Time.

[aguy2]

The discernable nature of time

 

"Time's passage seems totally dependent upon local conditions."

 

Has the nature of time' date=' that the physicists know, bear some 'real' relationship to such things as 'emotions' and 'feelings'?

[/quote']

The model I alluded to in post 75 postulates that the 'regression' part of the cycle could very well have coincided with the first discernable evidence of 'biological life'. Could that which distinguishs 'biological life' from other 'complex systems' be associated with the onset of the cosmological 'regression'?

 

aguy2

[Saryctos]

2) Why do we maintain the persistent illusion that our existence is somehow 'accumulating' time, when every beat of our heart brings us closer to our demise?

 

I was just answering the question on the psychology of the matter. And I think I am in agreement with you aswell?

[aguy2]

And I think I am in agreement with you aswell?

 

I like the question mark. There are times when I think I am not in agreement with myself to?

 

aguy2

[brad89]

I personally believe (no proof) that time is just energy. Just as matter corresponds to space, energy corresponds to time. Since you cannot have matter without energy, or energy without matter, it is just like space-time concepts, and the two are inseperable.

[aguy2]

Just as matter corresponds to space, energy corresponds to time. Since you cannot have matter without energy, or energy without matter, it is just like space-time concepts, and the two are inseperable.

 

The idea of time/space being a conserved system like matter/energy seems to work particularly well in a oscillating/cyclic series of sub-universes when each cycle is concidered to be something complete in of itself.

 

As in: At the BB event the universe had all the time it was ever going to have and none of the space. As space expands, time contracts till when space is at its maximum egression the universe has run out of time and the BC era (Big Crunch) begins.

 

Of course one would seem to need a term like 'times' if one talks about a series of oscillation/cycles.

 

aguy2

[amrit]

In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. The process of experiencing of motion (physical time) is following:

 

motion......perception(eyes)......elaboration(mind-time frame)......experience(observer)

 

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

 

A- motion (physical time)

B- mind-time frame (psychological time)

C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)

 

 

Physical time (motion) is a physical quantity measured by clocks. With clocks we measure duration of the movement of body or particle regarding another body or particle. There is no still observer which can observe all the movements from a still stand point. All the movements are relative. This is the main insight of the SR.

According to the Mach Planck definition in a Planck time a photon pass Planck distance. Time is a movement of a photon into Planck distance. The movement of photon into Planck distance is a "smallest" movement possible in the universe. Planck time t is a number that indicates the duration of the photon travelling in a Planck distance.

All in the universe is energy: cosmic space is energy, matter is energy, light is energy...... Time is a movement of energy, time can not run by itself into space. If it would be so, time would be an energy, but there is no formula in physics where time is energy.

 

1. In The Theory of Relativity time can be understood as a part of space only in sense that all movement exists in space. Motion and space can not be separated. Bodies and particles do not move in a space-time, all movement exists in space only. Space-time exist only as a math model, it does not exist in the universe itself.

 

The idea that time run by itself into cosmic space is from the times of Newton. At his time physics was a part of metaphysics. The idea is from metaphysics, it is not from physics. By Einstein the Newton idea that time runs independently into space and that movement of material bodies runs into time is half abandoned. In the Theory of Relativity duration of the movement (time) is described with t that is only a component of fourth dimension of space X4.

 

X4 = i x c x t

 

where

 

i (i square is -1) is an imaginary number

c is speed of light

t is a duration of light moving through the cosmic space from the object A to the object B

 

With clocks we measure duration of the movement of the light (duration of time). All four dimensions of cosmic space are spatial, cosmic space is not 3D + 1T, cosmic space is 4D.

 

Matter is three-dimensional, cosmic space is four-dimensional. When material object is moving in space, space is always also inside of it. Space does not finishes on the surface of material object, it extends also inside of it. One can imagine that as a two-dimensional object moving in a three-dimensional space. Two-dimensional object exists in three-dimensional space, but three-dimensional space exists also in the two-dimensional object.

 

The speed of the motion (time) depends on a density D of space. Density D in centre of planet or star is D = m x G, where m is a mass and G is gravitational constant. Density D is diminishing with the distance r on square from the centre of the star. Speed of time is increasing with the diminishing of density D. Clocks run faster on the top of the high mountain and slower at the sea side under the mountain. Density of space is higher at sea side and lover on the top of the mountain.

 

Density of space is increasing by going towards the sun. Time (speed of bodies and particles) is becoming slower by going towards the sun. That's the cause of "Mercury perihelion dilate".

