kaneda Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Time is a man made measure to help us cope with the world around us. It is said that heavier gravity causes time dilation. Duh. Gravity literally slows down the components of an atom so it moves slower. The same with cooling an atom down.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 It is said that heavier gravity causes time dilation. Duh. Gravity literally slows down the components of an atom so it moves slower. The same with cooling an atom down. No it doesn't. And cold things don't experience slower time, either.
swansont Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 No it doesn't. And cold things don't experience slower time, either. Good thing, too, because the current generation of state-of-the-art frequency standards and clocks (both in use and under development) use very cold atoms, and it makes them (drumroll please) more accurate and more precise.
thedarkshade Posted March 9, 2008 Posted March 9, 2008 Time is a man made measure to help us cope with the world around us. It is said that heavier gravity causes time dilation. Duh. Gravity literally slows down the components of an atom so it moves slower. The same with cooling an atom down. It's not man made, put it better and you get man depended. Time belongs to subjective idealism, which mean it cannot exist apart from the subject (which are we)!
Mr Skeptic Posted March 10, 2008 Posted March 10, 2008 Our perception of time is manmade though I read a while back a New Scientist article about all the tricks that the mind does with respect to our perception of time. For example, we process audio quicker than visual, but the mind delays the audio so that it matches the visual. There are also factors that affect how quickly we perceive time as passing. However time as measured by clocks is quite objective.
JohnF Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Time flowed long before man..... How do you know? Time is just an abstract created by man. It's convenient but we don't have to use it. We could arrange to meet people based on the position of the sun if we are close enough together in the first place. Alternatively we can arrange to meet based on how far the sun traverses the sky if we are not so close together. In fact any event that is normally located using time can be located using the positions of other objects. The problem is that describing the positions of enough objects to accurately define an event is much more difficult than specifying a time.
doG Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 How do you know?Time is just an abstract created by man. I'd say its simply the measurement of time that was created by man. Time is simply the property of when an event occurs relative to other events. If any two events do not occur simultaneously then there is an amount of time between them. Man, or his means of measure, do not need to exist in order for time to exist between events.
swansont Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 How do you know? Time is just an abstract created by man. It's convenient but we don't have to use it. We could arrange to meet people based on the position of the sun if we are close enough together in the first place. Alternatively we can arrange to meet based on how far the sun traverses the sky if we are not so close together. In fact any event that is normally located using time can be located using the positions of other objects. The problem is that describing the positions of enough objects to accurately define an event is much more difficult than specifying a time. But specifying the position of the sun in the sky is using time — the earth's rotation and revolution are oscillatory, and you are specifying a phase of that oscillation by using the sun's position. Some aspects of measurement of time, or perception of it, as Mr Skeptic said, are manmade. But certain types of cicadas, for example, emerge on 13- and 17-year cycles. Time seems to exist for them, too. (one example out of a vast number)
JohnF Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Is it not true then by inventing the measurement of time we have in effect invented time. The measurement of time is done by counting events. I can move around in space and so it seems reasonable to assume space exists. I can't move around in time though. I can't go forward in time or backward in time. Events change around me and I mark those changes by using time as a reference. It's a very convenient reference but without an external event to mark time for me it's not very reliable. Assume for a moment that time is an invention; does it change anything? Well it does for people that believe time travel will be possible but for the rest of us it makes no difference. But specifying the position of the sun in the sky is using time — the earth's rotation and revolution are oscillatory, and you are specifying a phase of that oscillation by using the sun's position. I don't agree with that. I need have no awareness of time to repond to the event of the sun being directly overhead. As long as I can detect the event when it occurs time is not required. Just because we use time to provide measurement of the events doesn't make time real; it just shows that between two events occuring we can have a specified number of other events occur on a time piece. Some aspects of measurement of time, or perception of it, as Mr Skeptic said, are manmade. But certain types of cicadas, for example, emerge on 13- and 17-year cycles. Time seems to exist for them, too. (one example out of a vast number) The Cicadas don't have alarm clocks. An internal event that takes a set period of time to occur is all that is required to awaken them.
Royston Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Is it not true then by inventing the measurement of time we have in effect invented time. No, we've merely refined our interpretation of it. For day to day activities, just understanding causal steps is adequate, I have absolutely no idea how somebody would function if they didn't view the world as causal steps e.g asking your friend out for a drink, providing he turns up before you let him know. Assume for a moment that time is an invention; does it change anything? That statement could be taken literally, so could you expand on that a little. As long as I can detect the event when it occurs time is not required. Say what ?
Klaynos Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Is it not true then by inventing the measurement of time we have in effect invented time. The measurement of time is done by counting events. I can move around in space and so it seems reasonable to assume space exists. I can't move around in time though. I can't go forward in time or backward in time. Events change around me and I mark those changes by using time as a reference. It's a very convenient reference but without an external event to mark time for me it's not very reliable. If you can't move forward in time then you wont be able to reply because I wrote this at a specific time and you're going to have to reply in a later time... Backwards you can't but that's due to something called the arrow of time.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29
JohnF Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 If you can't move forward in time then you wont be able to reply because I wrote this at a specific time and you're going to have to reply in a later time... Backwards you can't but that's due to something called the arrow of time.... Well it seems I can reply. Whether you wrote this at an earlier time or not is unimportant. From my point of view it only comes in to existence when I see it. For all I know we all came in to existence just as I first read your post Every element about time requires memory. Without memory time does not exist.
