So if you think time is some obscure relative thing that can be defined a number of different ways. You go ahead and do that. You can even try to use it to explain your tardiness. But in the end your watch will be set to the time clock at work or you will add or subtract minutes from the time it says on your cell phone. The time card is time anything else is BS.

I'm not so sure this is the best defense of time being a real thing and not just a concept. After all, that is just humanity's concept of time, that it is 8:05 as opposed to 8:00, so you are tardy. Looking at what time you write on a timesheet, which is a human concept of what 8:05 means, doesn't establish that time actually does pass.

I believe that we can see that time actually exists. We grow old and we die. We grow hair and fingernails. If time didn't exist, there would be an infinite amount of "moments", as it were, and then we could not come to any one point in time because traversing an infinite number of "moments" is impossible.

We can possibly also appeal to our memory. Without time, would we even have memories? How can I say I was born, if that event was not in the past? If there was no concept of time, I could also say I am being born, and I will be born, and be equally true.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:06:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 6:52:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:59:23 PM, markom wrote:
When thinking of cycles and myths, one cannot pass the idea of Kronos or Kali. That brought me to form some questions about the nature of time.

Three definitions for time:

a) Time is a measure of the change. Change is a result of the forces.
b) Time can be understood as a consciousness of history, present and future, which emerge from capable of memorizing.
c) Time is relative as per Einstein.

Time as a relative yet real "thing" is confucing (I'm probably not only one in the world :-). Everything on universum seems to be in a movement. Atoms, cells, inner human organs are in constant change, earth rotates and orbits around sun. Sun orbits and rotates on galaxy, galaxy rotates and orbits or expands or moves on space. Maybe a huge unisystem (contra ecosystem) of galaxies are still moving as a group. Now because there is so much movement and forces, how come one can say, that time slows in moving objects or that it is something real, something more than change and movement and concept of human mind?

It is told, that time is relative to gravity. What is the exact particle one measures and compares to the gravity then? Say our head is 72 inches above the ground. Time is slower on head than on toes. Does this mean that aging is different for different parts of the body, or that just atoms gets older, or that earth rotation compared to the sun is different for head and toes and so forth up to higher scale?

Primitive natural way to understand time is to see the change of days and years. Think of time traveller who takes a trip in speed of light years and comes back and sees everything is 5 years older that his clock says. Of course trip itself brings up plenty of paradoxes in physical sense, but what I'm thinking is if travellers aging process got slower, or did planets and sun, maybe whole galaxy change their speed relative to traveller and people on earth? Or was it only the atomic clock that slowed down?

I'm not sure if I'm able to to describe the problem I'm facing when trying to understand, what is really meant with special relativity theory. I quess its really something to do on atomic or quantum level and huge speeds, which brings me to question, if there is any real world usage with the theory?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.timephysics.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let me simplify this for you. Time is what it says on your time sheet or time card. This is reality. You can look at time in the most obscure and confusing ways you want to. But if it says 8:05 on your time sheet or time card and you are supposed to be at work at 8:00 you are late. That is reality. So if you think time is some obscure relative thing that can be defined a number of different ways. You go ahead and do that. You can even try to use it to explain your tardiness. But in the end your watch will be set to the time clock at work or you will add or subtract minutes from the time it says on your cell phone. The time card is time anything else is BS.

The idea is what are we basing that on . which I showed along time ago on here but everyone ignored it. we get the time on our clock from the rate of change in motion of the earth and the sun. Time is just an arbitrary measure of change. Are you able to refute that or not? is he question.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:16:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The idea is what are we basing that on . which I showed along time ago on here but everyone ignored it. we get the time on our clock from the rate of change in motion of the earth and the sun. Time is just an arbitrary measure of change. Are you able to refute that or not? is he question."

