Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

What is time?

Fouler4990
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?
------------------------------------------
the well wisher of humanity
~ Fouler4990
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

I don't think you can define it - to define something means to represent it in terms of other abstractions and time is unique.

It's like asking to define 'awareness' such concepts are so fundamentally unique that they cannot be expressed in terms of other things - when we do try we end up being unable to define some of these other things.

Harry.
Fouler4990
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:34:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

I don't think you can define it - to define something means to represent it in terms of other abstractions and time is unique.

It's like asking to define 'awareness' such concepts are so fundamentally unique that they cannot be expressed in terms of other things - when we do try we end up being unable to define some of these other things.

Harry.

So, this will mean that 'time' means nothing and hence it's just a 'word burden' in English language?
------------------------------------------
the well wisher of humanity
~ Fouler4990
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 12:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:34:24 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

I don't think you can define it - to define something means to represent it in terms of other abstractions and time is unique.

It's like asking to define 'awareness' such concepts are so fundamentally unique that they cannot be expressed in terms of other things - when we do try we end up being unable to define some of these other things.

Harry.

So, this will mean that 'time' means nothing and hence it's just a 'word burden' in English language?

Well you know it might - think about it - all of Physics & Mathematical Physics rests on this reality.

Every physical abstraction like "field" or "charge" or "mass" or "space" is the same - impossible to define unless we define them in terms of other undefinables.

The harsh reality is that science never really explains anything at a fundamental level - there is a limit to what we can "know" about reality and uncertainty, mystery is always present and always will be.

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 12:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mathematically, there is nothing really special about time. There aren't many ways it is really treated fundamentally differently from other special dimensions.

The only thing we really be thought to perceive is entropy, or the increase in entropy. It is nonviolation of entropy that explains why we can't remember what hasn't happened yet.

The universe could be collapsing right now and time travelling backwards, and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

Well, it"s certainly incomplete, there are several ways to define time.

In general, time is a measurement of change, it"s a non-spatial dimension in which events, processes or conditions exist and are sequentially arranged.

In physics, time is a fundamental quantity that is defined by the measurement of change, it is something that a clock measures.

In Einstein"s General Relativity, time doesn"t have separate existence, it"s a component of a geometric coordinate system which has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, this continuum is curved by the presence of matter (gravity), and is measured differently by observers moving at high speeds relative to each other.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:51:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

Time is the measurement of sequential inertial frames. Inertial frames are essentially, the Universe assumed paused. It's almost like reality sparsed into frames of a film. However, it is not the frames that are moving, but instead, we are that moving through each frame. If all movements and energy expressions were to immediately cease, then so would inertial frames. However, it requires inertial frame expenditure in order to move or express energy.

Accordingly, as living beings that inevitably move and must express energy in order to exist, we naturally perceive inertial frames as a necessary part of being. However, that's only from our frame of reference. On the other hand, that frame of reference is technically universal, since everything in the Universe moves and/or expresses energy.

Abstract, I know.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:54:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also: our sensation of time is also governed by the frame rate at which we perceive reality, which are not necessarily inertial frames per se, but instead, actual image frames that we perceive with our eyes, which is at approximately 40 fps.

I imagine that blind beings perceive time differently than most, but they nonetheless often use sequential sensory adaptations in order to simulate it, like short, repeated sounds.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also: this is why the speed at which an observer is moving affects that person's sensation of time.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:00:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Baby don't slow me
Don't slow me
No more

Seriously though, time is a measurement based on what we observe.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Money.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 10:46:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 9:00:43 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Baby don't slow me
Don't slow me
No more

Seriously though, time is a measurement based on what we observe.

So if we didn't observe it there would be no time?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 10:47:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:55:44 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Also: this is why the speed at which an observer is moving affects that person's sensation of time.

Moving clocks run slow, basically you're increasing the distance with which your clocks tick by virtue of motion.
Fouler4990
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:01:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 12:10:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:34:24 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

I don't think you can define it - to define something means to represent it in terms of other abstractions and time is unique.

It's like asking to define 'awareness' such concepts are so fundamentally unique that they cannot be expressed in terms of other things - when we do try we end up being unable to define some of these other things.

Harry.

So, this will mean that 'time' means nothing and hence it's just a 'word burden' in English language?

Well you know it might - think about it - all of Physics & Mathematical Physics rests on this reality.

Every physical abstraction like "field" or "charge" or "mass" or "space" is the same - impossible to define unless we define them in terms of other undefinables.

The harsh reality is that science never really explains anything at a fundamental level - there is a limit to what we can "know" about reality and uncertainty, mystery is always present and always will be.

Harry.

I agree with you, but look at this way, every word has a meaning and the meaning defines the word. Hence the meaning itself is the definition of a word.
When we say: any matter contains a certain amount of substance. This is true. In physics, it's termed as 'mass'. Hence 'mass' means the amount of substance that something contains. This is the meaning of 'mass', hence this is the definition.
But you termed 'time' as a unique and undefinable word. So, since it is undefinable, it has no meaning.
Have I gone wrong somewhere in describing the word 'definition'? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
------------------------------------------
the well wisher of humanity
~ Fouler4990
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 6:14:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The dilemma is that time is never defined as itself, it"s not itself observable and so it"s always a function of the relationships between other things and so it only describes how different variables are related to one another. That introduces a very strange problem that physics is currently trying to deal with, which is that time may not even exist.

