Defining time

[D H]

It exists in the same way space does.

Just to hammer this home, it exists in exactly the same way space does. Bend your elbow and raise your hand to a foot or so in front of your face. There is air between your face and hand. Is there space itself between your face and hand? Is that real? It is not a material; I just took that away. (Hint: It's real.)

[Eric 5]

The field of physics does not completely understand anything. At least that is the fervent hope of hundreds of PhD physics candidates around the world. After all, they have to contribute something new to the field to get those three letters appended to their names. Complete understanding is the realm of religion and crackpots, not science.

 

 

 

These candidates would have to have some firm grasp on the basics in order to get a PhD. They understand the basics of physics (time being one of the basics), and this understanding can be found in any physics reference book.

 

Science prides itself on knowing exactly what is going on in the universe, and science does not have a problem with its definition of time. There is no public outcry from the science community that the definition of time is wrong or incomplete.

 

Just so I know what your view is on this, please state if you think that time is a physical thing or a concept. This will avoid any misunderstandings.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

[Klaynos]

I thought science prided itself on knowning that it didn't know exactly what's going on in the universe?

 

There are no complete theories, we know very little. we have some nice little approximations, classical physics being a great example, it's a wonderful approximation of reality but it's not perfect, as we see with quantum mechanics....

 

Eric 5, none of us have a problem with our definitions of time only you it seems...

 

I am infact going to push my latest blog post... what is science?

 

Where I kinda address what science is and prides itself on...

[Eric 5]

Just to hammer this home, it exists in exactly the same way space does. Bend your elbow and raise your hand to a foot or so in front of your face. There is air between your face and hand. Is there space itself between your face and hand? Is that real? It is not a material; I just took that away. (Hint: It's real.)

 

O.K. So there is air between my face and my hand. The air is real. So what else exists there? If you want to say that space is a real thing that is existing between my hand and my face, then this real thing has a location and can be located and therefore exists in a location. It would have physical properties of those things that can be located. So, again as with time. Tell me what this thing is made of that gives it the properties of being able to exist in a location.

 

You tell me, besides the air between your hand and face, what other thing do you percieve?

 

The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space. If space were a real physical thing don’t you think that reference books would state that space is a real thing. If space were a real physical thing it would have to exist in a location in space, that would not be logical.

 

Again, to avoid any misunderstanding, please state if you think space exists as a physical thing or a concept.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

 

Eric 5, none of us have a problem with our definitions of time only you it seems...

 

 

Of course you would not have a problem with YOUR definition of time.

 

But just to be fair, please state what your definition of time is. We have been corresponding on this topic for a while now and I do not recall what your definition of time is.

 

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

[Klaynos]

[quote name=Eric 5;402031

The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing' date=' that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space. If space were a real physical thing don’t you think that reference books would state that space is a real thing. If space were a real physical thing it would have to exist in a location in space, that would not be logical.

 

Again, to avoid any misunderstanding, please state if you think space exists as a physical thing or a concept.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5[/quote]

 

Space in this context is not referring to space as in outer space.

 

Space and spacetime aren't the same thing. Spacetime is the four-dimensional geometry we use to measure things.

 

There is distance between your hand and your face, this distance is in the spacial dimensions.

 

Time exists in the same way space does.

 

You don't need to see the stars to have space you just need to realise that things are separated by distance (space).

 

As I've stated before my definition of time coresponds identically with swansonts which you've already stated your dislike for, and therefore don't see that adding a repeat post here would add anything to the discussion.

[Eric 5]

It exists in the same way space does.

 

Again dictionary definition are of no use here. Do you take nothing on board?

 

 

How do you define space? What is your reference? Use that reference or observation to describe space. There are physics dictionaries, use them.

[D H]

If space were a real physical thing don’t you think that reference books would state that space is a real thing. If space were a real physical thing it would have to exist in a location in space, that would not be logical.

You are defining "real things" as physical substances and then claiming that because time and space are not physical substances they are not real. Take your sophistry elsewhere, please.

 

Time and space are fundamental quantities in physics. They are defined in terms of measurements. The standard measurements that provide the scientific definitions of time and space are "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" and "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second," respectively.

[Eric 5]

Space in this context is not referring to space as in outer space.

 

There is the definition of space in a physics dictionary. There is space between your hand and face, and there is space between the Earth and moon. Your hand and face are physical objects, The Earth and moon are physical objects. Space is that nothingness between objects, any object whether it be matter or energy. There is a definition of space with no qualifiers that say outer space is a different type of space. Space is space. There are not different types of space.

 

Tell me how outer space is different than space in general.

 

 

 

There is distance between your hand and your face, this distance is in the spacial dimensions.

 

Is this distance a physical thing?

 

 

 

Time exists in the same way space does.

 

I say that both time and space are considerations of man and are not physical things that exist.

 

This statement that you gave does not define either time or space. Both depend on the other for existance. Define time or space. In what way does either time or space exist?

 

 

You don't need to see the stars to have space you just need to realise that things are separated by distance (space).