You can define time any way you want. You can say time is imaginary, arbitrary or quite contrary. But you will live by it in only one way. That one way is called "reality" That reality being time worked and time of arrival or departure. This you will absolutely positively without question live by and never deviate from. Discussions of time being anything else than that are just obscure arguments for the sake of making obscure arguments about time that have no use or bases in reality. reality
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:57:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time is a measurement of rate of movement through space. But space as we know it doesn't really exist because there exists no absence of matter, and absence of matter is needed to create space. Therefore nothing can ever technically "move through space" therefore time is just a relativistic construct, not a physical reality.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 7:59:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On an atomic level, movement is perpetual. Therefore we can only base time and or space on our perception of an increase or decrease in the relative entropy of the matter at hand.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 8:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:57:59 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Time is a measurement of rate of movement through space. But space as we know it doesn't really exist because there exists no absence of matter, and absence of matter is needed to create space. Therefore nothing can ever technically "move through space" therefore time is just a relativistic construct, not a physical reality.

I think I'm going to ask you to justify this. I can freely move about the room I'm in because there is an absence of matter preventing me from moving. So yes, objects can move through space because there is an absence of matter. The term, "space", may be the term we use to designate the area between planets and stars, and an absence of matter is a state of non-existence, so while matter cannot exist in a state of non-existence (which would be contradictory), how does this mean that objects cannot move through space? That's like saying I can't move through air.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 10:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 7:57:59 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Time is a measurement of rate of movement through space. But space as we know it doesn't really exist because there exists no absence of matter, and absence of matter is needed to create space. Therefore nothing can ever technically "move through space" therefore time is just a relativistic construct, not a physical reality.

The Fool: Nonsense. Everything exist. For if the didnt' we couldn't even have the idea to talk about. The question is in what forms to thing exist. because we perceive the world from within our mind, it just means that the organiztion of knowledge must categories as mind being the top category. And all you rubish is distmantled that fast.

E.g. an unicorn exist, as an ideas, but that it, the way to knowledge depends on a defining the world with percision. The problem here is because we say on form exist and another doesn;t is a horrible way to define the world. That is where all the confusion comes from..

For example that lad before you says that we can define time anyway we want. why? because he can't tell the difference between the language aka the word(time) which of course we could change the organized set of words to refer to the word time. But that has nothing to do with the reality of time. He is making what I call a Semantic Fallacy.

For example I have a computer here. I can define the 'computer as a hat' but that which was prevously labeled 'a computer' remains the exact same. That is language is a physical symbolic system to communication reality. But because to the large wave of extreme post-moderism we just had. which is where alot of you ideas are from, has cause people to go Banana's with the language thinking is I define my self someother way, some how it actualy change the reality of who we are, rather then just re-asserting a different set of words. Right?

The reality of what time is has nothing to do with the definition, language is only to be use to desribe reality . Things get crazy when we start talking about defining things into reallity. Mind you ever word refer to an idea which the speaker intends.

Watch me over the while and learn.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 10:26:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I meant to say every word refers to an idea which the speaker intends. Now the word may not represent the common use. And so it may be interpreted wrong, but the speaker can never be wrong about what they meant by the word. Even if I want talk about something physical like "The White House". But since I am not at the white house, I can't possibly be referring to the actual white house. But rather the stored memory of what I best think The actual white house is."

If I am talking about a physical entity:

Word(physical symbol_->idea(the idea then refers the form extracted through sense information->physical world(the last time I seen the white house)
I am keeping it more simple then it is right now:

Most words have nothing to do with physical reality

But yet we understand what the mean.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 10:29:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The main conclusion here is either there is an objective connection between minds. Our we couldn't know what anyword means. There the mind shares objective as well.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 8:06:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its actually hard to put question in right way. Usually if question is put right way, it resolves itself. So pardon me if question is not well formed, thats part of the reason I'm it writing here.

Where do we start counting time some asked? Starting point of the orbit in case of the earth is relative to four cardinal points of seasons. As well day and night act as a starting points in shorter time scale. But what comes to evolutions of the solar system, one cannot really say the point until we can find some relative point either in whole planetary system or outside of it, maybe fixed to other star. But in all cases its just a matter definition and commonly accepted cardinal point one tries to find out from ever changing parts of the system.

What I also tried to ask was that if time is bending on sub and/or sur systems in relative theory? Thats fundamental I think because there are vehicles in vehicles in vehicles moving different speeds on space.

