What is Time?

[rigney]

Many words interface with what we concieve as time. But other than humans using the term, does time really matter, or even exist? Each of us have used the word for a lifetime and rarely look at it as a conundrum. The snippets below have been around for ages, yet; I wonder how they relate to your ideas of time and can anything new be added? Personally, I'm lost?????

 

Prevalent: Widely or commonly occurring, existing, accepted, or practiced.

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

 

Probable: Likely but uncertain; plausible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-thermo/

 

Possible: Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

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

 

Random: Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely.

http://www.3rd1000.com/nuclear/nuke101d.htm

 

!

Moderator Note

Owing to the nature of the question here, it should be noted that answers are going to be, by their very nature, speculative. So rules 1 and 3 of the speculations forum are not going to apply in the way they normally do. However, any in-depth discussion of a response should take place in its own thread

Edited December 18, 2010 by rigney
add modnote

[michel123456]

I have some ideas. I put no copyright.

 

1.The speed of light. It is a constant. It means at a distance d corresponds exactly a time t. It also means distanced objects are in the past. Shake together time and distance and you obtain... something.

 

2.The arrow of time: time runs always in the same direction. Search for other phenomenas that also run in one direction. There is gravity, which is always attractive. And there is distance, which is always positive. Shake together time, gravity and distance, and you'll obtain ...something.

 

3.Time. Forget it. Time alone has no meaning. Only Spacetime has a meaning. And spacetime curves under gravitation. Here, shake time with space and gravity and you will obtain... something you already obtained in point 2.

 

4.Random. Why do you mix randomnes with time? Time is already complicated.

All outcomes are equally likely but once an outcome becomes reality it excludes all other outcomes. Reality is exclusive. In the meanwhile, we call reality what we observe: "Reality" is not absolute, but ruled by observation. It means that in certain circumstances one may have the impression that observation rules the reality of the outcome.

Edited December 12, 2010 by michel123456

[rigney]

I have some ideas. I put no copyright.

 

1.The speed of light. It is a constant. It means at a distance d corresponds exactly a time t. It also means distanced objects are in the past. Shake together time and distance and you obtain... something.

 

2.The arrow of time: time runs always in the same direction. Search for other phenomenas that also run in one direction. There is gravity, which is always attractive. And there is distance, which is always positive. Shake together time, gravity and distance, and you'll obtain ...something.

 

3.Time. Forget it. Time alone has no meaning. Only Spacetime has a meaning. And spacetime curves under gravitation. Here, shake time with space and gravity and you will obtain... something you already obtained in point 2.

 

4.Random. Why do you mix randomnes with time? Time is already complicated.

All outcomes are equally likely but once an outcome becomes reality it excludes all other outcomes. Reality is exclusive. In the meanwhile, we call reality what we observe: "Reality" is not absolute, but ruled by observation. It means that in certain circumstances one may have the impression that observation rules the reality of the outcome.

 

Time is really only a metaphor describing "cause and effect". Using Random wasn't meant as chaotic, but nothing in the universe seems to be a constant other than SOL, and I'm not even sure about that? Edited December 14, 2010 by rigney

[36grit]

what is time?

 

As I see it, Time is a three dimensional construct of past, present, and future. Each is comprised of it's own seperate atmosphere of distance (space). I have found different theories as to wether or not space has a substance but it seems all agree that at least past time is comprised of distance. Look up infinite theory by yours truly, on this forum and I think you'll get a better understanding of time. PS: I'm no expert, but there doesn't seem to be any other timologists in existance to date.

[md65536]

Time consists of energy that oscillates 90 degrees out of phase with spatial energy, in the form of particles called chronotons. These chronotons can be positively charged (representing time that hasn't happened yet, IE. the future) or negatively charged (which is what the past is made up of).

 

Positive chronotons react with particles of the present, called immediatons, to create negative chronotons and other particles called effectons. There are immediatons present in all elementary mass particles. The more mass an object has, the more chronotons it needs to react with, which is why larger things are slower. Once positive chronotons are "used up", an object will basically slow to a halt. This explains why the moon has stopped turning some time in the past. However, negative chronotons can be turned back into positive chronotons through Big Bangs and also supernovae. The sun emits positive chronotons at a fairly constant rate, which is why time appears to flow at a fixed rate for all observers.