 

So just tell me, do you think space is a physical thing or a consideration.

 

As I've stated before my definition of time coresponds identically with swansonts which you've already stated your dislike for, and therefore don't see that adding a repeat post here would add anything to the discussion.

 

Please make this easy for anyone who might be new to this thread and just put your definition of time here so that we can all follow what you are trying to say. My dislike for swansonts definition of time should have no bearing on your actions. I have stated my definition of time numerous times despite others objections. Here it is again:

 

"Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

Take a look at a clock or any of the devices constructed by man to measure time. Are these devices actually measuring a force or thing called time? If you believe that clocks or any such device measures time then ask yourself, how does this measurement occur. If you were to take the batteries out of a clock it will no longer work and therefore no longer “measure” time. Clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides how a clock will move, not time."

 

Just put your definition of time here so we all have a reference to what information you are operating from.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

 

Time and space are fundamental quantities in physics.

 

Quantities of what? Make this simple. Is time or space a physical thing or a consideration? Just make that statement and then we can go from there.

I will state that both time and space are not physical things according to scientific references and observations.

 

 

 

They are defined in terms of measurements. The standard measurements that provide the scientific definitions of time and space are "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" and "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second," respectively.

 

Right! Time and space are measurements, not physical things. According to what you stated time and space are not either a form of matter or energy.

 

You can make this easy by just stating what you think. Do you think time and space are physical things or considerations? Easy as that.

 

Thank You for your input and cooperation.

 

Eric 5

[iNow]

You are defining "real things" as physical substances and then claiming that because time and space are not physical substances they are not real. Take your sophistry elsewhere, please.

 

Sophistry isn't physical either, you know.

 

 

At least, not until the sophist gets punched in the face for being an annoying troll.

[Eric 5]

Sophistry isn't physical either, you know.

 

 

At least, not until the sophist gets punched in the face for being an annoying troll.

 

 

iNOW, in this thread i have asked if you think time is a man-made consideration or some naturally occuring thing that exists in some physical form. You have not responded to this easy question.

 

I have asked thedarkshade if time is a material thing or a concept. No definative response.

 

I have asked D.H. if time is a physical thing or a concept. No definative response.

 

I am sure that all of you can answer this question. You all have an idea of what time is.

 

I will get the whole thing started by saying that time is not a physical thing according to scientific references and observations. Time is a consideration.

 

See it is not that hard to do. Just state your opinion and show me that I am wrong. This is your oppurtunity to put me in my place. You sound like you are a bit angry, use that energy to prove me wrong. Show everyone that I am wrong. Are you up to it or are you just going to continue to avoid the question? It is really easy to do. Time is either a physical thing or a consideration.

 

 

Eric 5

[dichotomy]

Would it be reasonable to state that if something can be measured, then it must be real?

I’m not 100% convinced that time is, or isn’t real, but it’s close relatives in things like motion, change and aging etc, can be measured and are real.

[swansont]

iNOW, in this thread i have asked if you think time is a man-made consideration or some naturally occuring thing that exists in some physical form. You have not responded to this easy question.

 

Have you stopped beating your wife? Please respond to this easy question.

 

It's not an "easy question" because you have created a false dichotomy.

 

Time is either a physical thing or a consideration.

 

Is energy a physical thing or a consideration?

 

(you've been asked this a number of times. Continued avoidance of addressing this issue will be interpreted as trolling. If you can't answer it, how can one expect and answer to this concerning time?)

[Klaynos]

If space is not real how come I can't tap you on your shoulder whilst I'm sat infront of my computer?

 

And yes I am ignoring most of your thread because it's been discussed before and you seem to choose to be ignoring it.

[thedarkshade]

What you seem to understand about existence Eric is the philosophical point of view, but I have to mention that that particular point of view differs from the one we generally are aware of.

[iNow]

Just state your opinion and show me that I am wrong. This is your oppurtunity to put me in my place.

 

<...>

 

Time is either a physical thing or a consideration.

You have already been put in your place, but you just haven't yet comprehended that fact.

 

Swansont is quite right when he tells you that this is a false dichotomy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We're all going round and round and round and round and round and round and round in circles.

 

I think this thread needs a sanity injection.

[iNow]

I think this thread needs a sanity injection.

 

I agree. I'll ask a similar question to Eric's.

 

Is a banana a rock or a hot air balloon? Simple question.

[D H]

I think this thread needs a sanity injection.

I think this thread needs to be injected in the pseudoscience forum.

[thedarkshade]

I think this thread needs to be injected in the pseudoscience forum.

Put it anywhere, just don't stop me from having fun,

[Eric 5]

Have you stopped beating your wife? Please respond to this easy question.

 

Off topic. Has nothing to do with defining time. I am not married.

 

It's not an "easy question" because you have created a false dichotomy.

 

 

I have asked you an easy question. I was able to answer the question.

