is the essence of time > movement ?

[cameron marical]

so just to be clear you believe time only passes if an observer is there to measure some difference?

first you suggest i apply time alone to an objects motion, then you say it's impossible, which is it?

 

i think that, no, time doesnt only pass if an observer is there to see it, i think that time doesnt apply at all, unless theres an observer to apply it. time isnt real, its just a way{we created} to measure things in space progressing in just the same way as everything else does. from a to b. it can happen whether or not theres an observer, just like a meter of grass is a meter of grass no matter whos paying attention to that exact meter of grass.

[moth]

i think that, no, time doesnt only pass if an observer is there to see it, i think that time doesnt apply at all, unless theres an observer to apply it. time isnt real, its just a way{we created} to measure things in space progressing in just the same way as everything else does. from a to b. it can happen whether or not theres an observer, just like a meter of grass is a meter of grass no matter whos paying attention to that exact meter of grass.

i think time is a different concept for a scientist than for a philosopher. for a scientist time is like a measuring stick, for a philosopher time is a license to babble.

be careful - you might get a bad rep posting in P&S:-)

[Atlas444]

What about the fundamental idea that space without objects would not exist. Without objects to be spatially related there would be no space, just a solid void. And time is only existent to conscious beings. Time being the product of motion seems likely. If all things in the universe were static there would be no change, and there for no time because there would be no moment when something had changed. Which is what time is all about right? Being able to express to another person when something has moved/changed/appeared/disappeared. So time is only existent in a non-static universe , and only relevant to conscious beings.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What about the fundamental idea that space without objects would not exist. Without objects to be spatially related there would be no space, just a solid void. And time is only existent to conscious beings. Time being the product of motion seems likely. If all things in the universe were static there would be no change, and there for no time because there would be no moment when something had changed. Which is what time is all about right? Being able to express to another person when something has moved/changed/appeared/disappeared. So time is only existent in a non-static universe , and only relevant to conscious beings.

 

"i think that, no, time doesnt only pass if an observer is there to see it"

 

Well, if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? If you are saying that time exists without a viewer then you are forgetting the whole point of science. Science is a tool of man and only man. A tree falling in the forest does not make a sound. A sound is only a sound to something that can hear, otherwise it just makes vibrations. So, without a viewer there is no time simply by time's definition.

[swansont]

A tree falling in the forest does not make a sound. A sound is only a sound to something that can hear, otherwise it just makes vibrations.

 

No fair redefining the terms to make the answer you want be correct. Sound is vibration in a range that is capable of being heard.

[foodchain]

Not to try and take the lead on the subject but I think it depends on what interpretation you use. For instance with the human mind I think many reject the notion of the quantum having anything to do with consciousness because of something having to do with the lack of superposition being able to exist. yet with that something like decoherence time I am sure is not heavily studied when it comes to masses of cells making up that particular organ communicating with each other via things like calcium ions and electrons.

 

Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the same idea behind the concept of culture bound perceptions of reality. Physics has its standard model and standard ideas just like any of the other natrual sciences do, and for what its worth at some point in human history people had to make the wheel.

[moth]

if the passage of time requires an observer,then no change can occur without a witness.

where does the witness come from? an observer would have to be created with the universe to watch stars and planets form and become systems that can support life.(if the answer for you is god,sorry to waste your time).

[north]

so just to be clear you believe time only passes if an observer is there to measure some difference?

 

no

 

 

first you suggest i apply time alone to an objects motion, then you say it's impossible, which is it?

 

what I'm saying is that without motion , time does not even exist , nor has the possibility to exist in the first place

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

lets look at time mathematicly for the moment , which is what people are comfortable with

 

we have a four dimension grid

 

we have lenght , breadth , deepth

 

we have an object at 0 x, y , z

 

now we move the object at a particular point on this axis say x is 2 , y is 2 and z is 2

 

now my point is what is the essence of the change in position of the object ?

 

movement by the object its self , either by the interaction(s) with other objects

 

or simplely by the object its self

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

see my point above

 

it is not time that moves any object

 

but consequence(s)

[iNow]

see my point above

 

it is not time that moves any object

 

but consequence(s)

 

Actually, no. You have simply asserted this and expected us to accept it as true. Perhaps once you've supported this position using something other than semantics your point will be worthy of further consideration. Until that occurs, it is not.

[north]

lets look at time mathematically for the moment , which is what people are comfortable with

 

we have a four dimension grid

 

we have length , breadth , depth

 

we have an object at 0 x, y , z

 

now we move the object at a particular point on this axis say x is 2 , y is 2 and z is 2

 

now my point is what is the essence of the change in position of the object ?

 

movement by the object its self , either by the interaction(s) with other objects

 

or simply by the object its self

 

 

Originally Posted by north

 

see my point above

 

it is not time that moves any object

 

but consequence(s)

 

Actually, no. You have simply asserted this and expected us to accept it as true. Perhaps once you've supported this position using something other than semantics your point will be worthy of further consideration. Until that occurs, it is not.