 

 

I don't really have any evidence other than common sense. I've been working on this theory for awhile now and it seems to work.

[rigney]

Time consists of energy that oscillates 90 degrees out of phase with spatial energy, in the form of particles called chronotons. These chronotons can be positively charged (representing time that hasn't happened yet, IE. the future) or negatively charged (which is what the past is made up of).

 

Positive chronotons react with particles of the present, called immediatons, to create negative chronotons and other particles called effectons. There are immediatons present in all elementary mass particles. The more mass an object has, the more chronotons it needs to react with, which is why larger things are slower. Once positive chronotons are "used up", an object will basically slow to a halt. This explains why the moon has stopped turning some time in the past. However, negative chronotons can be turned back into positive chronotons through Big Bangs and also supernovae. The sun emits positive chronotons at a fairly constant rate, which is why time appears to flow at a fixed rate for all observers.

 

 

I don't really have any evidence other than common sense. I've been working on this theory for awhile now and it seems to work.

 

Loved your fast moving commentary. "WOW", Fantastic! to say the least. Are you perhaps studying something new at the Bellevue Hospital Center in NYC? Edited December 17, 2010 by rigney

[md65536]

Loved your fast moving commentary. "WOW", Fantastic! to say the least. Are you perhaps studying something new at the Bellevue Hospital Center in NYC?

Thank you! It's nice to see someone else as excited about the theory as I am!

 

I am unfamiliar with the university of Bellevue but if they have an Advanced Timeology team in their physics department, then I'm sure it would be beneficial to have me speak to someone from there. I've been developing this theory in isolation. It would be nice to finally get some help.

Edited December 17, 2010 by md65536

[HAL9000]

Time is not a concept. It is a form of inner sense. It is the shadow of space so to speak, just as space is the shadow of time.

 

 

Sorry, that I cite a philosopher at this point, but science cannot provide any reasonable account of time as an entity, and so time is beyond its scope.

Neither do I claim, that the above statement is a valid definition. In fact, it is not a definition. It just allows to reflect on many things, which otherwise would have been kept away as pure nonsense.

[rigney]

Time is not a concept. It is a form of inner sense. It is the shadow of space so to speak, just as space is the shadow of time.

 

 

Sorry, that I cite a philosopher at this point, but science cannot provide any reasonable account of time as an entity, and so time is beyond its scope.

Neither do I claim, that the above statement is a valid definition. In fact, it is not a definition. It just allows to reflect on many things, which otherwise would have been kept away as pure nonsense.

 

No problem. I tried answering Michel123456 this way. To me, time is really only a metaphor of "cause and effect". I can understand that as a positive, since everything in the unuverse seems to function under that set of rules, other than SOL. And I'm not even so sure about that if you take into consideration what is called gravitational flexing? And since light is a physical thing, it must have its limitations like anything else. Although "Time and Thought" aren't physical as I see them, both are functions of our mind, and seem constantly different even if we are thinking about the same thing over and over again. I suppose thinking might be considered mechanical since we use our brain to get it done. It's a deep subject and I try to read anything I can find on it, and am not knowledgeable on it in any sense. Like I say, to me it's cause and effect. Two atoms, two isotopes or ions may decay at the same rate but not at the same "time". Edited December 18, 2010 by rigney

[36grit]

I hope to study at BU someday, But for now all I can do is try and get an acossiates degree here at Iguess U. I go to class two nights a week and there's a very nice view out the window.

We are currently studying chapter three entitled, Galactic Black Holes. Tonight we learned that; they are emitting future time waves as massless gravity at the same rate they are sucking in past time waves of ultra pure enegy. The result is a galaxie spinning at a predictable rate adjacent to the perimetter, as gamma waves escape from the slower center. At current, the gamma waves have scientists in the past scratching their heads bald while comming up with all kinds of theories and mathamatical equations. I know their all doing their best to make sense of it all. Seems like just yesterday.

We don't have a lot of money here at the Iguess U timology dept, but we did manage to scrape up enough to buy an old delapadated time machine. We hope to have enough money real soon to hire a team of professionals to fix it up and get it running. Hopefully before the end of the year school trip to the edge. I always look forward to seeing those colorful gas clouds rain down into the heavens, Truly, an awsome site to behold!. Perhaps we'll even get lucky enough to see a mass storm. That would be great. Tell everyone I said hello and I'll see ya soon. wishing all of you the very best.

