is the essence of time > movement ?

[north]

is that not what time is all about ?

 

just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ?

[Martin]

is that not what time is all about ?

 

just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ?

 

For starters, how about you lay your cards on the table and make a clear proposition?

 

If you have a philosophy about time, tell us and back it up with links, if you have some.

If you have a proposed definition, an answer to the question "What is time?", then state it clearly. Again, you are welcome to back it up with links if you can.

 

In other words, make a positive declaration. Let the rest of us ask you questions about your time concept, if we choose. Let's see how that goes.

 

I'll put that as a direct question, north.

 

Take your best shot: what is time?

Edited January 24, 2009 by Martin

[markus.dnd]

I think i get what he means.

 

 

If time is movement of an object and relative, how can there be constant in speed wich is measured by time and distance?

 

I have had question like this aswell...

Google says that:

Time is...

an instance or single occasion for some event; "this time he succeeded"; "he called four times"; "he could do ten at a clip"

a period of time considered as a resource under your control and sufficient to accomplish something; "take time to smell the roses"; "I didn't have time to finish"; "it took more than half my time"

an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or activities); "he waited a long time"; "the time of year for planting"; "he was a great actor in his time"

a suitable moment; "it is time to go"

the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past

clock: measure the time or duration of an event or action or the person who performs an action in a certain period of time; "he clocked the runners"

a person's experience on a particular occasion; "he had a time holding back the tears"; "they had a good time together"

assign a time for an activity or event; "The candidate carefully timed his appearance at the disaster scene"

clock time: a reading of a point in time as given by a clock; "do you know what time it is?"; "the time is 10 o'clock"

set the speed, duration, or execution of; "we time the process to manufacture our cars very precisely"

fourth dimension: the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event

regulate or set the time of; "time the clock"

meter: rhythm as given by division into parts of equal duration

adjust so that a force is applied and an action occurs at the desired time; "The good player times his swing so as to hit the ball squarely"

prison term: the period of time a prisoner is imprisoned; "he served a prison term of 15 months"; "his sentence was 5 to 10 years"; "he is doing time in the county jail"

 

And oon we go.

 

Anyways. Science daily says that it comes out in a motion (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050415115227.htm) but in that case... well. i still dont get all of the time consept.

 

I hope it is like something the question that north had only little more clear. And yes. it could be named as: What is time.

[Sayonara]

Is that supposed to be an arrow in the thread title, or a "greater than" symbol?

 

Actual sentences would help North.

[north]

[Originally Posted by north]

is that not what time is all about ?

 

just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ?

 

For starters, how about you lay your cards on the table and make a clear proposition?

 

If you have a philosophy about time, tell us and back it up with links, if you have some.

If you have a proposed definition, an answer to the question "What is time?", then state it clearly. Again, you are welcome to back it up with links if you can.

 

In other words, make a positive declaration. Let the rest of us ask you questions about your time concept, if we choose. Let's see how that goes.

 

I'll put that as a direct question, north.

 

Take your best shot: what is time?

 

time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

Edited January 25, 2009 by north

[minus_Ph]

This thread follows a thought experiment I just completed.

If time were to be motion in a Cartesian coordinate, then the cosmic speed limit of C as proposed by Einstein would include that motion.

As such the effects of relativity on space time might be nothing more than the bounding of the vector of all motion in 4D space to C.

Unfortunately I do not possess the math skills to see if the equations of relativity say just that.

How about it?

Or am I just trying to oversimplify things again to get them to fit into my little head.

~minus

[Klaynos]

Swansont is the guy I turn to for things like this, his knowledge of time is far far greater than mine. And I've seen him argue many times, that no, time is not the measurement of motion. If you consider a modern atomic clock you don't measure motion but oscillations between states. He'll hopefully post a correction/clarification to this shortly.

[north]

Swansont is the guy I turn to for things like this, his knowledge of time is far far greater than mine. And I've seen him argue many times, that no, time is not the measurement of motion. If you consider a modern atomic clock you don't measure motion but oscillations between states. He'll hopefully post a correction/clarification to this shortly.