 

2. Quanta of space which compose cosmic space have the following features: they change their electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time (5.39x10^-44s), vibrate at the “basic frequency” 0.19x10^44s-1 , have a “basic energy” given by the relation Eqs = h*0.19x10^44s-1 where h is Planck’s constant (6.626069x10^34Js ), and thus Eqs = 1.26x10^10J .

QS of cosmic space can not be created and can not be destroyed, they have no entropy.

 

Gravitational force acts between that build quanta of space that QS build up cosmic space. The "radius of action "of gravitational force is of a Planck size. Every QS attract the QS around it. Between QS near by the moon and QS near by the earth gravitation acts on the distance and instantly via QS that are between them.

 

Gravitational force is carried directly by the density of QS that build up cosmic space. Density D of QS of a given volume of cosmic space depends on the density of matter contained in it:

 

formula 1: D = m x G

 

where D is the density of QS in the centre of the material object, m is the mass of the object and G is the gravitational constant. The gravitational force Fg between two material objects is given by the following relation:

 

 

 

where r is the distance between the centers of the two material objects.

 

Gravitational force Fg on material body or on a particle that has a mass m depends on the density G of space.

 

Fg = (m x D) / ( r x r )

 

where m is a mass of a body or particle, D is the density if space in a centre of planet or star, r is the distance from the centre of the planet or star; r can be shorter or longer as t the radius of the planet or star.

 

In a centre of the planet or star Fg on a material object or mass particle is:

 

Fg = (m x D) m10^-2

 

Gravitational acceleration a in a given distance r from the centre of the planet or star is:

 

a = (m x G) / (r x r)

 

m is a mass of planet or star,

G is gravitational constant

r is a distance from a centre

 

 

According to the formula 1: D = m x G

 

a = D ( r x r )

 

where D is the density of space in the centre of planet or star and r is a distance from the centre

 

 

3. Relation between mass m of particle and density of space D into it is:

D = m x G

where G is gravitational constant. The density of space inside of the same atom is higher on the earth than on the moon, because on the earth the density of space is higher than on the moon. The same atom will have a bigger weight on the earth than on the moon. But its density D that defines its mass will remain the same. So by moving through the space the weight of particles changes, but its mass remains the same. Photon is an exception here. Around the photon there is no additional density D of cosmic space, so photon has no weight and no mass.

 

Energy of matter and energy of space inside of a material object or mass particle are in equilibrium, equal: Espace ( Es ) = Ematter ( Em )

 

Es = Em = m x cc, ( D = m x G)

 

where m is a mass of the object, c is speed of light, D is density of space around the object and G is gravitational constant.

 

Es = Em = (D x cc) / G

 

Energy of space Es inside of particle or material object depends on the density of space D.

 

First experiments that proves mass increasing of particles that moves fast were done about 100 years ago. The faster the elementary particle, the bigger will be its mass. We call that “The Relativistic Mass Increase”.

 

The formula E = 0.5m x vv shows the relationship between the increase in mass of the relativistic particle and its increase in kinetic energy.

 

In this formula we can change m with D/G and we will get the formula:

 

E = (0.5D x vv) / G

 

which shows clearly that the kinetic energy of particle depends on the density D of space into it and on the speed v

 

The mass of accelerated particle is increasing because the with the speed increasing the density around the particle is increasing.

 

Density of space is increasing also inside of the inertial system that moves with the higher speed regarding the inertial system that moves with the lower speed. This higher density of space causes the speed of clocks is slower into the faster inertial system.

 

Higher density of cosmic space inside of an fast inertial system is the bridge SR and GR. In SR the speed of inertial system causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space, in GR the mass causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space. “Inertial mass” and “gravitational mass” of a material object or particle are equal because the density of cosmic space in inertial mass and gravitational mass is equal.

 

Let’s say we are in a fast space ship that travels far away from the stars and planets in cosmic space with low density. With increasing of the speed of the space ship the density of cosmic space into it will increase. By attaining a certain speed the density of the space in the space ship will be equal to the density on the surface of the earth. Space ship travel than with this constant speed. We have two material bodies that are identical. Both of bodies will behave in exact the same way in the space ship and on the surface of the earth. The density D of space in both bodies is equal. This means the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

 

4. Cosmic space is composed by quanta of space (QS) having the size of Planck length. Light is a physical event in which photons are "jumping" from one quantum of space to another in a Planck time. Cosmic space is a medium of light, inertial systems move through the cosmic space. That's why the speed of light is “maximum speed” in the universe and it is same in all inertial systems.

