My theory on time

[DrakeMagi]

i believe time is nothing more then a measurement.

things happen do to reactions.

we measure these reactions by using the measurement of time.

like we use a tape measure to measure a room.

 

i just don't get why people think time pushes us along ?

 

like car coming to a stop. has nothing to do with time.

most of the time. it has to do with a person foot hitting the breaks. (reaction)

building pressure in the break line by squeezing break fluid tighter. (reaction)

which pushing the breaks against the break disc causing the car to slow down.

(reaction). which we measure by time. how long it took it to happen.

[Icefire]

Sorry, I don't remember the name of that time theory either.

[sr.vinay]

I don't think most people perceive time as something that pushes us along. It's a relative measure of longevity of an event. That's the end of it.

[ajb]

By "pushing us along" I think it is meant that we for some reason always see time as increasing. We don't have the freedom to move as we do in the spacial dimensions.

[Leader Bee]

I think time is indeed a manmade concept and there are two seperate definitions (That i've come up with myself admittedly)

 

1) Actual/Fundemental Time - which is the here and now, the present in which all things happen and that time does not exist outside of the present.

 

2) Perceived time, which is our measurement of 1 second per second. Clocks are a device that measure time but they do not require a force called time to function; They are pre-set to record what we think the passage of time should be and not outputting what time really is.

 

Time does not push us along, it does not move, it is only a medium which allows us to interact with the universe. Without time interaction is not possible.

 

Our concept of percieved time is only an idea and not a force that affects the world, it is our concept thought up to make the recording of events in Fundemental time easy, a reference frame that we can all relate to, a co-ordinate of an event for example.

[michel123456]

That does not help much.

Philosophers come with those ideas because there is no other answer available. Even Einstein came to the thought that time may not exist.

But then, what is that "t" factor involved in almost all equations of physics?

Just a measurement? Let's say yes.

In this case, the other elements involved in the equations, what are they? measurements too? Mass, distance, charge, etc.

Yes of course they are measurements. But not simply measurement: they are a way to understand and explain some part of what we call Reality.

And Time is a part of Reality.

The only problem is that its measurement does not give any clue about his nature.

To say "it's only a measurement" does not answer any question.

 

---------------

Hum, that was a little bit negative.

 

Trying to be more constructive:

 

 

you could ask: why is that measurement always positive?

 

or

 

if time is a medium, how come that we cannot go in every directions in this medium?

 

PS

 

I don't believe that time is something that pushes. I think we have a bunch of totally wrong conceptions about time.

Edited April 28, 2010 by michel123456

[Leader Bee]

 

if time is a medium, how come that we cannot go in every directions in this medium?

 

 

 

Because I hypothesised that time only exists in the current reference frame (it is a one dimensional point). There is no past other than what man has recorded of it, there is no future because it has not yet happened and could happen in a great many ways hence there is no direction with which to travel, only the current point in time in which you exist.

 

I think people need to untangle the concept of past and future as "places" that can be visited and look at them as concepts man has constructed to make recording events easier to explain.

[michel123456]

This thread should be placed under Philosophy, not under Speculations. There are a lot of interesting links to give, but all about philosophy.

 

Like http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

Edited April 29, 2010 by michel123456

[truedeity]

because things move though space, we have the illusion of time. there is only "present", past and or future are psychological illusions.

[michel123456]

because things move though space, we have the illusion of time. there is only "present", past and or future are psychological illusions.

 

That is not the case.

The only thing we can observe is the past. We cannot observe the present.

[Double K]

Someone brought up a good point regarding "what is that 't' factor that is present in many equations?"

 

I'd just like to address that point by saying that time is a constant - therefore it works in mathematical equations.

 

"The number e is of eminent importance in mathematics, alongside 0, 1, π and i. Besides being abstract objects, all five of these numbers play important and recurring roles across mathematics, and, coincidentally are the five constants appearing in one formulation of Euler's identity."

 

That's straight out of wikipedia (the oracle)

But it raises a good point.

How was "time" originally calculated?

It's based on pi.

Being our revolutions (which are eliptical) around a set benchmark, and our rotations of the planet (which is round - pi again)

 

It makes sense to use constants in most equations as it gives a reference point to solve to...

[Phx Lord]

I agree with Leader Bee. Past is not a relevant point. Though we have ended up in the present as we are, our present is only the future of our past. Therefore it is possible to be omni present, in that all places in our present are equally likely outcomes of our past.

[swansont]

Someone brought up a good point regarding "what is that 't' factor that is present in many equations?"

 

I'd just like to address that point by saying that time is a constant - therefore it works in mathematical equations.

 

"The number e is of eminent importance in mathematics, alongside 0, 1, π and i. Besides being abstract objects, all five of these numbers play important and recurring roles across mathematics, and, coincidentally are the five constants appearing in one formulation of Euler's identity."

 

That's straight out of wikipedia (the oracle)

But it raises a good point.

How was "time" originally calculated?

It's based on pi.

Being our revolutions (which are eliptical) around a set benchmark, and our rotations of the planet (which is round - pi again)

 

It makes sense to use constants in most equations as it gives a reference point to solve to...

 

Based on pi? Um, no. That's like saying radioactive decay is based on e. It's a non-sequitur. Pauli's "not even wrong."

 

Time measurement based on oscillations of atoms, and can be measured by a quartz crystal. Not round. The common theme is that it's based on oscillations, and you can count cycles.

[Double K]

Based on pi? Um, no. That's like saying radioactive decay is based on e. It's a non-sequitur. Pauli's "not even wrong."

