EquisDeXD Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Someone was trying to tell me time isn't real, or it's fake because we made up the word time and just because "it's not the same time everywhere", but how does time being relative mean time doesn't exist? How could time be relative if it didn't exist? I'm trying to explain that time is as physical as any other dimension, but I can't seem to come up with anything specific. You can break time down into an infinite amount of possible intervals, but there will always be a finite counting of those intervals, is there some term of that? Is there some mathematical property that says "no matter how small an arbitrary interval is, there is always a finite value of them between any two time coordinates"? I guess there's the fabric of space, but we "made up the rules for physics", so... Edited October 3, 2012 by EquisDeXD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Someone was trying to tell me time isn't real, or it's fake because we made up the word time and just because "it's not the same time everywhere", but how does time being relative mean time doesn't exist? How could time be relative if it didn't exist? I'm trying to explain that time is as physical as any other dimension, but I can't seem to come up with anything specific. You can break time down into an infinite amount of possible intervals, but there will always be a finite counting of those intervals, is there some term of that? Is there some mathematical property that says "no matter how small an arbitrary interval is, there is always a finite value of them between any two time coordinates"? I guess there's the fabric of space, but we "made up the rules for physics", so... I suggest you read Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos. It has a wonderful discussion on our understanding of time, and is written for a lay audience. I think it will answer your questions and pose new and interesting ones for you to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 I suggest you read Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos. It has a wonderful discussion on our understanding of time, and is written for a lay audience. I think it will answer your questions and pose new and interesting ones for you to think about. No I've read that, but there exists a fabric of space, which they probably know, but they seem to think just because the labeling of it is arbitrary that it's somehow not real, there has to be some universal factor that is true for all possible labels or "units" of time, like there will always be a finite number of them within any given relative increment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 No I've read that, but there exists a fabric of space, which they probably know, but they seem to think just because the labeling of it is arbitrary that it's somehow not real, there has to be some universal factor that is true for all possible labels or "units" of time, like there will always be a finite number of them within any given relative increment. According to special and general relativity, there is no absolute time. And measurements of time on Earth, in airplanes, rockets, and satellites etc. verify Einstein's predictions to great accuracy that time is relative. However, as I said in another thread, I think the expansion of the universe gives us a basis for a cosmic or universal time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Someone was trying to tell me time isn't real, or it's fake because we made up the word time and just because "it's not the same time everywhere", but how does time being relative mean time doesn't exist? I wonder about the same. Wouldn't that imply that something can only "really exist" if either (a) there is no (English?) word for it, or (b) it is the same everywhere else? I am not sure that I had a proper concept/definition of "really exists" at hand myself - and I belief the lack of a proper definition is the crux of all such discussions. But that one looks very odd to me. Btw.: Just as EquisDeXD, I also don't understand why the absence of an absolute time (whatever that may mean exactly) is an argument for or against the statement that "time really exists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EquisDeXD Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) According to special and general relativity, there is no absolute time. Just read my posts and you'll see I already know that. I wonder about the same. Wouldn't that imply that something can only "really exist" if either (a) there is no (English?) word for it, or (b) it is the same everywhere else? I am not sure that I had a proper concept/definition of "really exists" at hand myself - and I belief the lack of a proper definition is the crux of all such discussions. But that one looks very odd to me. Btw.: Just as EquisDeXD, I also don't understand why the absence of an absolute time (whatever that may mean exactly) is an argument for or against the statement that "time really exists". I don't either, there's scientific evidence to support the existence of a fabric of space time, but I guess they just view time as independent from space or something? But isn't there some universal thing you can say for all units of time other than that they measure arbitrary units of time? Edited October 7, 2012 by EquisDeXD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now