 

Light has a double particle-wave nature simultaneously. A single photon jumping from one quantum of space to another in its trajectory is the central part - particle. The “chain jumping” of the photon changes the frequency of the QS on its trajectory from its basic frequency to the frequency of the photon. The central part of the photon also changes the vibration of QS around its trajectory that is its circumference part - wave.

 

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe photon's particle-part or we can settle instruments differently and observe the wave's part of the photon.

When we settle instruments to observe a particle, we will observe (detect) the particle part of the photon, when we settle instruments to observe a wave, we will observe (detect) the wave part of the photon. Scientist (Observer) should not play any role in this experiment.

 

5. When a star has a mass of 3,2 masses of sun in its centre the density of cosmic space is so strong that gravitation overpowers all other forces. Matter transforms back into quanta of space (QS) that build up cosmic space.

 

Beyond Schwarzschild Radius gravity is so strong that prevails above all other forces. All elementary particles transform back into the energy of cosmic space. Matter and space are made out of the same “stuff”. Black holes are the “fabric” where matter transforms back into space. In big explosions of AGN space transforms back into matter.

Universe is composed by one energy. The basic packets of this one energy are QS. Energy is circulating continuously “space-matter-space-matter-…”. Universe is a self-renewing system. There was no beginning and there will be no end.

 

Schwarzschild Radius Rs is:

 

Rs = (2G x m) / (c x c)

 

G is gravitational constant

m is mass of the stellar object

 

According to the formula (1) D = G x m

D is the density of cosmic space in the centre of the black hole

 

Rs = 2D / (c x c)

 

Inside Rs gravitation has no direction, density of space does not increases towards the centre of the black hole. The area inside of Rs is a fabric where matter transforms back into the QS of cosmic space.

 

 

A mass has a weight when it is in a space where density changes, it has a direction. At the “weightless” Lagrange point between earth and sun happens that density D of space is stable, there is no change of density, no direction. So gravity is there because gravity is carried by the quanta of space QS, and QS build up cosmic space also at the “weightless point”. If it would be no gravitation at the “weightless point” earth would fly away long time ago.

A body at Lagrange point will not move, but this does not mean that gravitational force is not there.

 

Diminishing of the speed of binary pulsar is caused by the transformation of matter back into the energy of cosmic space in the centre of one star of the binary pulsar. With transformation of matter into space the mass one stars is diminishing, and so also the speed of the binary pulsar is diminishing. There is no gravitational radiation, gravitational waves do not exist.

 

Time decrease of the orbital period of the binary pulsar PRS1913+16 is the result of matter transforming back into space in the centre of one star. This diminishes the mass of the star, diminishing of the mass causes diminishing of the speed of rotation, and so time decrease of the orbital period.

[KaiduOrkhon]

A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs:

'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.'

- A (popularly deluded) bumpersticker mentality.

 

Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). A month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute.

 

Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun.

Sums up the bumper-stickered, satanistically inspired hallucination. Its about time. Time has come today.

 

Non-Absolute Relativistic 4-D space-time. What it is:

Time, furthermore, in 4 dimensions, is shorter and faster in smaller, past (microcosmic) spaces, and slower (dilated) in future (macrocosmic) larger spaces; when compared to present time at any given moment of an observer in the eternal present: exactly between small fast space and large slow space. A square mile is not the same spatial size, when compared with itself; from the present: relative to (smaller, more dense) past or (larger, less dense) future 4-D expanding space.

 

Neither therefore, is 60 miles per hour (or 186,282 m.p.s.) always the same speed. Or a year, month, week, day, hour - or a second, always the same comparative duration.

 

Proving that the value of time varies with the value of space it occurs in.

 

Refer relativistic time dilation. Slow time occurring in relatively larger spaces; fast time occurr ing in relatively smaller spaces. The relativity of time values. For which, until here and now, there are not even any failed explanations.

 

Of course, in a 4-D universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) quite inevitably varies, from coordinate system to coordinate system. The speed of light for example, is ever-increasing, while remaining constant, relative to the coordinate system in which it originates and from which it is measured. The value of time being covariant with the smaller and larger - earlier and later - 4-D space-times it occurs and/or is measured in.

