Time

[Alix]

I don't consider myself a genius, or compare myself to those who have been called geniuses, however; when it comes to theories that geniuses have on "time" I argue that most are out smarting their common sense.

So what is my argument? What is my definition of "time"? Well, in my opinion time does not exist.

Let me rephrase my last definition: Time is a record, or a count, that tracks two bodies in motion ( the earth and the sun in our case). Time is a tool that humans created to keep track of their everyday life. Time does not exist as a medium necessary for life to exist!

Let me try to simplify this a bit further; time is the count of the earth rotating about the sun, combined with the count of rotations the earth completes during one rotation about the sun. ( read it again)

So..... year 1 is the year humans decided to keep count, and 1 hour later the earth rotated about a full rotation divided by 24 equal parts. And 1 year later the earth rotated about 365.25 times and circled the sun. (To those of you who are really smart this count was probably a bit different 2011 earth rotations about the sun ago.)

The basic ingredient to life is not time, it is motion. The dilemma here is that humans define motion with time. This dilemma is what I would like to share with all you geniuses: this is the fundamental problem of our mathematical models of life.

Alix Orton Recorded on 6/1/12 @ 5:47pm or during earths 2011 rotation about the sun, when earth has rotated 158.48333 times since its last complete rotation about the sun.... (since we started keeping count in period AD)

[A Tripolation]

No. Time is what clocks measure.

[Alix]

1338589669[/url]' post='681667']

No. Time is what clocks measure.

 

A clock is a mechanical model of the earths rotation.

[ACG52]

A clock is a mechanical model of the earths rotation.

 

 

Not necessarily. Atomic clocks are not mechanical at all, and have nothing to do with the earth's rotation or the arbitrary designation of time intervals.

[Alix]

1338593541[/url]' post='681681']

Not necessarily. Atomic clocks are not mechanical at all, and have nothing to do with the earth's rotation or the arbitrary designation of time intervals.

 

Mechanics are the study of things in motion. Atoms move! Furthermore, atomic clocks are still a model of the earths rotation, but are considered to be the most accurate.

[juanrga]

I don't consider myself a genius, or compare myself to those who have been called geniuses, however; when it comes to theories that geniuses have on "time" I argue that most are out smarting their common sense.

So what is my argument? What is my definition of "time"? Well, in my opinion time does not exist.

Let me rephrase my last definition: Time is a record, or a count, that tracks two bodies in motion ( the earth and the sun in our case). Time is a tool that humans created to keep track of their everyday life. Time does not exist as a medium necessary for life to exist!

Let me try to simplify this a bit further; time is the count of the earth rotating about the sun, combined with the count of rotations the earth completes during one rotation about the sun. ( read it again)

So..... year 1 is the year humans decided to keep count, and 1 hour later the earth rotated about a full rotation divided by 24 equal parts. And 1 year later the earth rotated about 365.25 times and circled the sun. (To those of you who are really smart this count was probably a bit different 2011 earth rotations about the sun ago.)

The basic ingredient to life is not time, it is motion. The dilemma here is that humans define motion with time. This dilemma is what I would like to share with all you geniuses: this is the fundamental problem of our mathematical models of life.

Alix Orton Recorded on 6/1/12 @ 5:47pm or during earths 2011 rotation about the sun, when earth has rotated 158.48333 times since its last complete rotation about the sun.... (since we started keeping count in period AD)

 

Time is a physical quantity, it can be measured and has units. The International System of units uses the second as the basic unit for time.

[swansont]

Mechanics are the study of things in motion. Atoms move!

 

The time measurement of atomic clocks is not dependent on that motion. In fact, the atomic motion gives time dilation which limits the precision and accuracy, so the best clocks and frequency standards employ methods to reduce atomic motion. And the measurements themselves involve transitions within the atoms, where you can no longer apply the concept of a trajectory, so the notion of motion is rather fuzzy. In a standard microwave atomic clock the transition is a flip of the intrinsic angular momentum vector, i.e. spin, where this spin is not physical. Motion is not a concept you can clearly apply to this.

[Alix]

1338634946[/url]' post='681780']

The time measurement of atomic clocks is not dependent on that motion. In fact, the atomic motion gives time dilation which limits the precision and accuracy, so the best clocks and frequency standards employ methods to reduce atomic motion. And the measurements themselves involve transitions within the atoms, where you can no longer apply the concept of a trajectory, so the notion of motion is rather fuzzy. In a standard microwave atomic clock the transition is a flip of the intrinsic angular momentum vector, i.e. spin, where this spin is not physical. Motion is not a concept you can clearly apply to this.

 

I admit, I did not know that. But in this case we as people are still using things of the universe as a method to develop a system. We use the system for communication, record keeping, and various other tasks that enable our race to evolve. The bottom line is the universe is made up of DIFFERENT things. And I emphasize different because if everything was the same we would not exist. We are able to think, remember, communicate because we can compare and relate one thing to another. By relating different things we as people have develop standards to use as communication. These standards such as time, length, temperature, numbers, letters, etc.. do not physically exist in nature, they are man made.