 

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

[minus_Ph]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement. Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension?

 

~minus

[Klaynos]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

As I understand it, no. They are oscillations in states. There is a thread with a similar name to this around with alot of replies from swansont explaining this nicely... I can't seem to find it right now though :|

[north]

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

 

how so ?

 

I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement.

 

change without movement ? how

 

 

Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension?

 

~minus

 

NO

[minus_Ph]

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

 

how so ?

Spin is an attribute not a motion.

 

I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement.

 

change without movement ? how

 

Wave function change

 

Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension?

 

~minus

 

NO

Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain.

[north]

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

 

how so ?

Spin is an attribute not a motion.

 

spin is a movement regardless

 

I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement.

 

change without movement ? how

 

Wave function change

 

and what caused this change in wave function ?

 

Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension?

 

~minus

 

NO

 

Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain.

 

explain further

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

look

 

no matter what atomic clock you talk of , caesium or ammonia there is movement involved on which time is based

Edited January 25, 2009 by north
Consecutive posts merged.

[minus_Ph]

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

 

how so ?

 

Spin is an attribute not a motion.

 

spin is a movement regardless

Then it should have precession.... NO?

 

 

Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain.

 

explain further

 

Wave function is a quantized set of mutually exclusive states... they might as well be location in some very small quantized direction, thus the Paulii exclusion principle could be nothing more than "no two physical objects can occupy the same place at the same time"

[north]

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

 

how so ?

 

Spin is an attribute not a motion.

 

spin is a movement regardless

Then it should have precession.... NO?

 

before .. yes

 

 

Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain.

 

explain further

 

Wave function is a quantized set of mutually exclusive states... they might as well be location in some very small quantized direction, thus the Paulii exclusion principle could be nothing more than "no two physical objects can occupy the same place at the same time"

 

well of course Paulii said this

 

it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space

 

by the way minus_Ph use

 

"quote" in front of a quote and response in square brackets [] and / in front of [] quote in the end of the quote or response

 

 

 

it makes your responses much more clear

Edited January 26, 2009 by north

[minus_Ph]

well of course Paulii said this

 

it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space

 

 

Actually unless a sub atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time... time it has everything to do with wave functions.

And thus my hidden dimension explanation is plausible, although quite unlikely.

 

I just like to look for simple reasons for all unusual behavior.

~minus

[north]

[Originally Posted by north]

well of course Paulii said this

 

it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space

 

Actually unless a sub atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time... time it has everything to do with wave functions.

And thus my hidden dimension explanation is plausible, although quite unlikely.

 

I just like to look for simple reasons for all unusual behavior.

~minus

 

correction , about Paulii , it has not only to do with space but also about the object

 

its not about time of whether a sub-atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time , it is about the the object its self

 

too your last statement

 

time is ABOUT behavior , movement but NOT the essence of the cause of this behavior

 

this is why movement(s) by object(s) is more fundamental to the understanding of any interactions between objects

 

time explains the consequences , the behaviour , but not the fundamental why(s) !!

[Martin]

time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

 

north, I am glad to see your offer of a flat-out definition of time, in reply to the question "What is time?"

 

I see that for you motion (and interaction) are prior to time,

in the sense that time is a "consequence" which means something that follows from.

 

For the moment, I will keep my comment to a minimum and for the moment simply thank you for coming out with an explicit statement.

[north]

[Originally Posted by north]

time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

 

north, I am glad to see your offer of a flat-out definition of time, in reply to the question "What is time?"

 

I see that for you motion (and interaction) are prior to time,

in the sense that time is a "consequence" which means something that follows from.

 

actually rather than motion , I still perfer movement

 

 

 

For the moment, I will keep my comment to a minimum and for the moment simply thank you for coming out with an explicit statement.

