is time real

[mooeypoo]

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

Johnnny, read the rest of this thread. Movement is dependent on time. By definition.

 

Please read the thread before you repeat questions that were already answered (multiple times) in this thread already.

[north]

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

 

true

[johnnny92008]

1time

Pronunciation: \ˈtīm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tīma; akin to Old Norse tīmi time, Old English tīd — more at tide

Date: before 12th century

1 a: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future c: leisure <time for reading>

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

time has nothing to do with movement.

[mooeypoo]

First off, Johnnny, you need to reference this quote. Which dictionary did you take this from. Link.

 

Second, I was asked - and answered - about MOVEMENT.

 

 

Main Entry:

move·ment Listen to the pronunciation of movement

Pronunciation:

\ˈmüv-mənt\

Function:

noun

Date:

14th century

 

1 a (1): the act or process of moving ; especially : change of place or position or posture (2): a particular instance or manner of moving b (1): a tactical or strategic shifting of a military unit : maneuver (2): the advance of a military unit c: action, activity —usually used in plural

(source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/movement)

 

 

As we already went through in this thread multiple times, movement is a change of position of a particle in relation to time.

 

V = dx/dt

A = dv/dt

 

Movement is DEPENDENT on time.

 

Now go and read the thread you jumped into before you go against the rules again by claiming questions were not answered while they *WERE*.

 

If this thread continues going in circles, perhaps we should just finish it up now.

 

~moo

[johnnny92008]

move·ment

Pronunciation: \ˈmüv-mənt\

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 a (1): the act or process of moving ; especially : change of place or position or posture (2): a particular instance or manner of moving b (1): a tactical or strategic shifting of a military unit : maneuver (2): the advance of a military unit c: action, activity —usually used in plural

[north]

Originally Posted by north

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.

 

my point is though , is that , if in the equation you change the time numbers, that will not equate into the change of the physical dynamics of the object or objects involved

[johnnny92008]

Who said movement was dependent on time?

[mooeypoo]

my point is though , is that , if in the equation you change the time numbers, that will not equate into the change of the physical dynamics of the object or objects involved

... okay, I am completely lost.

 

Use an example. Take an equation, and show us.

[north]

Who said movement was dependent on time?

 

don't know

 

but many , many , many , many people do

 

unfortunately

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

... okay, I am completely lost.

 

Use an example. Take an equation, and show us.

 

why ?

[mooeypoo]

don't know

 

but many , many , many , many people do

 

unfortunately

Okay, enough is enough.

 

For 7 pages of a thread you have asked questions and posed speculations -- alll of which were answered. And yet, you keep claiming you have no clue who thinks what and why and how. These issues were dealt with and answered to berfore in this thread.

 

For the past 2 pages, we've been going in circles over issues that were resolved.

 

I recommend you both go over the rules of the forum again, and over our "Speculation Policy", and I remind you that we are not a mythological funthought fantasy forum, but a science forum, and as such, we work with evidence, not earmuffed stomping-your-feet-on-the-ground attitude.

 

This thread is closed pending moderation review.

[Klaynos]

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

 

A muon decay is longer when it is not at rest than when it is at rest relative to the clock measuring it. So yes it has an influence on the 'physical dynamics of a situation'

[swansont]

Thread reopened. Tentatively. Stay on topic, people, and within the rules. mooeypoo linked to the speculations policy above. Follow it.

 

 

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

 

Um, no. I don't think anyone here has made any such claim, nor is this present in the standard literature.

 

It's a false dichotomy to conclude that since time doesn't cause motion that motion must cause time.

Edited May 11, 2009 by swansont

[north]

Thread reopened. Tentatively. Stay on topic, people, and within the rules. mooeypoo linked to the speculations policy above. Follow it.

 

 

 

 

Um, no. I don't think anyone here has made any such claim, nor is this present in the standard literature.

 

It's a false dichotomy to conclude that since time doesn't cause motion that motion must cause time.

 

why though ?

