is time real

[north]

north, you make no sense.

 

You are using arbitrary meanings to well defined definitions and then expect everyone to agree with your logic.

 

Movement is well defined.

English language is well defined, too.

 

my point is , is that you don't have to refine movement to relise that a movement has happened and therefore makes time irrelevent

 

take the tortise and a Human and both must go from A to B , the quicker wins , no abnormalites exist within the Human or tortise nor on the course , everything is fair and on the up and up

 

obviously the Human gets there first , all things being equal

 

 

 

 

 

 

No offense, north, but maybe the problem is with your (nonexistent) sentence structures. I don't understand what you mean, and I don't get your points. You made points based on flawed definitions and now you seem to insist they're still valid.. I don't understand any of your subsequent points. Since you're the one making the claim, it should be your concern to make sure people get what you mean.

 

In other words: You're the one responsible in making yourself clear if you want anyone to accept what you're saying, not the other way around, since you're the one CLAIMING these things.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how to start answering your points, since I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

~moo

 

then try one point at a time

[mooeypoo]

my point is , is that you don't have to refine movement to relise that a movement has happened and therefore makes time irrelevent

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term.

 

take the tortise and a Human and both must go from A to B , the quicker wins , no abnormalites exist within the Human or tortise nor on the course , everything is fair and on the up and up

 

obviously the Human gets there first , all things being equal

Right, the human has longer legs, and therefore faster velocity, and will get there faster.

 

Velocity is movement. And check this out:

[math]V = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math]

Velocity is defined as the change of location (dx) in relation to time (dt)! so there *IS* a consideration of time there, isn't there?

 

then try one point at a time

I - and others - did. We just refuted you. Perhaps you should try one refutation at a time.

[north]

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term.

 

 

 

Right, the human has longer legs, and therefore faster velocity, and will get there faster.

 

Velocity is movement. And check this out:

[math]V = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math]

Velocity is defined as the change of location (dx) in relation to time (dt)! so there *IS* a consideration of time there, isn't there?

 

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ?

 

yes it would , my point , AGAIN

[mooeypoo]

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term.

 

 

 

 

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ?

 

yes it would , my point , AGAIN

If you didn't measure or consider anything, it wouldn't happen. If it happened, it happened in relation to time. Your point is void.

Edited May 4, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

you can't use time and time alone , to influence any physical dynamic behaviour of any object within or any interactions between objects

 

You can't use length and length alone to influence any physical dynamic behaviour of any object within or any interactions between objects.

 

So? I await your argument that length is not real.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

an atomic clock is based on movement within the atomics of the atoms in the clock , which you base the clock on

 

why would you try to even remove movement from the atomic clock ?

 

it is the movement within say a ciesium clock that gives consistent time , hence why it is used

 

All this does is reflect your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics and atomic clocks. Simply asserting or denying that something is true does not make it so.

[Klaynos]

I can define time without using movement. This is done in atomic clocks. There is NO movement of any type in an ideal clock.

 

I cannot define movement without using the concept of time. There is always a starting position and a final position, these two positions are not both true at the start so there must be something between the two, this is time. Therefore movement requires time, but time does not require movement.

[Vortigon]

What would be pulling the particles apart? That's not part of any cosmology scenario of which I am aware.

 

Apologies I neglected to mention that was based on the 'big rip' theory. Not proven of course and may be unlikely.

 

Based on the idea of increased acceleration of the Universe's expansion rate, eventually reaching a point where atoms themselves are pulled apart.

 

Big thing to leave out I know lol

[north]

Originally Posted by north

 

Originally Posted by mooeypoo

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term.

 

 

 

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ?

 

yes it would , my point , AGAIN

 

 

 

If you didn't measure or consider anything, it wouldn't happen. If it happened, it happened in relation to time. Your point is void.

 

really

 

so if I let two tires roll down a hill ( and they were let go at the same moment), and one tire passes the other its about time ?

[johnnny92008]

Time was created by humans.

[mooeypoo]

really

 

so if I let two tires roll down a hill ( and they were let go at the same moment), and one tire passes the other its about time ?

WHAT!?

 

I can't predict what will happen without knowing more about the tires, the environment, the slope of the hill, or whether or not the slope and environment is consistent. For that matter, if both tires are pushed down an EQUAL SETTINGS, then they will both reach the bottom at the EXACT same time. The problem in reality is that there's no such thing "equal settings" (or at least, it's hard to create/find) and therefore the two tires are likely to not reach the bottom together. HOWEVER -- that *proves* that the differences are dependent on the environment, and have NOTHING to do with time.

 

What are you babbling about? You make no sense. Your question is as logical as me asking "If I push two people down a hole but hold one of them with a rope, is it about time?"

 

What does anything have to do with anything? You're either grapping at straws to insist your theory must be correct, or you seriously need to step back, figure out a way to make sense of your sentences, and post only after they are logical.

 

This is ridiculous.

 

~moo

[north]

Time was created by humans.

 

agreed

 

the problem becomes when some people think that time actually has some sort of substance associated with it

 

which is wrong of course , but mathematical physics does this , unfortunately

[mooeypoo]

If it's wrong, prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong, then until you can, you're wrong.

 

It's really that simple.

[johnnny92008]

prove it right.

[mooeypoo]

prove it right.

I wasn't the one who made the claim, north did, and as such, he has the obligation to prove his claim. He tried in the past few pages of this thread.

 

Unsuccessfully.

 

johnnny, I think you should refer to our rules of conduct. Welcome to the forum.

[johnnny92008]

Am I not supposed to join in the debate?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You're supposed to support your positions with evidence.

[north]

If it's wrong, prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong, then until you can, you're wrong.

 

It's really that simple.

 

okay here goes ;

 

if the change in time is made in the mathematical equation , will this change alone influence the physical dynamics of a situation ?

 

inotherwords the change in the equation comes before the physical change

[johnnny92008]

Ther is no evidence of nothing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well that's helpful.

[mooeypoo]

okay here goes ;

 

if the change in time is made in the mathematical equation , will this change alone influence the physical dynamics of a situation ?

I don't know what you're saying. North, I'm not trying to be hard here, I rteally don't get your question. give an example of an equation, maybe?

 

Basically, if an equation is dependant on time, then a change in time will change the result - it will not change the other variables, unless the variables are themselves dependent on time.

 

For example, you can have an equation that has time *and* acceleration in it, but since acceleration itself is dependent on time (a= dv/dt) the variable of acceleration will also change according to time. If you have variables that do not depend on time, they will not change if you change time. It's.. math..

 

inotherwords the change in the equation comes before the physical change

No, the change in the equation *represents* the physical change.

[north]

well mooeypoo ?

[mooeypoo]

well mooeypoo ?

Calm down, this isn't a chat room, it's a forum.

[north]

inotherwords the change in the equation comes before the physical change

 

No, the change in the equation *represents* the physical change.

 

exactly

 

so that the equation is based on the physical dynamics , not on time

 

time in the equation is a consequence of physical dynamics

 

just simply changing time in the equation means nothing

Edited May 11, 2009 by north

[mooeypoo]

exactly

 

so that the equation is based on the physical dynamics , not on time

It has physical dynamics in it, and it has time in it, so it is based on both.

[johnnny92008]

what if you did not time it? you just let it roll.