Say a ship moves in speed of light away from the earth. There are a lot of relative speeds we can examine. Compare the movement of a ship, food and supplies on a ship, atoms on a ship that itself are whirling in the half speed of light. Then think of passengers and the space itself, maybe it has a speed as well. Do you compare those speeds to the people that are walking on earth, or people who may orbit the earth with airplane, or to the speeds of the atoms in liver and heart? Don't you need to compare original speed of the ship to the earth rotation and orbiting speed around the sun as well, or against the speed of planetary system which is also moving forward. Was it that clocks got unsynchronized or that biological process got slower and faster? Can you see the problem?

There is a practical side of the phenomena, time cards. But neither that or the theory of the time is a question of life for me. Life goes on some reasonable way even we get late on work or don't understand how everything works. Its true being late on work may risk a career but as well one ability to prove or disaprove the unexistence of time may be fundamental to some scientists career. I still know people living on land, that start their day on sun rise and close it on set. Clocks not really needed.

Sure timing is hugely important on operational life. If you dont calculate your going in and out to NYC with a car, you may hit a huge traffic jam. If you calculate wrong when you run across the street, it may even be a question of life. But what we do here is actually predicting the movement and changes of objects to the relative movement of subjects. Its could be called time syncronization in essence.

If Einstein didn't tell that time can get slower, I would never even think about it more. I'd say its relative to the often cyclic moving objects and from psychological side to our conscious and it would be just a concept to understand certain things on world like kinetics and aging for example. But to say time can get slow is same as to claim its as real as space and objects and forces. Its not just a concept, but a fact as we would say. And you can affect, bend and change it with a mysterious speed of light. What makes thing even more complicated is that, before Einstein time was an absolute fact in science, after Einstein it turned to a relative fact. Problem is, that I cannot see it as a fact at all. I can see only energy and changes relative to other changes.

http://plus.maths.org...

Ok, I'm getting around and around. I found original four Einstein papers, that might interest some readers:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. EINSTEIN June 30, 1905
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de...

http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de...

I think without understanding the speed of light as a constant as Einstein presented it, its impossible to understand what he meant with his time concept.
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 8:17:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 8:41:46 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/17/2012 7:57:59 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Time is a measurement of rate of movement through space. But space as we know it doesn't really exist because there exists no absence of matter, and absence of matter is needed to create space. Therefore nothing can ever technically "move through space" therefore time is just a relativistic construct, not a physical reality.

I think I'm going to ask you to justify this. I can freely move about the room I'm in because there is an absence of matter preventing me from moving. So yes, objects can move through space because there is an absence of matter. The term, "space", may be the term we use to designate the area between planets and stars, and an absence of matter is a state of non-existence, so while matter cannot exist in a state of non-existence (which would be contradictory), how does this mean that objects cannot move through space? That's like saying I can't move through air.

Air IS matter.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 8:18:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 8:06:31 AM, markom wrote:
Its actually hard to put question in right way. Usually if question is put right way, it resolves itself. So pardon me if question is not well formed, thats part of the reason I'm it writing here.

Where do we start counting time some asked? Starting point of the orbit in case of the earth is relative to four cardinal points of seasons. As well day and night act as a starting points in shorter time scale. But what comes to evolutions of the solar system, one cannot really say the point until we can find some relative point either in whole planetary system or outside of it, maybe fixed to other star. But in all cases its just a matter definition and commonly accepted cardinal point one tries to find out from ever changing parts of the system.

What I also tried to ask was that if time is bending on sub and/or sur systems in relative theory? Thats fundamental I think because there are vehicles in vehicles in vehicles moving different speeds on space.

Say a ship moves in speed of light away from the earth. There are a lot of relative speeds we can examine. Compare the movement of a ship, food and supplies on a ship, atoms on a ship that itself are whirling in the half speed of light. Then think of passengers and the space itself, maybe it has a speed as well. Do you compare those speeds to the people that are walking on earth, or people who may orbit the earth with airplane, or to the speeds of the atoms in liver and heart? Don't you need to compare original speed of the ship to the earth rotation and orbiting speed around the sun as well, or against the speed of planetary system which is also moving forward. Was it that clocks got unsynchronized or that biological process got slower and faster? Can you see the problem?

