Does time exist?

[Wolfman]

time is just a way to measure change.

 

Yes' date=' it exists [/quote']

 

If nothing changed then there would be no time. But thats not the case there is always movement.

 

yes there is time.

[5614]

yes, as we move, the clock moves, this symbolises time, as we know it...

[DoorNumber1]

I think those bearded men need women I've never seen one try to build a tractor before, but they have a wonderful way of making everything clearer!

 

Time exists, even if it's not that much different than the other dimensions. In fact it doesn't seem all that different except for the fact that we can choose the direction and speed in which we move in the others and we can only change the speed we move through time by going really really really really freaking fast (ie, near the speed of light) and the direction part is debatable. The reason we perceive time in the way we do is an interesting question and I'd love to know why. But the fact that "time" might mean something larger than what we perceive doesn't somehow invalidate the truth of what we perceive... it just means that it's not an absolute and total truth. Just because we may only know part of a larger truth doesn't necessarily mean that the part we know is incorrect.

 

And hey, colors are as "real" as anything else. The fact that the electromagnetic spectrum is a rather large bit bigger what we perceive as visible light doesn't somehow invalidate the differences we perceive between red and blue. They are specific frequencies, after all.

[noz92]

time must exist. no time, means no arrow of time. if you drop a wine glass from 6ft in the air, then it's going to break, and it's peices arn't going to just reform themselves like you can force them to on a vcr or dvd player. because time (and the laws of thermodynamics) forces things to happen in one order.

 

let's suppose those of you who are saying that time doesn't exist are correct, and time really is man made. then there would be no official order that things happen, and the wine glass might break before it's dropped, or you may die before your'e even born.

 

and the time tree thing, who ever asked where this time tree is, it wouldn't be an actual thing, it's more used to represent how the universe works. it would simply show that there is an infinite number of futures, and they all will happen.

 

and if you travel back in time, i wouldn't think that time could be messed up, because time is written.

 

i think that theres a physical time line, in which has the entire history of the universe, and everything that has happened and will happen. outside of these time lines would be an infinite nothing, and there would be no math, no motion, no existent universe.

 

another argument is, if time doesn't exist, then we wouldn't exist. the laws of physics go completly against having more then one thing, in the exact same place at the exact same time (or what ever you want to call it), which forces us to believe in time.

[Guest lelandroncorey]

Does time exist. Hmmm, I think eventually we'll figure it out. We just need moe time. But, of course, if it doesn't actually exist then we'll never get more. And, so if that's the case then I guess the answer is yes. Yes, it does not exist. Possibly.

[Thales]

If time is a physical reality as some speculate, then it would be possible to create energy by manipulating time (impossible except we bin conservation of energy). However, we create time each time we measure energy (there is no conservation of time).

 

???

 

Please Explian?

[e(ho0n3]

Time is a concept, an idea, a metaphysical thing, like 5164 said. It only exists in your mind. Might as well ask if space exists.

[NavajoEverclear]

Time is a concept, an idea, a metaphysical thing, like 5164 said. It only exists in your mind. Might as well ask if space exists.

 

 

?????

You make me want shoot my myself for lack of hope. Time is not just a figment of your friggen imagination. Of coarse theres that possibility that everything could be a figment, but lets disregaurd that, and speak of time logically and hypothetically. Right bucko this is as simple as it gets: I punch you in the face once. You repeat that time does not exist. I punch you again harder and FASTER. How is it faster the second time? Because it took less TIME for my hand to move from point A to point B (your pathetic head).

 

Of coarse time is relative and there may be several properties of it we do not understand yet, but it most certainly is there.

 

BTW, apologies for the insultage, please forgive me for the sake of humor

[deltanova]

What If.............

 

Time is just a constant to measure transit of energy from one place to the other

it takes time to move. if nothing moved there would be no time. and i mean that down to the smallest atom. you age because your cells are wearing out, from moving, we move to we need to have something to measure the rate of that movement, dont we? im unsure, this is just a point of interest to me.

[deltanova]

perhaps it is just a measurement

[TheBigDino]

Is it possible that time is the FOURTH dimension? ......

I believe dimensions to be controllers of the flow and movement of matter ....

[Duke]

I still believe that there is no time, only movement. Although i agree, we all live by time so in a way it does exist but it is not a necassary factor in the universe.