 

There is nothing false about my division of the subject of time into two sharply different parts. Your profile says that you have a PhD in atomic physics, and your blog says you build atomic clocks. You should be an expert on the topic of time. Why the protest and saying that it is not an easy question. You have been taught about the subject of time, just use some of the knowledge. You have an idea of what time is so just say what it is. If you find my question so difficult then forget about it for right now. This thread is about defining time, so just contribute to the thread and give your opinion on what time is. Just relax and just share some of your knowledge of time, I was able to state my opinion on time I am sure you can too. Don't worry about my question right now, I would like to hear what a person with a PhD in physics has to say about time. Just feel free to communicate, this is just a discussion and not a contest on who can be right. O.K.

 

 

Is energy a physical thing or a consideration?

 

(you've been asked this a number of times. Continued avoidance of addressing this issue will be interpreted as trolling. If you can't answer it, how can one expect and answer to this concerning time?)

 

Look, I am willing to talk about energy all that you want, but this is a discussion on time. My answer to what I think energy is should have no bearing on what you think time is. Two different topics. Please do not get so serious about this. We all have our own idea of what time is, this thread is just a place for people to voice their ideas and concepts on time. Ideally the end result would be a better understanding of what time is for everyone involved. I am sure that with your background you would have much to say on this topic, so please share.

 

One last thing. I have not been avoiding your question on energy, just want to stay on topic. O.K. It would be nice to hear from you on this topic of time. I would even like to hear about what you do in regards to the building of atomic clocks, sounds interesting.

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

 

You have already been put in your place, but you just haven't yet comprehended that fact.

 

Swansont is quite right when he tells you that this is a false dichotomy.

So what is your idea of time? I have answered what I thought time is, how about you?

[ajb]

I'll tell you my view on time.

 

a) in dynamical systems and non-relativistic dynamics time is parametrisation of a path on a manifold

 

[math]\gamma : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow M[/math]

[math] t \mapsto \gamma^{*}x^{\mu} = x^{\mu}(t)[/math]

 

In Hamiltonian dynamics you can interpret this as the time experienced by a particle travelling along the path.

 

b) in general relativity is is a forth dimension. Proper time, that is the time experienced by an observer moving between two events along a timelike path P is given by the integral

 

[math]\tau = \int_{P}ds = \int_{P} \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}}[/math]

 

You are free to use any affine parameter to describe P, only for massive particles can you arrange it so that this parameter coincides with the proper time.

 

And that is honistly my only concrete understanding of time. Why does it only run forward? What is psychological time (i.e. the time we feel)? Questions like this are harder to answer. For sure, any PhD physicist would agree that although we don't fully understand time, working with it it usually ok.

[swansont]

Off topic. Has nothing to do with defining time. I am not married.

 

But it has everything to do with false dichotomies and why nobody can answer your question.

 

 

I have asked you an easy question. I was able to answer the question.

 

No, you have asked a question and placed a restriction on the answers that makes it impossible to answer. It's a trick question, regardless of whether you acknowledge or realize it.

 

There is nothing false about my division of the subject of time into two sharply different parts. Your profile says that you have a PhD in atomic physics, and your blog says you build atomic clocks. You should be an expert on the topic of time. Why the protest and saying that it is not an easy question. You have been taught about the subject of time, just use some of the knowledge. You have an idea of what time is so just say what it is. If you find my question so difficult then forget about it for right now. This thread is about defining time, so just contribute to the thread and give your opinion on what time is. Just relax and just share some of your knowledge of time, I was able to state my opinion on time I am sure you can too. Don't worry about my question right now, I would like to hear what a person with a PhD in physics has to say about time. Just feel free to communicate, this is just a discussion and not a contest on who can be right. O.K.

 

I can discuss how to measure time at length. And I've given the physics definition many times, which you continually ignore or reject. But you seem to want to know what the nature of time is, which is metaphysics.

 

Look, I am willing to talk about energy all that you want, but this is a discussion on time. My answer to what I think energy is should have no bearing on what you think time is. Two different topics. Please do not get so serious about this. We all have our own idea of what time is, this thread is just a place for people to voice their ideas and concepts on time. Ideally the end result would be a better understanding of what time is for everyone involved. I am sure that with your background you would have much to say on this topic, so please share.

 

One last thing. I have not been avoiding your question on energy, just want to stay on topic. O.K. It would be nice to hear from you on this topic of time. I would even like to hear about what you do in regards to the building of atomic clocks, sounds interesting.

 

But the question of whether energy is physical or a consideration goes to the obtuseness of the question as applied to time. Energy is certainly real, but is not something you can hold in your hand, so it is not physical.

 

Same thing with time. The answer to "is it a consideration or is it physical?" is "It is neither."

[igosaur]

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history.

[thedarkshade]

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history.

Time is not an illusion, our perception of time is an illusion. Maybe you'll be lucky enough if Edtharan comes around and he will give a gooood explanation why.

[Zephir]

LOL, can somebody explain me, why these posts are deleted from here all the time?

 

Isn't it clear for everybody, this will serve as an evidence of forum trolling for everybody a few years later?