Mark

[md65536]

We don't have a lot of money here at the Iguess U timology dept, but we did manage to scrape up enough to buy an old delapadated time machine.

Cool! Do you need to get a Master's degree in Time to use it? Or do they just restrict it to those with Lord degrees?

 

 

 

 

 

[36grit]

"Time and Thought" aren't physical as I see them, both are functions of our mind,

 

 

Two atoms, two isotopes or ions may decay at the same rate but not at the same "time".

 

 

If time is not physical, then their would be no decay.

If thought were not physical, there would be no gravity.

Debatable I'm sure, I just like to inject food for thought, that's just what I do.

because I'm hungry to. So,

 

If the big bang is correct in it's assumption that all mass was once a spec that inflated almost instantaniously, ( or at least very fast) then

how can the atoms decay at the same rate but not the same time?

 

I am typing in English and there are things we need learn real fast.

Today, I am a world wide charity of thought

tommorrow, we'll identify the stars in the same way

that we discerned the ancient contents that drifted

and why do laugh at the time machine today

when you know we will be building one tommorrow

yet, how can we build a time machine, with no understanding

of six dimensional space/time and the substance their of.

[md65536]

To me, time is really only a metaphor of "cause and effect".

My other theory (the boring one) concludes that time is equivalent to distance.

 

While working on it I ended up with 2 separate concepts of "present": One is "what we can observe right now" and the other is "what we can affect right now". Considering special relativity and c as the speed limit of information, each of these is "equidistant" from our accepted understanding of "present", in time relative to some given remote location. That is, for a moon that is one light second away, what we can observe is at least 1 second in the past and what we can affect (on the moon) is at least 1 second in the future. (My theory diverges on that explanation, by the way.)

 

What I currently figure is that our perception of time can be described completely as something like, "there is a perceived duration between emitting information and receiving information, which is proportional to distance." Or perhaps more interestingly, "there is a perceived duration between cause and effect (or action and observation), that is proportional to distance between the two." I think maybe there is nothing that can be described as "time" which can't be expressed this way???

 

 

Anyway it's hard to describe in English without cyclical definitions and stuff. The theory seems to be perpetually 1 month away from being ready.

Edited December 18, 2010 by md65536

[michel123456]

Thank you! It's nice to see someone else as excited about the theory as I am!

 

I am unfamiliar with the university of Bellevue but if they have an Advanced Timeology team in their physics department, then I'm sure it would be beneficial to have me speak to someone from there. I've been developing this theory in isolation. It would be nice to finally get some help.

 

So you were serious. I thought it was a joke.

 

(...) We don't have a lot of money here at the Iguess U timology dept, but we did manage to scrape up enough to buy an old delapadated time machine. We hope to have enough money real soon to hire a team of professionals to fix it up and get it running. Hopefully before the end of the year school trip to the edge. I always look forward to seeing those colorful gas clouds rain down into the heavens, Truly, an awsome site to behold!. Perhaps we'll even get lucky enough to see a mass storm. That would be great. Tell everyone I said hello and I'll see ya soon. wishing all of you the very best.

Mark

 

(emphasis mine)

??? what is that all about? Are we in the humor section?

 

My other theory (the boring one) concludes that time is equivalent to distance.

 

While working on it I ended up with 2 separate concepts of "present": One is "what we can observe right now" and the other is "what we can affect right now". Considering special relativity and c as the speed limit of information, each of these is "equidistant" from our accepted understanding of "present", in time relative to some given remote location. That is, for a moon that is one light second away, what we can observe is at least 1 second in the past and what we can affect (on the moon) is at least 1 second in the future. (My theory diverges on that explanation, by the way.)

 

What I currently figure is that our perception of time can be described completely as something like, "there is a perceived duration between emitting information and receiving information, which is proportional to distance." Or perhaps more interestingly, "there is a perceived duration between cause and effect (or action and observation), that is proportional to distance between the two." I think maybe there is nothing that can be described as "time" which can't be expressed this way???

 

 

Anyway it's hard to describe in English without cyclical definitions and stuff. The theory seems to be perpetually 1 month away from being ready.

