Jacques Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 For me time is an aspect of motion like space is an aspect of motion. For me all that exist is motion and motion is made of space and time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Originally Posted by north 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?" movement is the basis of the law not time if time happens to be, the basis of the law then this law is based on an observer Correlation is not proof of causality. meaning ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 movement is the basis of the law not time Your conjecture. How can you falsify it? What support do you have for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 [Originally Posted by north] movement is the basis of the law not time Your conjecture. How can you falsify it? you can't imagine no objects at all in space where then in the absence of any objects in space does the measurement of time come from ? What support do you have for it? reason Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor me time is an aspect of motion like space is an aspect of motion.For me all that exist is motion and motion is made of space and time I disagree motion or movement ,as I perfer , is expressed in space and time but the essence of the motion or movement is always about the object(s) involved always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Lorentz said the rate at which time passes depends on the velocity of energy moving (compared to some other point) through space, to me rate implies ratio like velocity=distance/time, so what is the ratio for time passage? seconds per second seems useless except for describing acceleration so what would be a reasonable denominator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 you can't Then it's not science, it's philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 movement is the basis of the law not time you can't imagine no objects at all in space where then in the absence of any objects in space does the measurement of time come from ? Once you start "imagining" things that are unphysical, you can reach just about any conclusion you wish. As Klaynos said, this is philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I was considering no movement, no heat, no 'fluctuations, no change - it's all the same thing by metaphorical value. There'd actually be no interaction between things. Gravity? Can matter exist without change? Time is a relative of change, partners in crime. c is like the one thing all other things can be compared equally to, c for change I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 time is the measurement( mathematical ) of the movement of an object(s) , nothing more time has No intrinstic physical properties associated to it and/or unto its self , and never will therefore , time in and of its self , cannot speed up or slow down any interaction(s) between objects and within any object Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedcan anyone argue that time is beyond a mathematical concept , in the sense that time actually has any physical influence on any physical object ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedconvince me , I'm open to any theory that can prove me wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 time is the measurement( mathematical ) of the movement of an object(s) , nothing more How do you know that? Certainly some people define time in that manner, but does everyone? time has No intrinstic physical properties associated to it and/or unto its self , and never will therefore , time in and of its self , cannot speed up or slow down any interaction(s) between objects and within any object Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedcan anyone argue that time is beyond a mathematical concept , in the sense that time actually has any physical influence on any physical object ? Yes, in fact you yourself did. You need time to move objects. Also, time seems to influence my watch, imagine that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedconvince me , I'm open to any theory that can prove me wrong I doubt that, based on your previous posts. In any case, it is not others' responsibility to prove you wrong, but your responsibility to prove you right when you make a new claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 time is the measurement( mathematical ) of the movement of an object(s) , nothing moreThat's circular though, movement is defined in relation to time. time has No intrinstic physical properties associated to it and/or unto its self , and never willSure it does linearity (or not, possibly) and continuity (or not, probably) are obvious properties for any metric. therefore , time in and of its self , cannot speed up or slow down any interaction(s) between objects and within any objectWell of course not, that wouldn't make any sense again with the circularity. can anyone argue that time is beyond a mathematical concept , in the sense that time actually has any physical influence on any physical object ?What would that mean? convince me , I'm open to any theory that can prove me wrongI'm not sure even you know what you're trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 time has No intrinstic physical properties associated to it and/or unto its self , and never will is entropy an intrinsic physical property of the universe, or of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Well, if you took time out of the universe you wouldn't have a meaningful way to define entropy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Well, if you took time out of the universe you wouldn't have a meaningful way to define entropy. entropy requires time and energy to make sense.i was trying to point out there is a "long" time in addition to "differential" time like the distance argument in O.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Well, if you took time out of the universe you wouldn't have a meaningful way to define entropy. and thats my point time helps us to understand the Universe but in no way does time influence entropy , in and of its self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 and thats my point time helps us to understand the Universe but in no way does time influence entropy , in and of its self what if time ran at a different rate? or backwards? wouldn't that have an effect on entropy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 what if time ran at a different rate? or backwards? wouldn't that have an effect on entropy? NO what is the essence of time to you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 NO what is the essence of time to you ? almost the same as the essence of up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 almost the same as the essence of up. well thats informative:confused: care to clearify:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 North - Haven't you started this conversation like six times already here at SFN? What's new about this thread that will prevent it from getting locked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 North - Haven't you started this conversation like six times already here at SFN? What's new about this thread that will prevent it from getting locked? because it seems that the pervasive thinking is that time is some sort of physical entity in and of its self that has some influence on the behaviour of things . time doesn't but some people seem to think so why not discuss this subject in depth to clarify this attitude about time once and for all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Don't quantum folks have an extremely different view of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I think time is something made up my humanity to have something to measure by. Like the standard and metric systems - the universe doesn't care about kilometers or years, just movement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Don't quantum folks have an extremely different view of time? It seems a hop , skip and a jump but the basis of time never changes that is that time is based on the movement of objects , in this case electrons Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think time is something made up my humanity to have something to measure by. Like the standard and metric systems - the universe doesn't care about kilometers or years, just movement exactly just movement , just movement nothing more , nothing less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Time does not force movement but it does allow movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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