 

- Excerpted from Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions. The non-mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory. The Big Bang Theory (hypothesis) is Wrong', by K. B. Robertson

[KaiduOrkhon]

 

In reference and continuation of and to the last entry by Truly Yours. Time and Space - when independently considered (rather than as space-time) are also defined as 'the interval (sometimes called 'duration') between two or more events' ('events' translated as the existence of 3 or more dimensional entities in space, and the extension of 'space or time' <space-time> at point in any question of what time (or space) is.

 

As is generally understood, Einstein's relativity finds time and space inseperable, as in 'space-time'; that neither consideration occurs without the other. The preceding definition specifying the rudimentary foundations of what any accurate calendar - all units of time - is based on, is of course: 'motion' (in the case of the terrestrial calendar, the motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun every year, and on its spinning axis every 24 hours).

Motion being - until further notice - synonymous with time, and conversely. Moreover, until further notice, it is established that there is no space bereft of motion (Absolute Oo Kelvin unachieved), and, according to Einstein, 'there is no space empty of field' - once again, a field by definition is synonymous with motion, equalling time, while matter and space must, perforce (*operative word) *move with time.

 

The Mayan symbol for time is structurally very similar to the Greek sign of Lambda - /\ (What Einstein chose to designate what he called the Cosmological repelling force, acting parallel to, but in the opposited direction of Newton's tentative assignation of 'F' as meaning 'force', and that, due to lack of any apparent alternative, he would guardedly refer to it as a force of impelling attraction, generated by and moving omnidirectionally at right angles out of matter, in quantities proportional to the mass value of the source from which it - 'gravity' - originates); its Mayan translation (notably) meaning 'four motion' - connoting (5,000 years before Western Civilization learned of the 4-D space time continuum, via Einstein) that the Mayan's were aware of the tensor (4 or more coordinate) equations regarding the fourth coordinate of time (=motion).

 

Thank you for reading this missive.

- K.B. Robertson

[amrit]

BLIKE: What is time? Some people think of time as a human concept, but to me it seems as if time, to some extent, is woven into the fabric of space. If it weren't, how would space warp time? Someone on the boards(don't remember who) said that time is the direction in which entropy increases. I can't imagine a world without time. If someone/something were to live outside time, what would it be like? Would there still be cause and effect? When I look at it from that perspective, it seems as is time exists only in our heads. :shrug:

 

Amrit. YES, that's it.

TIME IS OF THE MIND; MOTION IS OF THE UNIVERSE

 

see more: see more:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321

[Crejin]

Time, I personally believe, is the sequence of orders that make up the universe.

[Jacques]

Time what I don't have to read these post

[swansont]

Time what I don't have to read these post

 

Lately I don't think you're missing much.

[prospero]

Time is how we perceive distance in the fourth dimension of space.

 

The Lorentz equation for distance 's' between two events, which does not change with the speed of the observer, is :- s^2=(ct)^2-x^2-y^2-z^2.

 

If the observer sees two events occurring at the same place then the four dimensional distance between the two events is the measured time difference multiplied by the speed of light.

 

As the observer sees no distance between the events the observer must have been moving at the speed of light in the fourth dimension of space.

 

It follows that the universe is expanding at the speed of light in the fourth dimension.

 

From this the whole of the confused muddle that is called the science of Physics has been unraveled and is present on the web.

[whaThehell]

time is just a concept to make everything complete.without time there would be no way to explain physics.without time no one would be able to describe why we even live one life time.we wouldnt be able to find anything cause we have nothing to compare it against.time isnt a thing.its just a word.and right now its something that i dont have.cause im running late..

HALO 3.25 SEPTEMBER 2007.FINISH THE FIGHT.

[timo]

Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years [...]' date=' yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. [/quote']

Source.

 

Let's see what happens this time. But for those not having noticed I'd like to point at the date of the posts (especially #1) and the relatively high amount of banned (=suspended) posters trying to revive it in the past years (no, they were not banned for usage of dark magic but probably for their constructivity in this and other threads) for considering the prospects of this thread.

[/spam]

[DanJFarnan]

TIME: a measure of light, the phsyical, and our biological state. We as humans have cell decomposure from birth due to time - growth before. What i am about to suggest is practical and true: Time is very real, we measure it by distance 'realitivity' a star to a star.

 

The very fabrics of the Galaxy. Thus the universe, and other many others. These 'other' Universes are in seperate time scales, due to their distance in 'the fabric of space' - BY THE LAW OF LIGHT: Light > Spectrum > Distance: TIME.

 

Thank you for reading

Dan J Farnan.

