A Universe without Time

[asprung]

THat is the problem. I view "now" as progressing uniformly ageing the universe but have no word to describe this diffrent than time.

[Mr Skeptic]

"Now" is to time as "here" is to space. You can only do stuff here and now.

[asprung]

Agreed

[granpa]

THat is the problem. I view "now" as progressing uniformly ageing the universe but have no word to describe this diffrent than time.

I already told you. the word is 'universal time'. thats all your idea boils down to. your concept of time is no different from anyone elses. you just have a preferred frame. a 'real' now.

[asprung]

Sounds good to me.

[Royce]

Personally, I think motion can continue with out the fourth dimension.

 

If we lived in the fourth dimension, wouldn't we see all our futures and pasts at the same time?

 

I base this on a video I saw off of tenthdimension.com.

 

If there was no time we would move but there would be no past or future to go back to or see, thats all.

 

But there is a dimension of time, so we can theoreticaly visit our past and future.

[asprung]

I believe that a true understanding of what time is is basic to an understanding of the universe. I certainly dont have it.

[GutZ]

I don't think anyone really does.

[phyti]

To assume time as a dimension, or a progression within a dimension is in contradiction to observation. As mentioned, parts of the universe do not disappear or reappear. If an object speeds up and it's clock slows, does it get behind in time? If so, how would it catch up? We see the

universe of objects, all with various velocities, persisting simultaneously. Because of spatial extent, we also know our simultaneous perception of the objects does not imply simultaneous states for those objects.

The analysis of subjective time keeping shows we are only measuring the rate of activity, by matching external events to a standard event (clock).

It seems asprung is searching for an objective time, a causal action (like a synch pulse) that transforms all parts of the universe from one state to another simultaneously, i.e. a universal now. This would allow a common now for all observers, and provide a universal frame for building theories.

The subjective time would still have to be local because it depends on the speed of the observer relative to other nearby objects.

[Eric 5]

Without time everything would be frozen and there could be no motion.

I was proposing that the slowing would effect any type of clock including those you mention.

 

 

Think about this. Without time everything would be frozen and there could be no motion. Frozen for how long? If there was no motion, then what ever objects that are existing would be motionless forever, and forever is a measure of time.

 

Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

What do you think time is?

 

I know that there are some people on this forum who cringe when they see me back on here talking about time. I find it rather humorous that on a physics forum there is still the idea that time is a thing, yet established science has never defined time to be a thing. If anyone here thinks that time can bend and dilate and the absence of time would prevent motion, than please explain what this thing is, what is it made of?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Clocks measure time.

 

 

Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

 

 

Clocks are a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines.

 

 

 

 

Take a look at a clock or any of the devices constructed by man to measure time. Are these devices actually measuring or detecting a force or thing called time? If you believe that clocks or any such device measures time then ask yourself, how does this measurement or detection occur. If you were to take the batteries out of a clock it will no longer work and therefore no longer “measure” time. Clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides how a clock will move, not time.

 

The general idea of how man perceives time is that time flows, so I will go along with this analogy to ask you, if time flows then how is it that a clock measures this flow. A clock would be like a flow meter, meaning that the flow of time would drive the clock. We all know that this is not true.

Clocks are pre-programmed to move or count at a certain rate that has been determined by man, not time. Clocks work according to how man made them to work, they are not time driven. Clocks were invented to give mankind a universal agreement on when things occur. Clocks allow man to be on the same schedule when it comes to communicating or planning. Clocks give a structure to human activity. They do not actually measure time, they just operate at a pre-determined rate that has been set up by man.

 

If clocks or any time piece were actually influenced by a thing called time, in effect, driven or motivated by a force called time, than they would not need an external power source to make them work. But we all know that clocks are not motivated by time nor do clocks have any effect on time, changing a clock does not change time.

 

 

Time does not effect the motion of clocks, or anything. Time does not make clocks run or work. Clocks are just man made machines that are made to give a desired result when operating properly, they are not meters that measure the flow of time.

 

Please share with me your definition of a clock and time that shows that clocks actually measure anything outside of its immediate construction. What outside influence is a clock measuring?

 

Hi again Mr. SWANSONT.

 

Please tell the class how a clock measures time. What sensor or detector do all clocks posses that enable them to detect this thing called time?

 

I have seen many repair manuals for clocks and timepieces and I have yet to see any sort of time sensor or detector.

 

You say clocks measure time, is there any scientific reference that explains how this occurs?

[magpies]

Clocks can measure time if you understand how to read a clock properly.

[Eric 5]

Clocks give units for measurement of time. Here again as far as I know there is no clear definition for the underlying nature of time.

 

 

There are many clear definitions of time. Look in any scientific dictionary.

Time has been defined by science and there is no confusion or mystery regarding how science defines time. Time is a consideration brought about through the perception of motion. Time is not a physical thing that moves clocks or exists in any form.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Clocks can measure time if you understand how to read a clock properly.

 

I know how to read a clock. If you think clocks measure time, then please give the reference that describes this process, I have asked people on this forum before to give some explaination of how a clock actually measures time and no one has given a description. So now is your chance to tell me and the rest of us how exactly a clock measures time. Maybe you can start by explaining what form this thing (time) is made of, and then go into the description of how this thing can influence a physical device like a clock.

 

You say clocks measure time, where is the scientific description of this occurence?

[swaha]

how can u observe time without light? light signals from a pt where an event occurs reaches u & u can start measuring time. otherwise how do u understand the interval? i think light's velocity is more fundamental.

[swansont]

Please type properly. This is not a chat channel for texting.

[Eric 5]

how can u observe time without light? light signals from a pt where an event occurs reaches u & u can start measuring time. otherwise how do u understand the interval? i think light's velocity is more fundamental.

 

When you say observe time are you literally implying that time is percieveable with our eyes?

 

Everybody can get the idea of time passing in a dark room with their eyes closed. No light.

 

You must elaborate on what you mean by observe time.

[Physman]

i must agree with asprung, two measuring devices may measure diffrently in to refernce frames although both of them are measuring the same rate of TIME, but are measuring at differnt rates comparitivly. they would still refer to the same time as a universal subject, but at differnt rates.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i strongly agree with asprung, although i think that time is the gap between events A and B that allows a change to occur in a relative manor.

[Eric 5]

Clocks give units for measurement of time. Here again as far as I know there is no clear definition for the underlying nature of time.

 

There are many clear scientific definitions for time. Look around you, what is your experience with time. Take a scientific approach to time. You can find out for yourself what time is.

 

It is either a physical thing as defined in any scientific reference book, or it is not a physical thing. If you let go of your preconcieved ideas about time and take an unbiased look at the subject of time you will find the underlying nature of time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Time is not tangible. Time is nothing. It was created by humans to measure things. You people are thinking too hard.

 

You are correct.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Time as I see it is a basic force of nature that maintains the present "now" progressing along.

 

As YOU see it? Stick to science. What does science say about time?

 

There is no standard definition of time that says it is a force of nature.

 

You are just making up stuff.