There is a practical side of the phenomena, time cards. But neither that or the theory of the time is a question of life for me. Life goes on some reasonable way even we get late on work or don't understand how everything works. Its true being late on work may risk a career but as well one ability to prove or disaprove the unexistence of time may be fundamental to some scientists career. I still know people living on land, that start their day on sun rise and close it on set. Clocks not really needed.

Sure timing is hugely important on operational life. If you dont calculate your going in and out to NYC with a car, you may hit a huge traffic jam. If you calculate wrong when you run across the street, it may even be a question of life. But what we do here is actually predicting the movement and changes of objects to the relative movement of subjects. Its could be called time syncronization in essence.

If Einstein didn't tell that time can get slower, I would never even think about it more. I'd say its relative to the often cyclic moving objects and from psychological side to our conscious and it would be just a concept to understand certain things on world like kinetics and aging for example. But to say time can get slow is same as to claim its as real as space and objects and forces. Its not just a concept, but a fact as we would say. And you can affect, bend and change it with a mysterious speed of light. What makes thing even more complicated is that, before Einstein time was an absolute fact in science, after Einstein it turned to a relative fact. Problem is, that I cannot see it as a fact at all. I can see only energy and changes relative to other changes.

http://plus.maths.org...

Ok, I'm getting around and around. I found original four Einstein papers, that might interest some readers:

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. EINSTEIN June 30, 1905
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de...

http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de...

I think without understanding the speed of light as a constant as Einstein presented it, its impossible to understand what he meant with his time concept.

no
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 8:27:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know for instance, I'm sitting in a chair right now. The wall is about 5 feet away, and there appears to be an absence of matter between myself and the wall. This allows me to experience myself moving through "space" if i were to walk from the chair to the wall. However, I would be walking through matter just the same, it is just that air molecules happen to seem to be moving at a higher atomic speed than the wall molecules. At an atomic level, there exists no area that is technically unoccupied by matter, so space doesn't exist outside of our perception - it's just a way to measure availability of movement, but if you were in a confined 'space' atomic movement would continue regardless of how much of it you would be experiencing, thus making space completely subjective - just like time. That's why 1 hour seems to last a long time in some cases, but 1 hour seems to also go by very quickly in other cases. The experience of these things are subjective thus revealing their inherent elasticity, and if these things aren't constant within our perception then they probably aren't solid truths, unlike in math in which 1 + 1 will always equal 2.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Sans_the_Ander
Posts: 133
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 8:58:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please tell me I'm not the only person who reads some of the stuff that's in the Philosophy section and feels like my brain is about to implode on itself... lol
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 2:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I didnt see special relative theory and time mentioned on this site that tries to explain the nature of time: http://www.thisistime.co.uk...

I can understand the part of motion and change, which defines time. But the problem is that relative theory of time is used on GPS navigation to correct signal processing and timing. So it seems time is something real thought relative.

"Atomic clocks have been used on jet planes and satellites to verify Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that time slows down as the velocity of one object relative to another increases." - http://science.jrank.org...

"Einstein showed that the only way this can happen is if time intervals and/or lengths change according to the speed of the system relative to the observer's frame of reference. This flies against our everyday experience but has since been demonstrated to hold in a number of very solid experiments. For example, scientists have shown that an atomic clock travelling at high speed in a jet plane ticks more slowly than its stationary counterpart." - http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...

"Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I can find statements, that its been proved by atomic clocks on airplanes and satellites. Now question is, if the ticking cycle of the objects is changed by gravity and speed of the vehicle, which gives the illusion of time is changing OR is time real after all no matter what clock, atomic, mechanical or biological you use, it will be affected?

Does Einsteins theory also mean, that aging process is slower on high speed, less gravital force affected vehicles? One can think of chemical reactions as a biological clocks...

And finally when traveller jumps back to the earth from high speed vehicle, I guess the velocity of the earth around the sun and its own axis is still same and traveller and people on earth jumps back to the same time?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 2:59:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time is the rate in which information is processed. The perception of time is heavily influenced by the sense you are using, and is determined by the rate that we process information.

The rate that the universe processes information is the universal speed limit.

Time is just causality in motion. Does it exist? It depends on how you define "exist".
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 3:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So yes, time is relative once you measure it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 3:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 3:00:45 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So yes, time is relative once you measure it.