[swansont]

These standards such as time, length, temperature, numbers, letters, etc.. do not physically exist in nature, they are man made.

 

The standards are man-made/defined. The concepts upon which they are based are real phenomena. Quantifying their measure is useful to us.

[Alix]

1338654932[/url]' post='681874']

The standards are man-made/defined. The concepts upon which they are based are real phenomena. Quantifying their measure is useful to us.

 

Time is not a real phenomena, we can not measure it, travel in it, or stop it. We can keep track of things that change and relate events that happen to periods during that change.

We can classify the things that surround us, and with these things we can make observations and use them to communicate. We can only do this because there are things that surround us that are different.

Your argument may be without time things can not change, my argument is without change there is no time. And to be honest there is no way to prove either party wrong.

I hope I have been able to create a new way of thinking for some of you.

 

[life station]

I don't want to proof any theory but it will be kind enough,if you all can watch my topic in speculation forum TIME AND WE. And again TIME AND WE FURTHER and give some information on it

[zapatos]

Time is not a real phenomena, we can not measure it, travel in it, or stop it. We can keep track of things that change and relate events that happen to periods during that change.

Actually science has come up with a device to do just this sort of thing.

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Time is not a real phenomena, we can not measure it, travel in it, or stop it. We can keep track of things that change and relate events that happen to periods during that change.

We can classify the things that surround us, and with these things we can make observations and use them to communicate. We can only do this because there are things that surround us that are different.

 

zapatos beat me to it, but we do actually measure time. It's an important part of the GPS system.

 

Your argument may be without time things can not change, my argument is without change there is no time. And to be honest there is no way to prove either party wrong.

 

I've made no such argument, but this is what makes it philosophy rather than science. Meanwhile, in physics, there is such a thing as time and it gets measured.

[Alix]

1338668731[/url]' post='681937']

zapatos beat me to it, but we do actually measure time. It's an important part of the GPS system.

 

 

 

I've made no such argument, but this is what makes it philosophy rather than science. Meanwhile, in physics, there is such a thing as time and it gets measured.

 

How do you measure something that has not happened? We are counting not measuring.

 

1338667670[/url]' post='681932']

Actually science has come up with a device to do just this sort of thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All devices that are being created to "measure time" are not measuring time, these devices count something that changes in a consistent manner. People then define a certain quantity of the count to define a second.

[zapatos]

All devices that are being created to "measure time" are not measuring time...

You are just playing at semantics. I imagine we are all in agreement as to how the world behaves. You are simply describing the same things using different words.

 

I could just as easily say that time is real but counting is not. There are no such things as numbers and people can't count. They simply have developed a system where a symbol such as '1' represents the fact that a single thing is accounted for. If that same type of things is accounted for again, people simply assign a symbol that looks like '2'.

 

I also realized that Twitter is not real. You cannot measure it, travel it, or seemingly stop it. There is simply a global collection of electrons that move in certain directions, resulting in me knowing that Jennifer Lopez had eggs for breakfast today.

 

Although to make things simple, we could just all agree to be consistent and call these things 'counting', 'Twitter', and 'time'.

 

 

...these devices count something that changes in a consistent manner. People then define a certain quantity of the count to define a second.

So we are in agreement!

[swansont]

How do you measure something that has not happened?

 

Begging the question. Logical fallacy. Invalid argument.

 

We are counting not measuring.

 

Then you must also argue that there is no length, either. All we do when we measure length is count tick marks on a ruler. Nothing is real. Congratulations! However, counting intervals is useful, because it helps describe how the universe behaves.

[Alix]

Then you must also argue that there is no length, either. All we do when we measure length is count tick marks on a ruler. Nothing is real. Congratulations! However, counting intervals is useful, because it helps describe how the universe behaves.

 

Atleast with "length" , we are comparing one object we can see and touch with another, and understand that one is different than the other.

With "time" we are comparing a mechanism of sorts (clocks), created to tick, with things we do during our everyday life. My argument is that there is no clear understanding of the relation of one to the other. The easy assumption to make (and it makes for great storys) is that one depends on the other.

The illusion that clocks measure a dimension of "time" was fabricated by man, and I remain suspect to believe that such a dimension exists. I am not down playing the importance of clocks and the use of time as a system to understand how the world works, I am a mechanical engineer and rely on the principals for my occupation. I am just trying to encourage people to think outside the box.

 

 

[juanrga]

At least with "length" , we are comparing one object we can see and touch with another, and understand that one is different than the other.

 

Measuring is the comparison of the property in the system with the property in a reference system (unit). Any property Q can be written as

 

Q = {Q}[Q]

 

where {Q} is the number of times that the reference (the unit) is contained in the property of the system. For example, the metre is the SI unit for length and it is given by a reference system held in Paris.

[swansont]

Atleast with "length" , we are comparing one object we can see and touch with another, and understand that one is different than the other.

With "time" we are comparing a mechanism of sorts (clocks), created to tick, with things we do during our everyday life.

 

There are plenty of things in the universe that you cannot see nor touch with each other. This is hardly a reasonable criterion.

