Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Time

wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.
TheLastMan
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 1:44:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

Interesting topic, Nick :)
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 3:43:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

"Time is the essence", in contract management :D
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 5:59:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once." - Woody Allen
"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
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 8:10:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

More important what are you without time?

- Can one have consciousness without time?
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 8:45:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

Time is the effect of things getting displaced ( changing location ) in a system.

Time consist of regular time-tracking intervals ( nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days ) because virtually all things in nature have a frequency component to them ( repetitive oscillatory motion ), like the period of a planet in its orbit around a star, or the frequency of electro-magnetic radiation (the time it takes for light to complete 1 wave cycle ). The De Broglie wavelength theory also indicates that all matter is composed of internal natural frequencies. Thus the oscillatory nature of moving objects permits the displacement of things in the universe to be tracked by time intervals.

From this it can be determined that Time is nothing more than the displacement of physical objects in the universe.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 8:51:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The De Broglie Wavelength theory of matter is perfectly consistent with special relativity, for as an object approaches the speed of light, its internal frequency slows down. At the speed of light ( which is impossible for matter with mass to achieve ), an object's natural frequency ceases, thus it's internal clock stops.

Both the De Broglie Wavelength theory and special relativity indicate that time ceases for material objects that should ever traverse the universe at the speed of light.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 9:01:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Note: Frequency is defined as the number cycles in a specified unit of time. ( 1 cycle per second = 1 hertz )
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 9:58:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time has many definitions though. You can't give just one meaning and not include the others. But jut for ye sake of answering your question, time is something we all have whether it's long or short. In the long run time runs out for us individually but never stops going.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:00:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM, nummi wrote:
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.

Sounds like you are following the herd of the those who disdain the herd. There is some great irony there.

That is a nice and tidy explanation, but it seems to eliminate some of the great wonder of what time it and how it is different between frames of reference.

A massless photon traveling at the speed of light that never encounters matter would not change location, time, or frequency.

What you are describing is only related to matter with mass and it fails to account for why time is different for matter traveling at one speed versus matter traveling at a different speed when they don't influence each other, then come back into the same reference point.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:18:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 10:00:36 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM, nummi wrote:
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.

Sounds like you are following the herd of the those who disdain the herd. There is some great irony there.
So you're one of the herd. Why else would you say something like this? Why else would you be butthurt?

That is a nice and tidy explanation, but it seems to eliminate some of the great wonder of what time it and how it is different between frames of reference.
I don't even understand what you mean by this, so I'll just say - irrelevant.

A massless photon traveling at the speed of light that never encounters matter would not change location, time, or frequency.
One of the herd, gotcha.

What you are describing is only related to matter with mass and it fails to account for why time is different for matter traveling at one speed versus matter traveling at a different speed when they don't influence each other, then come back into the same reference point.
Perhaps the problem would get solved if you came out of herd mentality and herd "wisdom"? I bet it would do wonders for you.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:33:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM, nummi wrote:
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.

Two things here -- your interpretation of time seems to rely on its conceptual interpretation, with no regard to the fact that it's measurable as a force, which makes it objective, but relative based on aspects such as relative mass and speed. In other words, time travels differently based on the mass that occupies a space, and it also behaves differently based on the given speed of an object with mass.

Secondly, you seem to go in a circle -- if you consider time comparable to space, then you don't need to go much further to say that time is, itself, a dimension. Dimensions are essentially states with given spacial constraints. We are in the third dimension, because not only is there an up, down, left, and right, but there is also a depth through which we can move. The fourth dimension, on the other hand, seems to turn that depth into a loop, almost like what you would see when you look into two mirrors facing each other. The second dimension, on the other hand, has no depth, so you're confined to up, down, left, and right, and the first dimension is a straight line.

Space is explained in this way, because the Universe is assumed ultimately flat, which means that the way we move about must be given a certain state, instead of some static actuality.

The same is said of time, which is basically the frames through which we move within these spacial dimensions. Once again, these frames are not static, although they do have a terminal velocity. They can be slowed with extreme mass or speed, but their expenditure is necessary for the sensation of movement and existence, much how light is necessary for the sensation of sight.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:53:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 10:33:35 AM, Such wrote:
At 12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM, nummi wrote:
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.