 

Why boring? Your description looks correct to me, but it is only the obvious beginning.

[Incendia]

Time exists...If it didn't we wouldn't have time dilation etc.

 

Clocks move faster in space than on Earth.

[rigney]

Time exists...If it didn't we wouldn't have time dilation etc.

 

Clocks move faster in space than on Earth.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but could you say that walking at a fast pace across an empty swimming pool as compared to swimming across one full of water would be considered some sort of: "time dilation"? Might be, I just don't know.

 

Just picked this off the internet and thought it was interesting. But, since the mystique of it is far above my head, perhaps one of you might want to look it over. That is, unless you've already seen or read the circumstances.

 

http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

Edited December 18, 2010 by rigney

[md65536]

Time exists...If it didn't we wouldn't have time dilation etc.

I think time dilation, and the fact that different observers measure time differently, suggest that time doesn't quite "exist" ("To have actual being; be real") but is rather a fignewton of an observer's perception. One might say it only exists within the context of an observation, or even that it is illusory.

 

 

Time can be separated into several concepts. One is the perception of durations, which I believe is entirely a product of perceptive.

Another is chronology, or the ordering of events. Ignoring the measurement of durations between events, the chronological ordering of causally related events is absolute. I believe that the ordering of causally connected events (a "causal chronology") is a "real" aspect of the underlying nature of the universe, while the perception of time passing and the rate at which it appears to pass, is not.

[Incendia]

So why is time travel possible according to physics...

 

Steven Hawking onced explained that you can travel through time [to the future] but orbiting a blackhole because time is slower near to a blackhole because of the intense gravity curving time. You could orbit a blackhole for 100 years and the Earth might have progressed 1000 years. [The statistic of 100 years orbiting a blackhole = 1000 years on Earth is not accurate and has not been checked. It was used as an example.]

 

[if time travel is possible then time must exist as if it didn't you wouldn't be able to travel through it.]

 

I came up with a speculation, no one seemed to have seen, that potentially replaced time with space...as no-one noticed me posting it, I cannot even tell you whether it is plausible or nonsense...but that is irrelevant.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Incendia

[rigney]

While I can't argue "apples and oranges" with most of you, I can read, listen, think and be argumentative. Don't believe that will change many opinions, but it's eye opening to me. Like the link below that I probably would have never seen, had not someone on this forum always been pushing the envelope. Likely I would have jumped ship back in June. But there is tons of information and so many things to learn. I Just never bothered looking at it that way before. For many of you, my arguments may seem mundane, passe and even weightless, but they are eye opening to me!, and I appreciate your input. I'm looking at Hawking's time travel? At best, how or why should something as such be possible? And "Worm Holes"? Can anyone give me a real meaning of understanding to such a caption? C'mon! We have hard enough trouble traveling to the moon.

 

Phrases like the following bother me.

"Singularity", The Techno-Rapture. A black hole in the Extropian worldview whose gravity is so intense that no light can be shed on what lies beyond it. This from Godling's Glossary: by David Victor de Transend.

The Singularity is a common matter of discussion in transhumanist circles. There is no clear definition, but usually the Singularity is meant as a future time when societal, scientific and economic change is so fast we cannot even imagine what will happen from our present perspective, and when humanity will become posthumanity. "My quote": [beautiful and Poetic, but perhaps a bit posthumously?]

 

Edited December 20, 2010 by rigney

[md65536]

Hawking's time travel is time dilation, where one observer experiences time at a slower rate than others (just as with the twin paradox).

 

 

The Singularity you speak of is a predicted period in technological advancement where artificial intelligence is able to aid in technological innovation. The idea is that since they may be able to "improve themselves", then future iterations of AIs will be able to innovate better and faster, and through iteration will accelerate technological innovation beyond what is humanly possible, very rapidly.

 

There is also the concept of a singularity eg. with black holes... a singularity is a mass with infinite density and thus takes up no space (a single point with no size).

 

...because of the intense gravity curving time.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Saying "gravity curves spacetime" or pulls on it or whatever is like saying "Leaning in a car changes the car's direction when going around a corner".

 

Mass curves spacetime. Gravity is an effect. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Acceleration (aka change in velocity) around a corner changes the car's direction (aka velocity). The resulting leaning, just like gravitational attraction, is due to inertia. The force felt while leaning involves overcoming inertia to follow the path of the accelerating car. This is similar to the force felt when trying to overcome gravity. Leaning, like gravity, is an effect, not the cause.