 

Time measurement based on oscillations of atoms, and can be measured by a quartz crystal. Not round. The common theme is that it's based on oscillations, and you can count cycles.

 

"Frequency standards and clocks have no fundamental differences -- they are based upon dual aspects of the same phenomenon. The basic unit of time, the second, is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of transition within the cesium atom." Frequency is determined by counting the number of cycles over the period of a second. Therefore, the definition of a clock can be expressed as a device that counts the number of seconds occurring from an arbitrary starting time.

 

From this definition it appears that a clock needs three basic parts. First, a source of events to be counted. This source can be labeled a frequency standard, frequency source, or time interval standard. Second, a means of accumulating these events or oscillations. Third, a means of displaying the accumulation of time. "

http://www.agilent.com/metrology/xtals.shtml

 

Angular frequency ω is defined as the rate of change in the orientation angle (during rotation), or in the phase of a sinusoidal waveform (e.g. in oscillations and waves):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency

Unfortunately for your argument, pi is required

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And why is angular frequency required there? Can't frequency be measured rather than angular frequency?

 

(Also, you might check swansont's blog)

[Double K]

And why is angular frequency required there? Can't frequency be measured rather than angular frequency?

 

(Also, you might check swansont's blog)

 

Oscillations are sinusoidal waveforms if you're measuring time from a waveform you're doing so with a frequency measurement, angular frequency for a sine wave - therefore pi required.

[swansont]

Unfortunately for your argument, pi is required

 

I never said pi was not required. I said it's not the basis of time measurement. We can't do any of this without math, but it is misguided to assert that math is the basis of time or time measurement. What we do as scientists is describe the behavior of nature. Pi is a necessary tool of that description. Time exists whether we measure it or not.

[Double K]

I never said pi was not required. I said it's not the basis of time measurement. We can't do any of this without math, but it is misguided to assert that math is the basis of time or time measurement. What we do as scientists is describe the behavior of nature. Pi is a necessary tool of that description. Time exists whether we measure it or not.

 

Any calculation that determines time would need pi - if you take this out the calcs do not function. Given that time (as an arbitrary) measures the passage of our rotations around a fixed benchmark (the sun) including our revolutions and many other factors, all of these take place on a sphere, circling another sphere, in an eliptical cycle. All of these variables require an element of pi to calculate them - it's why it's called the golden ratio...

 

Sacred geometry is replete in nature, and as we are measuring a natural occurance to discount it as a 'basis' is illogical.

 

Our clocks measure motion and our whole precept of time is based on motion and our ancestors determined time by motion of planets/moons/stars/sun or at least co-ordinated to these motions (relative to earth) you can absolutely NOT discount pi in these calculations.

 

Ok I missed this comment earlier and the implications of it:

"Time exists whether we measure it or not."

 

Well, that's a pretty tough one to answer. Does time exist? All that truly exists is the present - the now.

The rest is arbitrary and if we're calling it 'time' then yes it has a definition, and that definition requires calculations to achieve it's meaning - even Einstein stated that "Time is relative"

 

Zen monks have meditated on this for centuries - and although using a religion to define something is treading on dangerous ground (especially in a science forum) it's relevant to the discussion.

 

In philosophical terms all that exists is right now, the past is no longer occuring, and the future is yet to occur.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Double K

[michel123456]

In philosophical terms all that exists is right now, the past is no longer occuring, and the future is yet to occur.

 

If I remember well, these are the words of Plato, 2400 years ago.

You are a presentist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time)

 

I am a pastist.

[swansont]

Any calculation that determines time would need pi - if you take this out the calcs do not function.

 

Time measurement is not special in this regard. It's the nature of mathematics.

[Bignose]

I'd just like to address that point by saying that time is a constant - therefore it works in mathematical equations.

 

All righty, let's give this a try.

 

An object's velocity is equal to the derivative of its position with respect to time. Let v = velocity, x = position, and t = time.

 

or in equation form:

 

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

 

To find an object's position at a certain time, you integrate the above:

 

[math]x = \int dx = \int v dt [/math]

 

time is a variable to integrate over.... if time were a constant, the above would be meaningless. I.e. plug in pi..

 

[math] \int v d\pi [/math] has no meaning. Any more than [math]\int v d2[/math] does.

 

But, if we treat time as a variable (not as a constant), then we get right answers.

 

I.e. if a ball is moving at +2 m/s, and at time t=0 was at x=0, where will the ball be at t=7 seconds?

 

[math] \int^7_0 v dt = 7*2 - 0*2 = 14 m [/math] and you get the right answer. As I wrote above, integrals treating t as a constant don't even have meaning.

 

How do you resolve this? How can mathematical equations "work" by treating time as a constant? Because I don't know how to make the above work with a constant. Hopefully you can resolve this for us.

[Double K]

Time isn't a constant though.

Time is –noun

1.the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time

 

 

And what that equation uses t for is Δt (change in time)

 

 

It needs to solve an inhomogeneous integral equation?? (I'm no mathematician)

[Bignose]

I'd just like to address that point by saying that time is a constant -

 

 

Time isn't a constant though.

 

All I can say is: huh?

 

(the smart alec is me says time is so non-constant that it changes from being a constant to being not constant in just a few days!)

[Double K]

and thus you have discovered the dilema with the equation.

(or perhaps dichotomy is more apt)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

and thus you have discovered the dilema with the equation.

(or perhaps dichotomy is more apt)

How exactly do you propose time works in equations because it's constant then? That's what you said before.

 

I don't see how this is a dichotomy when it's yet to be established that time is a constant.