Two things here -- your interpretation of time seems to rely on its conceptual interpretation, with no regard to the fact that it's measurable as a force, which makes it objective, but relative based on aspects such as relative mass and speed. In other words, time travels differently based on the mass that occupies a space, and it also behaves differently based on the given speed of an object with mass.
Exactly what I said, about the herd mentality and the not so nice things. You're a perfect example.

Secondly, you seem to go in a circle -- if you consider time comparable to space, then you don't need to go much further to say that time is, itself, a dimension. Dimensions are essentially states with given spacial constraints. We are in the third dimension, because not only is there an up, down, left, and right, but there is also a depth through which we can move. The fourth dimension, on the other hand, seems to turn that depth into a loop, almost like what you would see when you look into two mirrors facing each other. The second dimension, on the other hand, has no depth, so you're confined to up, down, left, and right, and the first dimension is a straight line.
I'm not going in a circle, not one bit. There are no "dimensions". Read my response to your first paragraph.

One thing I forgot to add, the dimensions. The x, y, z, etc., or up, down, left, right, etc., BS, all of it. You want proof? Like that's gonna happen...

The same is said of time, which is basically the frames through which we move within these spacial dimensions. Once again, these frames are not static, although they do have a terminal velocity. They can be slowed with extreme mass or speed, but their expenditure is necessary for the sensation of movement and existence, much how light is necessary for the sensation of sight.
Damn, you really are one of those as well.

The fact, of reality, remains that time and space are caused by the process of matter. Matter is what causes them, that's my point.
We, with our biological senses and our technological senses, can only perceive the process, the change, not the matter itself. We see the change and through that we try to explain the matter the best we can.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:58:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 10:18:59 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/30/2013 10:00:36 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM, nummi wrote:
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.

Sounds like you are following the herd of the those who disdain the herd. There is some great irony there.
So you're one of the herd. Why else would you say something like this? Why else would you be butthurt?

Lol, defensive are we? I just enjoy pointing out how people with an inflated self sense of importance are really just like everyone else. I mean really? Do you really think you have original thought?

That is a nice and tidy explanation, but it seems to eliminate some of the great wonder of what time it and how it is different between frames of reference.
I don't even understand what you mean by this, so I'll just say - irrelevant.

If you don't know what that is referring to you, should not comment on this topic.

A massless photon traveling at the speed of light that never encounters matter would not change location, time, or frequency.
One of the herd, gotcha.

I'll believe you when you get some math and observable facts to back your original thoughts up. Let's start with this. Why does light bend when traveling around the sun or massive objects?

What you are describing is only related to matter with mass and it fails to account for why time is different for matter traveling at one speed versus matter traveling at a different speed when they don't influence each other, then come back into the same reference point.
Perhaps the problem would get solved if you came out of herd mentality and herd "wisdom"? I bet it would do wonders for you.

lol, defensive again. Are you a card carrying member of the anti-herd herd?
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 11:59:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

"A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future." "measured or measurable interval"

I think it is objective. It just keeps ticking away no matter what else is going on. Because when I was younger there were circumstances when I wished it would speed up a little bit. Now I sometimes wish it would slow down. But what I want doesn't seem to affect it.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 12:26:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 9:58:30 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Time has many definitions though. You can't give just one meaning and not include the others. But jut for ye sake of answering your question, time is something we all have whether it's long or short. In the long run time runs out for us individually but never stops going.

Hey I like this one, food for thought.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 3:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time is a space between two points, much like length. However, one measures just the space between two physical objects. Time is not quite so simple. Measuring the space between two moments, essentially between experiences. In other words, it's a perceptual distance between things we perceive. It's doubly subjective. That's why different cultures perceive it differently, some dispensing with any and all words regarding it and its passage.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 3:46:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 3:05:38 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Time is a space between two points, much like length. However, one measures just the space between two physical objects. Time is not quite so simple. Measuring the space between two moments, essentially between experiences. In other words, it's a perceptual distance between things we perceive. It's doubly subjective. That's why different cultures perceive it differently, some dispensing with any and all words regarding it and its passage.