 

your welcome

[swansont]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

The oscillations are because the atom is in a coherent superposition of states — the oscillation is between the states, and you could describe that as a single state if you chose to. You can't tie any of that back to anything like a classical trajectory of an electron. (In microwave clocks these states are spin orientations of an electron) "Motion" really isn't well-defined here; it's a classical notion, and this is QM.

 

My view on this is that "time is motion" is metaphysical, as is any "nature of time" argument. You can't get rid of motion, or stop time, to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion?

[north]

The oscillations are because the atom is in a coherent superposition of states — the oscillation is between the states, and you could describe that as a single state if you chose to. You can't tie any of that back to anything like a classical trajectory of an electron. (In microwave clocks these states are spin orientations of an electron) "Motion" really isn't well-defined here; it's a classical notion, and this is QM.

 

yet neither ammonia or caesium atomic clocks work without movement

 

My view on this is that "time is motion" is metaphysical

 

this definition of time as " time is motion " is inadequate

 

time is the measurement of the consequence of movement(s) by object(s) and their interaction(s)

 

 

 

as is any "nature of time" argument. You can't get rid of motion, or stop time

 

you can't get rid of movement but you can get rid of time

 

can the introduction of time , in and of its self , to a vehicle , cause the vehicle to move ?

 

 

 

to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion?

 

NO

 

because actually the faster the object goes, movement , the less time it takes for the object to get there , Naturally

 

if I have a lawn mower , and a Mustang

 

and they both have to cover a mile , what do you think will cover this distance faster ?

 

need I say what will ?

Edited January 26, 2009 by north

[Martin]

time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

 

time is the measurement of the consequence of movement(s) by object(s) and their interaction(s)

 

You now have two definitions on the table, north. Which one do you claim is right?

"the consequences of the measurement"

 

or

 

"the measurement of the consequences"

 

Btw I think it's possible for people to use deliberate ambiguity and inconsistency as a kind of flypaper----sticky bait to attract people into shift-wall mazes of controversy. Sort of the same way that conventional trolls use hostile contradiction---except that ambiguity is smarter and softer. So now I'm wondering was I intentionally suckered in by that transposition of CoM into MoC? Let's assume not.

 

Let's assume the switch was accidental. Which definition do you say is right?

Edited January 26, 2009 by Martin

[swansont]

yet neither ammonia or caesium atomic clocks work without movement

 

Atomic clocks do not require movement of the atoms. In fact, since this introduces error, the efforts over the years has been to reduce the movement to get better precision and accuracy. Ideally you'd eliminate the center-of-mass motion altogether, if that were possible.

 

 

this definition of time as " time is motion " is inadequate

 

It wasn't a definition, per se. It was a classification of discussions about time.

 

 

 

you can't get rid of movement but you can get rid of time

 

can the introduction of time , in and of its self , to a vehicle , cause the vehicle to move ?

 

 

How do you get rid of time? Or introduce time to something?

 

 

NO

 

because actually the faster the object goes, movement , the less time it takes for the object to get there , Naturally

 

if I have a lawn mower , and a Mustang

 

and they both have to cover a mile , what do you think will cover this distance faster ?

 

need I say what will ?

 

Speed is dx/dt

 

By definition you must have displacement and a time interval for there to be motion. You can't separate the two. However, you can have something sit there, approximately at rest, and still have the passage of time.

 

Which is why I think this is metaphysics and semantics.

[north]

You now have two definitions on the table, north. Which one do you claim is right?

"the consequences of the measurement"

 

or

 

"the measurement of the consequences"

 

measurement of the consequences

 

is right

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion?

 

is not actually prove the opposite ?

 

is it not then that the object controls time ?

 

rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ?

 

it seems that it is the object that controls time

[swansont]

is not actually prove the opposite ?

 

is it not then that the object controls time ?

 

rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ?

 

it seems that it is the object that controls time

 

How do you distinguish that from "some physical laws dictate both time and movement?"

 

Correlation is not proof of causality.