 

Farnan-D@Ulster.ac.uk

[Fred56]

When discussing this particular topic, I think it pays to be aware of the following:

 

1/ We perceive the "flow" of time as a series of events, with intervals between them.

 

2/ These intervals, at least our perception of different length intervals, are due to our inner body clocks and timers - several of these have been studied fairly extensively, including the well-known diurnal clock which sends our bodies to sleep when it's dark, and wakes us up when it gets light.

 

3/ Our language has evolved around our experience of the world, and so contains a lot of words that have a sense of, or some connection to, time itself.

 

4/ With the above in mind, and careful of the difficulties with language (it doesn't offer a "time-independent" viewpoint because of its dependence on concepts of time and its passage), it turns out that trying to understand what time is becomes quite problematic.

 

5/ We all know what time is in an innate sense. We know that time can be represented by a line, just like any other dimension, but we also know that time doesn't move in any particular direction (it doesn't depend on which way the earth is spinning, for instance), but instead "increases everywhere" (ignoring Einstein for now), and appears, at least here on the earth's surface, to flow at a fairly constant rate (it doesn't speed up or slow down dramatically, for instance), but there is some variation in our personal experience of the rate of flow -this depends on the same internal biological timers, which are affected by things like our current alertness, and concentration, even on whether we have eaten recently, among others.

 

So, lets talk about this thing...

[Farsight]

Sadly Fred, folk here don't want to talk about it. That's why TIME EXPLAINED was chucked into the

 

Pseudoscience and Speculations

 

trashcan. But it's not pseudoscience, time travel is pseudoscience, and TIME EXPLAINED is the best science this forum has seen. I know amrit. He thinks like I do, but English is not his first language, and it's been a barrier.

[YT2095]

TIME EXPLAINED is the best science FICTION this forum has seen.

 

error corrected, now get out of here!

[lakmilis]

for the OP :

 

definition: "Time is the perception of movement"

 

Analysis : out pops from that definition QM, GR, well science in general

 

Like einteins tensor , very simple and concise, but from it, when analyzed, so much maths, physics, understanding pops out.

 

The definition is a metaphysical quality; it is the most general form, the more specialized levels you apply, the more you get of all the other posts above...science, philosophy, quantum information, mind or brain or matter, etc etc etc etc

 

lak

[Quartile]

It has been said that the only thing that doesnt change is change itself. That is, change is constant - everything undergoes changes.

 

In the case of a particle moving from point a to point b, time is used as a way to quantify a rate of change in position. If we dont allow the use of time to calculate this change in position, we see that the particle moves from point a to point b, but we dont see how "fast" it happens. Time is a sort of reference frame for events, its purpose is to describe rates of change.

 

If we throw out the notion of time because it doesnt seem to exist, we would have to arrive at the conclusion that "everything just is." I think taking the notion of 'everything' to be inclusive of the entire universe and any other universes that (may or may not) exist parallel to it and eliminating the barrier of time allows a deeper understanding of infinity. In other words, the universe is a sort of perpetual motion machine.

[Edtharan]

I think you can sum up Time in a single sentence: Time is the period between events.

 

This is like saying that distance is the gap between objects.

 

You would not say that objects placed a certain space apart defines distance, but it measures the gap between them. So using events (like the regular pulsing of a Caesium atom) to mark out periods does not "define" what time is, but only allows us to measure Time.

 

It is the gap between the events that are important for the definition of time, not the events themselves. So, even though the events we detect consist of electromagnetic waves, and are caused by an electromagnetic phenomena, that fact has no bearing on what the gaps are.

 

If we could detect gravity waves, and found a source of regular gravity waves, then we could use that. What the events are made of is not what we define time as, but it is the gaps between these events (whatever the events are made of) that is what time is.

 

1/ We perceive the "flow" of time as a series of events, with intervals between them.

I would say that "flow" of time and Time are different. Just like distance and movement are different things.

 

2/ These intervals, at least our perception of different length intervals, are due to our inner body clocks and timers - several of these have been studied fairly extensively, including the well-known diurnal clock which sends our bodies to sleep when it's dark, and wakes us up when it gets light.

I think linking our "sense" of time and time its self in this way is misleading. It places our Perception of time as a factor in defining the scientific definition of time. Our perception is dependant on the "Flow" of time, but if you stated that our definition of distance is dependant on out motion through space it wouldn't make sense. So why should our motion through time change our definition of time?

 

Yes, we perceive time. But don't confuse our perception of time as Time it's self. A Clock measures time, but it doesn't define what Time is.