Well, the first window at the drive through of the McDonads down the street is one point. I occupied it yesterday, but not today. Someone else occupied it an hour later than I did yesterday. However, we weren't fused together, even though we occupied the same spacial point. We must have been separated by something else besides space. Time.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 3:58:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Well, the first window at the drive through of the McDonads down the street is one point. I occupied it yesterday, but not today. Someone else occupied it an hour later than I did yesterday. However, we weren't fused together, even though we occupied the same spacial point. We must have been separated by something else besides space. Time."

You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm not saying time doesn't exist. I'm saying that it's passage is perceptual. Our concept of it is too. It has presence as a measure of separation, I said that from the outset.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 5:09:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 12:43:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Time is an emergent property from quantum entanglement apparently:

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time Emerges from Entanglement

https://medium.com...

I'm not certain I fully follow this. If it indeed were emergent from entanglement, would not all matter need to be entangled?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 7:35:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 8:51:00 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
The De Broglie Wavelength theory of matter is perfectly consistent with special relativity, for as an object approaches the speed of light, its internal frequency slows down. At the speed of light ( which is impossible for matter with mass to achieve ), an object's natural frequency ceases, thus it's internal clock stops.

Both the De Broglie Wavelength theory and special relativity indicate that time ceases for material objects that should ever traverse the universe at the speed of light.

That's not entirely accurate, the phenomenon of time dilation is a matter of relative frames of reference, time does not slow down for the object in motion, it passes at a constant rate, it only appears to slow down from the frame of reference of a stationary observer (stationary with respect to the object moving at or near the speed of light). Consequently, from the frame of reference of the traveling object, the objects natural frequency doesn't cease, nor does it's internal clock stop, these phenomenon are only as measured differently with respect to an outside observer that is stationary.

That feels like it was a clumsy was to say it, but the concept is there.
"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
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 7:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 7:35:02 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/30/2013 8:51:00 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
The De Broglie Wavelength theory of matter is perfectly consistent with special relativity, for as an object approaches the speed of light, its internal frequency slows down. At the speed of light ( which is impossible for matter with mass to achieve ), an object's natural frequency ceases, thus it's internal clock stops.

Both the De Broglie Wavelength theory and special relativity indicate that time ceases for material objects that should ever traverse the universe at the speed of light.

That's not entirely accurate, the phenomenon of time dilation is a matter of relative frames of reference, time does not slow down for the object in motion, it passes at a constant rate, it only appears to slow down from the frame of reference of a stationary observer (stationary with respect to the object moving at or near the speed of light). Consequently, from the frame of reference of the traveling object, the objects natural frequency doesn't cease, nor does it's internal clock stop, these phenomenon are only as measured differently with respect to an outside observer that is stationary.

That feels like it was a clumsy was to say it, but the concept is there.

It's very accurate. To the stationary observer the moving object's frequency slows down, thus to the observer the moving object's clock slows down. The stationary observer sees that the moving object's sense of time elapsation is dependent and consistent with its frequency.

What I have stated is accurate. Now, Einstein used the concept of inertia reference frames to explain this phenomena; De Broglie used the concept of matter waves and matter frequencies to explicate a relationship. As a material object approaches the speed of light, its frequency slows down, as does its sense of time.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 7:57:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll put it to you another way in case you get lost.

A moving object's relativistic frequency ( from the perspective of a stationary observer ) is exactly proportional to it's time dilation. As its frequency decreases, its time dilation expands. The matter frequency serves as its internal clock.

I've actually been doing work on this very topic over the last year, for a public science project.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 9:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 10:58:58 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2013 10:18:59 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/30/2013 10:00:36 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/30/2013 8:43:35 AM, nummi wrote:
Time is made up by humans, as a means of measurement.

Then there's the other version, usually regarded as a basis of our universe.
Time is not a force, a "dimension", or whatever else, as a fundamental part of our universe, as people generally tend to regard it. People in general simply repeat what they've been told or they've heard, without putting any objective thought into it. Or they are as well told how to think about it, instead of "finding their own way". And they're not told just a little bit 'cause that'd be just guidance and as such nothing wrong; they're told in minute detail how to think on the subject. Dafuq?!?! They're basically told how to use their own mind... Funny how credulous and herd-minded most people are, little to no individuality.

The right way to regard "time" would be as "the process of matter". You know, the particles and stuff that our universe is made of, those things affecting each other, influencing each other, as a result they change locations, frequencies, and whatever else - change occurs. Time - the effect of matter influencing each other; change - process of matter.