While time, along with space, has always been seen to be a foundational property of the universe, like the fundamental stage upon which reality happens, it now looks like it is only a property that emerges on a macroscopic level from a deeper reality that doesn"t contain it.

The problem started when Einstein destroyed the idea of time as a universal constant, he established the passage of time as subjective with the consequence that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Relativity gives us a primordial singularity in which time did not exist, it only emerged as a property as that singularity expanded.

Then that damn quantum physics came along and everything went to hell in a hand basket. It challenges the conceptual primacy of time itself telling us that there is a smallest unit of time, below the Planck scale there isn"t anything between two units of time. Now physics needs to unify Relativity and Quantum physics to make sense of it all and practically the only thing anybody working on that problem agrees on is that to do so, time and space will have to be quantized, they will need to conceived of as particles. The problem with time and space as particles is where exactly do those particles get to exist, and if they are particles that came into being as the singularity expanded, from what and how did that happen? In the end you have physicists working on the process by which time emerged when you can"t have a process without time, and they are trying to quantize time and space into particles that don"t have a place to be.

When you ask the hard questions about all this, all they can tell us is that everything is contingent upon a deeper reality that we can"t even fathom in which we live and move and have our being. It seems we"ve come full circle because I know that is something I"ve read somewhere before.

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
T.S. Eliot
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:35:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:01:17 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 12:10:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:34:24 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

I don't think you can define it - to define something means to represent it in terms of other abstractions and time is unique.

It's like asking to define 'awareness' such concepts are so fundamentally unique that they cannot be expressed in terms of other things - when we do try we end up being unable to define some of these other things.

Harry.

So, this will mean that 'time' means nothing and hence it's just a 'word burden' in English language?

Well you know it might - think about it - all of Physics & Mathematical Physics rests on this reality.

Every physical abstraction like "field" or "charge" or "mass" or "space" is the same - impossible to define unless we define them in terms of other undefinables.

The harsh reality is that science never really explains anything at a fundamental level - there is a limit to what we can "know" about reality and uncertainty, mystery is always present and always will be.

Harry.

I agree with you, but look at this way, every word has a meaning and the meaning defines the word. Hence the meaning itself is the definition of a word.
When we say: any matter contains a certain amount of substance. This is true. In physics, it's termed as 'mass'. Hence 'mass' means the amount of substance that something contains. This is the meaning of 'mass', hence this is the definition.
But you termed 'time' as a unique and undefinable word. So, since it is undefinable, it has no meaning.
Have I gone wrong somewhere in describing the word 'definition'? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're confusing defintion with expression - we can indeed express 'mass' as you demonstrate but that adds no new knolwedge or insight whereas a defintion does or should.

If I defined a computer as a machine composed of a CPU, memory, etc then that gives you insight, it describes the structure and composition of the thing.

But with mass, time or charge this is not really possible I mean telling me that mass is defined in terms of 'substance' tells me nothing unless 'substance' is defined; electrical charge is a good example - try finding a definition for it.

Harry.
Fouler4990
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:03:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:35:46 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:01:17 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 12:10:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:34:24 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

I don't think you can define it - to define something means to represent it in terms of other abstractions and time is unique.

It's like asking to define 'awareness' such concepts are so fundamentally unique that they cannot be expressed in terms of other things - when we do try we end up being unable to define some of these other things.

Harry.

So, this will mean that 'time' means nothing and hence it's just a 'word burden' in English language?

Well you know it might - think about it - all of Physics & Mathematical Physics rests on this reality.

Every physical abstraction like "field" or "charge" or "mass" or "space" is the same - impossible to define unless we define them in terms of other undefinables.

The harsh reality is that science never really explains anything at a fundamental level - there is a limit to what we can "know" about reality and uncertainty, mystery is always present and always will be.

Harry.

I agree with you, but look at this way, every word has a meaning and the meaning defines the word. Hence the meaning itself is the definition of a word.
When we say: any matter contains a certain amount of substance. This is true. In physics, it's termed as 'mass'. Hence 'mass' means the amount of substance that something contains. This is the meaning of 'mass', hence this is the definition.
But you termed 'time' as a unique and undefinable word. So, since it is undefinable, it has no meaning.
Have I gone wrong somewhere in describing the word 'definition'? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're confusing defintion with expression - we can indeed express 'mass' as you demonstrate but that adds no new knolwedge or insight whereas a defintion does or should.

If I defined a computer as a machine composed of a CPU, memory, etc then that gives you insight, it describes the structure and composition of the thing.

But with mass, time or charge this is not really possible I mean telling me that mass is defined in terms of 'substance' tells me nothing unless 'substance' is defined; electrical charge is a good example - try finding a definition for it.

Harry.

I see what you mean now. Thank you for the clarification.
------------------------------------------
the well wisher of humanity
~ Fouler4990
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:53:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

Yes. Time is the number of minutes you are late for work and number of hours worked. Otherwise it has no meaning.
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%
Fouler4990
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 12:53:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:53:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:20:09 AM, Fouler4990 wrote:
Hello everybody. I'm new to this forum so, I don't know wheather this topic was touched earlier or not. Excuse me if it has been.

Time is a measurement of period of an event. So it's just a rate of change which varies due to acceleration or due to the presence of gravity.
Is this definition faulty?

Yes. Time is the number of minutes you are late for work and number of hours worked. Otherwise it has no meaning.

That would be philosophical point of view, not scientific.
------------------------------------------
the well wisher of humanity
~ Fouler4990