 

 

 

 

 

Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

In summary, Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

[Incendia]

...Ack...got my words mixed up...I know mass curves space-time...I wrote the wrong word in...sorry

[rigney]

Hawking's time travel is time dilation, where one observer experiences time at a slower rate than others (just as with the twin paradox).

 

The Singularity you speak of is a predicted period in technological advancement where artificial intelligence is able to aid in technological innovation. The idea is that since they may be able to "improve themselves", then future iterations of AIs will be able to innovate better and faster, and through iteration will accelerate technological innovation beyond what is humanly possible, very rapidly.

 

There is also the concept of a singularity eg. with black holes... a singularity is a mass with infinite density and thus takes up no space (a single point with no size).

 

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Saying "gravity curves spacetime" or pulls on it or whatever is like saying "Leaning in a car changes the car's direction when going around a corner".

 

Mass curves spacetime. Gravity is an effect. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Acceleration (aka change in velocity) around a corner changes the car's direction (aka velocity). The resulting leaning, just like gravitational attraction, is due to inertia. The force felt while leaning involves overcoming inertia to follow the path of the accelerating car. This is similar to the force felt when trying to overcome gravity. Leaning, like gravity, is an effect, not the cause.

 

Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

In summary, Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Since I'm not an advocate of "Gravity" or Time", I like your use of "cause and effect" because they are my precise thoughts. If I may; let me put it this way. Vectorially the universe remains at a constant much as it has done since creation, perhaps give or take a yard or two. This constant speed and the "magnetic" attraction of all celestial objects has given us the rotational qualities that galaxies, planatary systems and moons possess and are made of. Explicit? No. just another conjecture. But coincidental speeds and attraction between bodies has to me; made this evolving universe possible. Humans have seen such a small part of this evolution, their thought process is, our answers are beyond a doubt mathematically and scientifically, so why change them? This may be. But then, the future is now. Edited December 21, 2010 by rigney

[michel123456]

Hawking's time travel is time dilation, where one observer experiences time at a slower rate than others (just as with the twin paradox).

 

 

The Singularity you speak of is a predicted period in technological advancement where artificial intelligence is able to aid in technological innovation. The idea is that since they may be able to "improve themselves", then future iterations of AIs will be able to innovate better and faster, and through iteration will accelerate technological innovation beyond what is humanly possible, very rapidly.

 

There is also the concept of a singularity eg. with black holes... a singularity is a mass with infinite density and thus takes up no space (a single point with no size).

 

 

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Saying "gravity curves spacetime" or pulls on it or whatever is like saying "Leaning in a car changes the car's direction when going around a corner".

 

Mass curves spacetime. Gravity is an effect. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

Acceleration (aka change in velocity) around a corner changes the car's direction (aka velocity). The resulting leaning, just like gravitational attraction, is due to inertia. The force felt while leaning involves overcoming inertia to follow the path of the accelerating car. This is similar to the force felt when trying to overcome gravity. Leaning, like gravity, is an effect, not the cause.

 

 

 

 

 

Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

In summary, Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. Mass does.

 

You are going the religious way: repeating three times the same thing.

 

It is indeed the official position: mass curves spacetime.

But:

we don't know what mass is, we don't know what spacetime is, and we don't know what gravity is. That is so exciting!

[rigney]

You are going the religious way: repeating three times the same thing.

 

It is indeed the official position: mass curves spacetime.

But:

we don't know what mass is, we don't know what spacetime is, and we don't know what gravity is. That is so exciting!

 

You're right Mike, the universe is exciting, and it's our curiosity in those unknowns that keep humans advancing. And I really don't mind someone poking a little fun on occasion, since I'm not the sharpest tack in the keg. But if we had all of the answers life would be pretty dull. Edited December 21, 2010 by rigney

[Incendia]

Isn't mass the amount of stuff that thing is made of?

Space-time is the dimensions our universe exists in. (X, Y, Z and time.)

Gravity is a force that things with mass 'create'. Gravity pulls things towards it's source. It is theorised that it is caused by a curvature of space-time.

In conclusion, I think we do know what those 3 things are...though we might be wrong.