Time is relative regardless if you measure it. i.e) a long time vs. a short time.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 3:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd consider that to be measurement, even if a fuzzy one.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 8:00:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 10:18:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Physical reality is just a concept.

That argument does not work in reality nor does saying time is relative. If you think it does, exercise it and see what happens. Be late and say time is relative and no one is really here. It won't work therefore the argument that either is relative is moot. It's a waste of brain thought as it can never be used in "reality" Reality is where you have to answer to people and do things you don't like. This is where we all live and this is where you will live your entire life. You can act like you are witty and smart by saying time and reality are just concepts. But in the end it all goes in the trash can of pointless babble.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 8:15:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 8:00:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/17/2012 10:18:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Physical reality is just a concept.

That argument does not work in reality nor does saying time is relative. If you think it does, exercise it and see what happens. Be late and say time is relative and no one is really here. It won't work therefore the argument that either is relative is moot. It's a waste of brain thought as it can never be used in "reality" Reality is where you have to answer to people and do things you don't like. This is where we all live and this is where you will live your entire life. You can act like you are witty and smart by saying time and reality are just concepts. But in the end it all goes in the trash can of pointless babble.

Actually, the understanding that time is relative will alter your experiences greatly.
Life is not only physical, and understanding how to control you perception of time can alter your emotions dramatically. To say it simply 'does not change anything' to think this way is totally false - it indeed changes a lot. Being late and saying 'time is relative' but still having missed the appointment says nothing about 'time' but about your ability to function in society. This concept is not used as a crutch, it is used to expand your intellect and intuition by understanding that the amount of actions or thoughts available in any certain amount of 'time' is elastic - that is to say time does not restrict us in any way other than the way in which we allow it to restrict us. Thus the inherent relativity of time is revealed.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 12:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The understanding of the relativity of time is the future of physics. Unlike other concepts in modern physics, time is still not understood very well.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 12:25:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 12:04:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The understanding of the relativity of time is the future of physics. Unlike other concepts in modern physics, time is still not understood very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

happened awhile ago.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:01:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time is a part of physical reality, the only thing man made is the units in which we measure time. The GPS system we use actually relies heavily on the fact that gravity stretches time, so if our GPS systems didn't take relativity into account, the clocks on board the satellites orbiting the Earth would not be synchronized with those on Earth. If time was just a man made concept, then how come gravity clearly has effects on time? I think the answer to the question, is self-evident.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:01:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Time is a part of physical reality, the only thing man made is the units in which we measure time. The GPS system we use actually relies heavily on the fact that gravity stretches time, so if our GPS systems didn't take relativity into account, the clocks on board the satellites orbiting the Earth would not be synchronized with those on Earth. If time was just a man made concept, then how come gravity clearly has effects on time? I think the answer to the question, is self-evident.

Rational, I agree with you.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:52:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 8:15:44 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/19/2012 8:00:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/17/2012 10:18:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Physical reality is just a concept.

That argument does not work in reality nor does saying time is relative. If you think it does, exercise it and see what happens. Be late and say time is relative and no one is really here. It won't work therefore the argument that either is relative is moot. It's a waste of brain thought as it can never be used in "reality" Reality is where you have to answer to people and do things you don't like. This is where we all live and this is where you will live your entire life. You can act like you are witty and smart by saying time and reality are just concepts. But in the end it all goes in the trash can of pointless babble.

Actually, the understanding that time is relative will alter your experiences greatly.
Life is not only physical, and understanding how to control you perception of time can alter your emotions dramatically. To say it simply 'does not change anything' to think this way is totally false - it indeed changes a lot. Being late and saying 'time is relative' but still having missed the appointment says nothing about 'time' but about your ability to function in society. This concept is not used as a crutch, it is used to expand your intellect and intuition by understanding that the amount of actions or thoughts available in any certain amount of 'time' is elastic - that is to say time does not restrict us in any way other than the way in which we allow it to restrict us. Thus the inherent relativity of time is revealed.

No, No it wont. I will still have to get up at the same "time" just like I do every morning. Thinking about time will in no way cause me to have experiences or alter my emotions. Nor will it cause you to have emotional experiences either.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%