 

My argument is that there is no clear understanding of the relation of one to the other. The easy assumption to make (and it makes for great storys) is that one depends on the other.

 

"No clear understanding" is a personal statement, not a general one.

 

The illusion that clocks measure a dimension of "time" was fabricated by man, and I remain suspect to believe that such a dimension exists. I am not down playing the importance of clocks and the use of time as a system to understand how the world works, I am a mechanical engineer and rely on the principals for my occupation. I am just trying to encourage people to think outside the box.

 

Cars travel down a street, and you cross the street. Is it an illusion that you do not get hit by the cars? You have the same spatial coordinates. Why is there no collision?

 

Thinking outside the box is fine, if one recognizes that in science, nature has the final say — the goal of science is to describe how nature behaves. If you fail to do that, your thinking is erroneous. Unfortunately "think outside the box" is often code for "I want to ignore some part of science and don't want to defend my decision to do that"

[Alix]

1338739415[/url]' post='682123']

There are plenty of things in the universe that you cannot see nor touch with each other. This is hardly a reasonable criterion.

 

"No clear understanding" is a personal statement, not a general one.

 

Cars travel down a street, and you cross the street. Is it an illusion that you do not get hit by the cars? You have the same spatial coordinates. Why is there no collision?

 

Thinking outside the box is fine, if one recognizes that in science, nature has the final say — the goal of science is to describe how nature behaves. If you fail to do that, your thinking is erroneous. Unfortunately "think outside the box" is often code for "I want to ignore some part of science and don't want to defend my decision to do that"

When it comes to measuring length the comparison is usually based on things we can see or touch. I agree, this is my opinion. If you recall from my introduction to this topic, I believe a basic misconception we have is linking "time" with motion. I do not know the answer to this question.

 

These are my goals as well, you seem like a bright individual, my advise to you is that when you are brainstorming it may be helpful to try to remove ideas made by people from your thought, nature has existed without man.

 

Edited June 3, 2012 by Alix

[ACG52]

my advise to you is that when you are brainstorming it may be helpful to try to remove ideas made by people from your thought, nature has existed without man.

 

 

You seem to be saying 'pay no attention to anything learned by anyone else'. Science doesn't work that way.

[Bill Angel]

I encountered some really "outside of the box" thinking on time in the book "once before time: a whole story of the universe" by Martin Bojowald. According to the author, time is a real physical quantity and is quantized, i.e. time is only allowed to take on discrete values. It is not infinitely divisible into infinitely small increments. Is there a real world consequence to this assertion? According to the author, the singularity at the time of the "big bang" disappears from the equations of the general theory of relativity when time is quantized. This quantization of time also makes it possible for cosmologists to consider what happened BEFORE the big bang in ways that are consistent with the general theory of relativity, and also that the physical properties before the big bang has had consequences on the characteristics of our current universe. So, according to Dr. Bojowald, time and its quantization is a real physical aspect of the universe, and not simply a man made tool for making measurements!

[Alix]

1338762430[/url]' post='682192']

You seem to be saying 'pay no attention to anything learned by anyone else'. Science doesn't work that way.

 

That is not what I meant, I believe it is of most importance to study and learn from others. In fact without the very thing we call "time" we would not be the superior race we are today. We have developed a system that is near perfect for communicating anout how things behave, and recording our discoveries so that we can share them with our peers.

Remember it is not the everyday understanding of time I am in disagreement of, it is the notion that "time" is a part of nature, a dimension of the universe that we can tap into and change the past, present or future.

Time to me is just a system we humans developed to communicate. And for a long time I imagine this is all it was... at some point it became more than that; hence my topic..

What I am tying to tell you is that sometimes it is helpful to start from the beginning and ask yourself how did people begin to believe about things this way? What do I believe and why? what can I use as evidence for my belief? It is at this last question where you often have to remove mans opinion to find evidence to support your belief.

 

 

1338768880[/url]' post='682206']

I encountered some really "outside of the box" thinking on time in the book "once before time: a whole story of the universe" by Martin Bojowald. According to the author, time is a real physical quantity and is quantized, i.e. time is only allowed to take on discrete values. It is not infinitely divisible into infinitely small increments. Is there a real world consequence to this assertion? According to the author, the singularity at the time of the "big bang" disappears from the equations of the general theory of relativity when time is quantized. This quantization of time also makes it possible for cosmologists to consider what happened BEFORE the big bang in ways that are consistent with the general theory of relativity, and also that the physical properties before the big bang has had consequences on the characteristics of our current universe. So, according to Dr. Bojowald, time and its quantization is a real physical aspect of the universe, and not simply a man made tool for making measurements!

 

interesting, but it seems like its lacking proof and is using its relationship with the theory of relativity to gain credibility for the idea. Thanks for the reference, I will look into it.

 

 

[swansont]

Remember it is not the everyday understanding of time I am in disagreement of, it is the notion that "time" is a part of nature, a dimension of the universe that we can tap into and change the past, present or future.

 

If "tapping into the past" means time travel to an arbitrary time, that's not standard physics, either.