[DoorNumber1]

okay, let's suppose that time doesn't exist. Where do we go from there... nowhere! A theory's all find and good, but only insofar as it doesn't contradict with reality. And of course I'm not saying that we should base our theories on only what we see... they just couldn't completely conflict.

 

If I theorize that the universe is really made of tiny, dancing leprochauns and we can walk through walls if we hold 4-leaf clovers in front of us and dance a jig that would be a mighty fine theory (I'd think it was cool at least) but it would fall apart the moment we held a clover in front of us, twirled over to a wall, and still smashed face first into it. Great theories fall apart when proven wrong. Remember Michelson and Morley? Also, theories shouldn't replace a simple answer that explains everything with a more complicated answer that explains nothing more.

Einstein won his nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect which proved that light is a particle (or at least had unignorable particle-like properties), but it wouldn't have even happened if the wave theory didn't predict things like infinite energies and thus break apart. Relativity's a great idea, but it wouldn't have taken off if not for the fact that newtonian mechanics, under extreme conditions, starts to conflict with what we observe to be true. Relativity still produces the world we see in front of us.

 

So those of you who don't believe in time answer me this... what does our current theory of time conflict with? How does a "no time" theory offer a simpler (or at least more universal) explanation of the universe's workings than one that has time? How do you explain our everyday observations in terms of there being no time? And please try not to use words like motion that are defined in terms of passage through time.

[e(ho0n3]

?????

You make me want shoot my myself for lack of hope. Time is not just a figment of your friggen imagination. Of coarse theres that possibility that everything could be a figment' date=' but lets disregaurd that, and speak of time logically and hypothetically. Right bucko this is as simple as it gets: I punch you in the face once. You repeat that time does not exist. I punch you again harder and FASTER. How is it faster the second time? Because it took less TIME for my hand to move from point A to point B (your pathetic head).[/quote']

Touchy aren't we. You say you want to "speak of time logically and hypotheically", but how is your punching-me example logical? You are saying that the difference between your beatings is time. This doesn't mean time exists. All you are doing is defining what time is (i.e. the difference in the speed of the punches), but the notion of speed is based on time so your definition is circular. I repeat, time is a concept which only exists in your head. How about proving to me the existence of something simpler, say an apple. Give me a logical proof that apples exists. Please forgive if I sound condescending.

 

So those of you who don't believe in time answer me this... what does our current theory of time conflict with? How does a "no time" theory offer a simpler (or at least more universal) explanation of the universe's workings than one that has time?

Interesting question. I've never seen a physical theory that does not make use of time so...

[Thales]

How about proving to me the existence of something simpler, say an apple. Give me a logical proof that apples exists. Please forgive if I sound condescending.

 

I am new here, so I don't wish to get under anyone's skin but I believe such an arguement is best left to the philosophy forum?? In physics time exists, you can argue till the cows come home about it being an abstraction, but its an absraction that allows us to understand and manipulate the world around us. Does mass exist? Of course it does because without it their would be nothing, no conciousness to answer the question. Does time exist, yes because out it there is no mechanism by which thought can arise. See Anthropic Prinicple

[Duke]

Ok then doornumber1; time does exist, where do we go from there? It makes no difference.

[Wolfman]

nonbeleivers...read my quote underneath.....please

[DoorNumber1]

Ok then doornumber1; time does exist, where do we go from there? It makes no difference.

 

where do we go from there? We've already gone from there... and all of current physics follows from that.

[5614]

Ok then doornumber1; time does exist, where do we go from there? It makes no difference.

 

this is a debate thread, you just opinionated your view, thats the whole point of the thing! there is no where to go from here, just move along with time...

[DreamLord]

I think that time exists in a sense. We use it to measure, and we set our lives by it. The thing is that time is relative. There may be a place where a year of our time may only seem like seconds there. But even though it is relative and may be different in some places, I do believe that time exists.

[noz92]

but does time effect EM, or anything moving at that speed, light (i don't remember where i heard this from) never ages and is imortal?

[Thales]

EM doesn't age in the sense it can't lose energy other than through interaction with other matter. Thus we can see the background EM radiation left over from the big bang. As for suriving before the universe, and thus before OUR time, the answer is a resounding...I don't think so

[Severian]

Pity.... if we had come to the conclusion that time doesn't exist, I was goint to take the rest of today off.

[paganinio]

if time doesn't exist, can we take time travel yet?~~~

[Duke]

Yes i know 5614, read the whole thread.