 

an aeroplane is moved from point 0 in a three dimensional grid

 

to another point on the three dimensional grid

 

is it because of time or because of the movement of the plane ?

 

it is because of the movement of the plane

[iNow]

Yeah... like I said... anything other than semantics to offer? Haven't you been banned for this behavior like nine times already? Let's just make it permanent and move on, shall we?

[north]

Yeah... like I said... anything other than semantics to offer? Haven't you been banned for this behavior like nine times already? Let's just make it permanent and move on, shall we?

 

just semantics only ?

 

it seems iNow you aren't able to give a constructive discussion against my example in the two threads before

[Sayonara]

If it's bollocks then he doesn't really need to. Unless ofc you are asking for help with it.

[north]

If it's bollocks then he doesn't really need to. Unless ofc you are asking for help with it.

 

so is it bollocks Sayonara ?

[mooeypoo]

north,

 

You're repeating your statements regardless of questions asked.

You're ignoring responses.

You're confusing the argument and then ignore more answers.

You repeat again the same points you made that people pointed out were fallacious.

 

 

Not only does it show your theory as bollocks, it is also close to trolling.

 

Take responsibility on your own thread and start explaining and supporting your claims on facts, or just admit defeat, stop arguing circular logic, and instead spend your time tweaking your theory for later review.

 

~moo

[swansont]

Have you, for instance, addressed my point in post 75?

[north]

Originally Posted by north

actually what propose is not a theory but fact

 

think about it in depth

 

If it's fact, then it must be observed to be true.

 

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects or the interactions of

 

 

 

Better still if it's predicted by existing theory.

 

no theory even suggests what I'm thinking

 

obviously

 

 

 

 

But since movement cannot be stopped, how could this ever be observed?

 

this statement makes sense to you ?

 

if so why ?

 

 

 

 

If we do this abstractly, by transforming into a reference frame where there is no motion, we see that time runs at its fastest — that motion causes time to run slower.

 

for example

 

 

So how is it that you present this as fact?

 

because motion is always based on some physical pressence

 

always

[moth]

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects

 

the measure of time is not time.

the essence of the measure of time is motion.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects

 

 

the measure of time is not time.

the essence of the measure of time is motion.

 

and the essence of the motion on which time is based is ?

[swansont]

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects or the interactions of

 

 

Atomic clocks measurements are not based on motion. Motion exists, because motion cannot be eliminated. Less motion gives a better result.

 

 

no theory even suggests what I'm thinking

 

obviously

 

 

Then don't say that what you present is fact.

[moth]

and the essence of the motion on which time is based is ?

 

momentum,but time is not motion.

you can chase your tail until the end of time, it won't change the fact that measuring time is not time.measuring temperature is not heat.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

sure name me any measurement of time not based on the movement of objects or the interactions of

 

Atomic clocks measurements are not based on motion.

 

yes they are

 

 

 

 

Motion exists, because motion cannot be eliminated.

 

obviously

 

 

 

Less motion gives a better result.

 

how so

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Originally Posted by north

and the essence of the motion on which time is based is ?

 

 

momentum,

 

and the essence of momentum is ?

[swansont]

yes they are

 

obviously

 

how so

 

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect.

 

If you are referring to the electron itself, I ask what motion? The electron has no classical trajectory, so it is incorrect to say it is in motion, or that this motion is the basis of the measurement. The clock measurement is due to a spin orientation transition, but spin is not a physical property, it is intrinsic angular momentum. To say that this represents motion is to impose a classical picture on a quantum-mechanical effect.

[north]

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect.

 

If you are referring to the electron itself, I ask what motion? The electron has no classical trajectory, so it is incorrect to say it is in motion, or that this motion is the basis of the measurement. The clock measurement is due to a spin orientation transition, but spin is not a physical property, it is intrinsic angular momentum. To say that this represents motion is to impose a classical picture on a quantum-mechanical effect.

 

you know it would be much more helpful for us all if your quotes were much more complete

 

so we can follow the jist of your discussion

[moth]

and the essence of momentum is ?

 

kinetic energy, which is not time.

[north]

Originally Posted by swansont

If you have to ask, then it's apparent that you don't understand much about how they work. Motion of the atoms adds relativistic effects, so the best clocks would have no motion of the atoms at all. This presents some problems in making the measurements, though, since confining them perturbs the measurement — you move them to a region where they are not perturbed. But to say that motion is the basis of the clock is incorrect.

 

what of the caesium atomic clocks

 

' atoms in the lower energy state are directed into a cavity "

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Originally Posted by north

and the essence of momentum is ?

 

kinetic energy, which is not time.

 

of course

 

your point