 

3/ Our language has evolved around our experience of the world, and so contains a lot of words that have a sense of, or some connection to, time itself.

Yes, our language has evolved around our experience of the world, but our language is still evolving. This means that we can discuss the definition of worlds, their meaning and the concepts behind them.

 

Also many words have multiple meaning and some people get hung up on a single meaning of a word, even if it was not what the speaker meant (but that the definition chose by the listener especially if it allows them to misrepresent or misinterpret the meaning of the speaker in such a way as to disprove them).

 

4/ With the above in mind, and careful of the difficulties with language (it doesn't offer a "time-independent" viewpoint because of its dependence on concepts of time and its passage), it turns out that trying to understand what time is becomes quite problematic.

I think it is point 1 that causes the most difficulties. People see the events and think that the events themselves are Time. The events only mark out a series of gaps. It is the gaps themselves that are time, not the events.

 

Once you discard the notion that Time is the Events, then it does become a lot clearer. The gaps between events are just like the gaps between the marks on a ruler. The marks on a ruler are not distance themselves, but they mark out a regular occuring sequence that we can use to compare other gaps to.

 

Events are like this as well. We use a series of regular events to compare other periods against. The events we use are not time, but because they are regular it gives us a good comparison against which we can use to compare.

 

5/ We all know what time is in an innate sense. We know that time can be represented by a line, just like any other dimension, but we also know that time doesn't move in any particular direction (it doesn't depend on which way the earth is spinning, for instance), but instead "increases everywhere" (ignoring Einstein for now), and appears, at least here on the earth's surface, to flow at a fairly constant rate (it doesn't speed up or slow down dramatically, for instance), but there is some variation in our personal experience of the rate of flow -this depends on the same internal biological timers, which are affected by things like our current alertness, and concentration, even on whether we have eaten recently, among others.

It is that first sentence that I have a problem with. We do not know what Time is in an innate sense. What we do have an innate knowledge of is a sequence of events. In (2) when you were describing our biological sense of time, you even used a series of events: "sleep when it's dark, and wakes us up when it gets light".

 

Our Biology is dependant on Time, not Time dependant on Biology. We should not reference out Biological Sense of Time is a discussion on the Definition of Time.

 

Lets even go back to distance. There is a condition called "Alice in Wonderland Syndrome" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_syndrome) in which your personal sense of distance can be distorted. Does this mean that someone undergoing this condition changes the definition of Distance? I don't think so.

 

So, if our personal perception of distance does not change the definition of distance, then why should our personal perception of time be any different?

[Fred56]

I think linking our "sense" of time and time its self in this way is misleading. It places our Perception of time as a factor in defining the scientific definition of time.

 

But how do you avoid the perception of something when trying to define what it is? Our perception of time might well be a different thing from time itself, but where else can we start from? Surely the "scientific" definition of anything proceeds from our perception, our experience of it? Of course, most people believe in an external reality which would exist if they weren't around to see it, which implies that time is also an external thing and exists regardless of intelligent observers.

 

It is the gaps themselves that are time, not the events.

 

I think that both are needed. Without the gaps or intervals, there wouldn't be any way to differentiate between events. Without events, there's just a bunch of "non-intervals" of time (because an interval, by definition, is something between events). Likewise, without objects there can be no distance between them, and vice-versa.

 

We do not know what Time is in an innate sense.

 

I guess that depends on whether you believe having an "innate sense" is the same as "knowing". We certainly do have this innate sense, due to the internal clocks we are all born with (along with most other sentient animals). Non-sentient (and perhaps sessile) creatures don't have these clocks and so cannot have the same sense that we do (though we can't say they have no sense of time at all).

[Farsight]

If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded.

 

Sorry Edtharan, but the interval between events is measured in terms of other events, and the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Eventually there are no more events, merely intervals. These intervals are frozen timeless moments. In a universe that is totally frozen with no events, including events within the mechanism of observation, the concept of time can not apply. We require events, not frozen timeless intervals to mark out time. The events are not “in” time, the time is in the events. Time is merely the measure of events, or change, or motion, measured against some other events, or change, or motion. You don’t need time to have motion, you need motion to have time.

[Mr Skeptic]

If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded.

 

You don't need any objects to observe time. Time is what separates the observer's previous thoughts from his current ones. I'm fairly certain that thought requires time. Could you make a Turing Machine that does not require time to operate? Note that with no concept of time, you would not be able to tell whether or not something was moving, because you would be unable to notice a change.