Klaynos Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Your point of view is flawed. And is not how science is done. So this is not the place for you, it being a science forum and all...
JohnF Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Just think for a while what it would be like if we didn't have a concept of time. Think about how you would interact with things and people without using time as a reference. You can still use past and present tense in your thoughts because they can relate to an expected occurance of an event or a memory of an event having occured. When you drop a ball it will hit the ground; not because of time but because of gravity. You might measure how long it takes to hit the ground but time is not the cause of it doing so. Time does not cause anything, it has no effect on anything, it is just used to measure events. Can you change the length of a mile? Can you change the length of an hour? A measurement of distance is a constant whereas a measure of time is relative. Your point of view is flawed. And is not how science is done. So this is not the place for you, it being a science forum and all... This particular forum, being one of the forums here, is Pseudoscience and Speculations.
swansont Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 I don't agree with that. I need have no awareness of time to repond to the event of the sun being directly overhead. As long as I can detect the event when it occurs time is not required. Just because we use time to provide measurement of the events doesn't make time real; it just shows that between two events occuring we can have a specified number of other events occur on a time piece. Having it exist but not being aware of it kinda rebuts the idea that it is manmade, doesn't it? The Cicadas don't have alarm clocks. An internal event that takes a set period of time to occur is all that is required to awaken them. A set period of what? Time? But that's manmade, right? This particular forum, being one of the forums here, is Pseudoscience and Speculations. That does not absolve you of following scientific protocol.
Royston Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 When you drop a ball it will hit the ground; not because of time but because of gravity. You might measure how long it takes to hit the ground but time is not the cause of it doing so. Time does not cause anything, it has no effect on anything, it is just used to measure events. Well, that's what you'd do with kinematics. Can you change the length of a mile? Can you change the length of an hour? A measurement of distance is a constant whereas a measure of time is relative. Now you seem to be talking relativity...you need to be consistent on what area of physics you're talking about, of course time is treated differently between the basics to much more advanced areas, such as relativity. The point being, you don't need relativity to construct a position - time graph for a bouncing ball.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Just think for a while what it would be like if we didn't have a concept of time. Impossible. Even a Touring machine would have to have "before" and "after" states to do calculations, hence a timelike causal chain. Think about how you would interact with things and people without using time as a reference. You can still use past and present tense in your thoughts because they can relate to an expected occurance of an event or a memory of an event having occured. How can you use past and present tense without time? Any change from previous to next state is related to time (hence previous and next) When you drop a ball it will hit the ground; not because of time but because of gravity. You might measure how long it takes to hit the ground but time is not the cause of it doing so. Time does not cause anything, it has no effect on anything, it is just used to measure events. That is partially correct. However, without the passage of time, the ball will not fall. Can you change the length of a mile? Can you change the length of an hour? It could be arbitrarily redefined (and indeed has been several times). A measurement of distance is a constant whereas a measure of time is relative. Oh, did you intend to change the attributes of, say, caesium atoms then? Even if you are moving at relativistic speeds, then distance changes as well as time. This particular forum, being one of the forums here, is Pseudoscience and Speculations. Yes, but that is because some people are speculating or being unscientific; it does not excuse that behavior in others.
JohnF Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Well I'm at a loss here! I feel like I'm trying to explain colour to a blind man. Or I'm a blind man and you're trying to explain colour to me. Whichever way around it is describing red as, well red just doesn't make any sense. That's the problem here. Time is such an intrinsic part of our awareness that trying to discuss it from an outside point of view is practically impossible. Anyway, I'm happy to keep an open mind on whether time really exists or not. I doubt very much that independent evidence will ever be discovered, one way or the other.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 And yet color is an intrinsic property of the universe; if a tree grew in the forest and there was no one there to see it it would still be green. Color is simply photons of a particular wavelength/frequency/energy (take your pick), and can be defined in a rigorous, objective, scientific manner. It is no harder to explain red than it is to explain infrared as far as science is concerned. Do not confuse color with the perception of color (as you also seem to confuse time with the perception of time). It is not easy to convey to another the internal states of the neurons in your brain. If the person you are communicating with does not have analogous internal states and a label to go with them it is hard to communicate it. Explaining color to a blind person would be like explaining 5 dimensional objects to someone else -- they simply cannot relate to it, but that has no bearing on whether what you are explaining exists or not. 1
YT2095 Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 the Only thing Man-Made about time are our Units of it and our Naming convention. what is a Tuesday? why are there 12 months and not 8, how come much there`s 60 "Seconds" and not 100, why can`t it all be base 10? etc.... These are man made constructs, time itself doesn`t care what you call it or even if there anyone around to call it something. it just IS.
thedarkshade Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Time flowed long before man..... No it didn't. Time exists because men exists! Subjective idealism!
doG Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 I feel like I'm trying to explain colour to a blind man. Imagine how we feel. Its like trying to convince someone that space existed before the Earth did. No it didn't. Time exists because men exists! Subjective idealism! Are you trying to pull our leg here? Do you really want us to believe that's what you believe?
John Cuthber Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Tree rings in fossil wood show that the trees knew years (and therefore, time) existed long before we did.
thedarkshade Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Tree rings in fossil wood show that the trees knew years (and therefore, time) existed long before we did. That is objective (secondary) time, a philosophical concept though. But the true (primary) subjective time is the one we are trying to understand!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now