 

as I thought no reasonable reponse to my question

Edited May 14, 2009 by north

[thief]

Thief here...

I stepped away from this discussion because it became an argument.

And not well done either.

Half of the participants want to label movement, and the other half are trying to rip the label off.

 

Let's try something simple.

 

See yourself meditating while sitting on a sphere.

Are you moving? can't say...no reference.

Picture a second sphere in front of you....are you moving?

Can't say...both spheres could be moving in parallel lines...or

the sphere you're sitting on... could be rotating and the sphere in front of you could be orbiting...or no movement at all.

Picture a third sphere at a distance.

Distance unknown. No telescopes. No measuring device. No units.

The third sphere appears to be moving.

How would you know? you have eyes.

 

Time is a ratio.

Measuring devices, and numbers had to be invented first, so that this ratio could become 'something'.

Can movement happen without the equation? yes.

 

That some of you insist on numbers...doesn't mean the other guy got it wrong.

Most things will continue onward...whether we clock them or not.

[swansont]

See yourself meditating while sitting on a sphere.

Are you moving? can't say...no reference.

Picture a second sphere in front of you....are you moving?

Can't say...both spheres could be moving in parallel lines...or

the sphere you're sitting on... could be rotating and the sphere in front of you could be orbiting...or no movement at all.

Picture a third sphere at a distance.

Distance unknown. No telescopes. No measuring device. No units.

The third sphere appears to be moving.

How would you know? you have eyes.

 

 

In principle you can tell if you are in a rotating frame. Not so for inertial motion. But yes, motion is relative. Relativity tells us that.

 

What has been argued here (and elsewhere) is whether time is a consequence of motion. As a logical argument it is flawed, because it is a false dilemma. Logical fallacy = fatal error. As a scientific proposal it has gone nowhere, because no evidence that has been put forth to support the conjecture has survived scrutiny, and no method of falsification has been proposed.

[thief]

Thief here...

So your stance would be that....

Time does exist beyond the chalkboard.

As if it be substance or force?

Time in a bottle?

[north]

In principle you can tell if you are in a rotating frame. Not so for inertial motion. But yes, motion is relative. Relativity tells us that.

 

What has been argued here (and elsewhere) is whether time is a consequence of motion. As a logical argument it is flawed, because it is a false dilemma. Logical fallacy = fatal error. As a scientific proposal it has gone nowhere, because no evidence that has been put forth to support the conjecture has survived scrutiny, and no method of falsification has been proposed.

 

so then your saying that time is a physical force , beyond time as a mathematical concept

 

prove it ;

 

prove that time can influence any physical dynamic , without any physical dynamic being involved , so that time is the cause alone of any physical dynamic

 

not possible

[mooeypoo]

so then your saying that time is a physical force , beyond time as a mathematical concept

No, that's not what he said, north. You are again dropping to a logical fallacy (this time the Strawman). Read what swansont actually wrote, not what you want him to mean.

 

Motion doesn't cause time, was what was said.

That does not mean time is a force.

 

prove it ;

You are the one making a claim here, you are the one needing to prove it. Did you even spend half a second reading the speculation policy after your time off, north? I recommend you do that.

 

prove that time can influence any physical dynamic , without any physical dynamic being involved , so that time is the cause alone of any physical dynamic

That wasn't the claim that was made, and it isn't what needs to be proven.

 

There are a few things you must do if you wish to continue this debate, north:

 

1. Stop making claims you can't prove sound like they're facts.
   
2. Stop rephrasing people's claims into what they're not so you will have it easier to counter.
   
3. Read the Speculation policy again, and follow it, specifically point number 1 (bolded, for your convenience):
   

The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.
   
   
2. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.
   
   
3. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.
   
   

 

Have fun.

There will be no point continuing this discussion if you refuse to follow basic rules of debate. Avoiding logical fallacies and giving the other side enough respect to listen to the claims made (rather than rephrasing them to what you want them to be) is a huge step forward. Try it.

 

~moo