We, too, are in constant change, the particles nudging each other. Could say we are of time, as we can only exist if matter does its thing.

The same about "space" - the effect of the process of matter.

Sounds like you are following the herd of the those who disdain the herd. There is some great irony there.
So you're one of the herd. Why else would you say something like this? Why else would you be butthurt?

Lol, defensive are we? I just enjoy pointing out how people with an inflated self sense of importance are really just like everyone else. I mean really? Do you really think you have original thought?
Nope. Not defensive but replying in kind.
Apparently you haven't realized how perfectly "an inflated self sense of importance" applies to you. Really, look at yourself.
I don't have "and inflated self sense of importance", and I honestly can't think of any reason as to why you'd even think this way other than the fact that I'm, obviously, right in the first place, and you got very butthurt, indicating you're actually one of the "herd".

Have I ever said I have an original point? No. If I thought it had never been conceived before, if it was "original", I would have included this.
Now as to a thought, yes, that is original, original because it is mine, because I came to it without referring to anything similar beforehand. While everything you have said is based on what you have been taught without contemplating the actual veracity, and so you just repeat what you've been told and think the way you were taught to think.

It's funny how you contribute your own qualities to me. Do you do that with everyone you argue with?

That is a nice and tidy explanation, but it seems to eliminate some of the great wonder of what time it and how it is different between frames of reference.
I don't even understand what you mean by this, so I'll just say - irrelevant.

If you don't know what that is referring to you, should not comment on this topic.
I think you should reread my first post and think over the part about credulousness and herd-mindedness, and a lack of individuality. But then that part describes you so well I don't think you'd be capable of understanding it, as you already have demonstrated with your butthurtedness.

You're the one who's stuck with herd mentality, as result can think by taught set of rules. Maybe you shouldn't comment on this topic, as you can provide nothing new, nothing original. Rinse and repeat... damn how well this worked on your mind, and still is in effect.

A massless photon traveling at the speed of light that never encounters matter would not change location, time, or frequency.
One of the herd, gotcha.

I'll believe you when you get some math and observable facts to back your original thoughts up. Let's start with this. Why does light bend when traveling around the sun or massive objects?
If you want proof look around yourself by first ditching your herd qualities. You are, presently, not capable of your original thinking; your thinking is based on how you've been taught to think about this subject. You are biased.

As to the question, for fvck's sake, reread my original post and expand from there. You hear this topic mentioned and immediately you turn to your taught knowledge and ways of thinking. The problem is not me, the problem is you and your biased mind.

What you are describing is only related to matter with mass and it fails to account for why time is different for matter traveling at one speed versus matter traveling at a different speed when they don't influence each other, then come back into the same reference point.
Perhaps the problem would get solved if you came out of herd mentality and herd "wisdom"? I bet it would do wonders for you.

lol, defensive again. Are you a card carrying member of the anti-herd herd?
Still not defensive. I just don't see much point arguing with someone who's very strongly biased, and as a result gets butthurt and such, and as result of that goes on the defensive, and offensive. Other than for entertainment, of course.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 10:55:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 7:57:00 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I'll put it to you another way in case you get lost.

A moving object's relativistic frequency ( from the perspective of a stationary observer ) is exactly proportional to it's time dilation. As its frequency decreases, its time dilation expands. The matter frequency serves as its internal clock.

I've actually been doing work on this very topic over the last year, for a public science project.

Ah, crap!

I explained this wrong. The De Broglie wavelength theory shows that the matter frequency and time dilation of a moving object are exactly inversely proportional!

After looking at my notes, I realized that time dilation of a particle is proportional to the actual matter frequency divided by the object's wavespeed. (It's a too complicated to explain it here.)
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 11:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
LOL . . .

And replace "time dilation" with "time escapement" in my last post.

(Time escapement is the passage of time as perceived by the moving object.)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 9:33:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:29:46 AM, wordy wrote:
Define Time. What is time? Is it an entity or a thing that flows? Is it subjective or objective? What is it? Discuss about it.

To me it describes the "order" of, and "rate of change" of, well, whatever is in the domain of time. At least our universe and the things within it as we know them.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!