Guest NUkes Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 There wsa no thing like time before there were humans and I think that time is just something that we created that makes us feel like we have better control the world arounds and makle sence of it. So do you Agree or Disagree with this and if so why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 I know this is not very scientific, but I see time as more of a perception than a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 There wsa no thing like time before there were humans and I think that time is just something that we created that makes us feel like we have better control the world arounds and makle sence of it. So do you Agree or Disagree with this and if so why? Disagree. Things move... so there is change of relative position of center of inertia of solid bodies. Some centers of inertia change in a regular periodic way... the center of inertia of a pendulum for example. We can use such periodic motion to construct clocks... so we have a way to measure what you call time. We didn't create 'time' to feel better. One day on earth takes 24 hours. The earth takes 365 days to move once around the sun. There are 60 minutes per hour, and sixty seconds per minute. A perfect pendulum (a perpetual motion machine) could be designed to tick once per second. Of course no perpetual motion pendulum can be constructed, because of loss of energy at the pivot point, but that's not the point. The notion of "amount of time" as something that we can measure, is wholly practical. Time isn't a physical object, time isn't material. Today physicists write equations with the letter t in them, so that they can reason about relative motion of bodies. This approach is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Disagree. Things move... so there is change of relative position of center of inertia of solid bodies. Some centers of inertia change in a regular periodic way... the center of inertia of a pendulum for example. We can use such periodic motion to construct clocks... so we have a way to measure what you call time. We didn't create 'time' to feel better. One day on earth takes 24 hours. The earth takes 365 days to move once around the sun. There are 60 minutes per hour' date=' and sixty seconds per minute. A perfect pendulum (a perpetual motion machine) could be designed to tick once per second. The notion of "amount of time" as something that we can measure, is wholly practical. Time isn't a physical object, time isn't material. Today physicists write equations with the letter t in them, so that they can reason about relative motion of bodies. This approach is working.[/quote'] And yet most of the scientific community think that time is mutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 And yet most of the scientific community think that time is mutable. Are you referring to the theoretical time dilation formula? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 There wsa no thing like time before there were humans and I think that time is just something that we created that makes us feel like we have better control the world arounds and makle sence of it. So do you Agree or Disagree with this and if so why?There are many uses for time. One way is the way that you suggest. However, there is a much deeper meaning of time, as relativity has now shown. Space is constantly in motion, and this motion requires time. Al of space is bound up in motion, and in time, as space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Are you referring to the theoretical time dilation formula? I am referring to the theory that gravity affects time as well as velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 I am referring to the theory that gravity affects time as well as velocity. You are referring to the general theory of relativity then. How well do you know that theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 You are referring to the general theory of relativity then. How well do you know that theory? Does it matter? As long as you identified the theory, you must be familiar enough with it to know what I am referring to--no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 As long as you identified the theory, you must be familiar enough with it to know what I am referring to--no? nice one syntax252 ! If you think of time as the universe moving along the 4th dimension of space-time then it existed ever since the universe existed, time is not a human invention, a second is a human invented way of measuring it, (just as a meter is a human invented way of measuring a distance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 nice one syntax252 ! If you think of time as the universe moving along the 4th dimension of space-time then it existed ever since the universe existed' date=' time is not a human invention, a second is a human invented way of measuring it, (just as a meter is a human invented way of measuring a distance).[/quote'] But before? Before the universe was created? By the BB or by whatever means that it was created? It seems to me that it must have existed then too because otherwise how could the event have occured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Does it matter? As long as you identified the theory' date=' you must be familiar enough with it to know what I am referring to--no? [/quote'] Oh I don't claim to know it, all I know how to do is falsify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 But before? Before the universe was created? By the BB or by whatever means that it was created? It seems to me that it must have existed then too because otherwise how could the event have occured? That is something debateable both for and against... what was before the big bang? Answer that question and you can begin to answer the time before BB question. So you say 'energy' and I'd, ok, energy can travel through time, but did space-time, did dimensions exist? No, so how could time aka the 4th dimension exist? I can't really answer the question further than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Before the universe was created? By the BB or by whatever means that it was created?This is a religious notion. The big bang did not create the universe, but only the marriage of space and time into space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 TSo you say 'energy' and I'd, ok, energy can travel through time, but did space-time, did dimensions exist? No, so how could time aka the 4th dimension exist?Yes. The way that you count dimensions did not exist. Calling time nothing more than the fourth dimension leaves you in this predicament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 This is a religious notion. The big bang did not create the universe, but only the marriage of space and time into space-time. Oh yeah? How did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 big bang says nothing about the creation of the universe, just the expansion. it doesn't even say why(unless somebody finds the higgs boson. i just can't remember where i put it:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 How did that happen?With light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 With light. Without light there is no space time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Without light there is no space time? In my opinion, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macroscopic Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by CadmusOriginally posted by Syntax252Without light there is no space time? In my opinion, yes. I think he wanted an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think he wanted an explanation. See my response to you in the Location of Big Bang thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 In my opinion, yes. When someone asks a question in a physics forum, they expect answers and subsequent discussions to be derived from physics, not opinion. Oh I don't claim to know it, all I know how to do is falsify it. Big surprise. I'm getting fairly sick of seeing off-topicness, irrelevance, failure to demonstrate, and deliberate contrariness in the physics threads. I know the other mods are, and the complaints suggest members with genuine physics interests are too. If you aren't interested in discussing physics in a manner that befits the subject, go to sciforums.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 surely space and time is a function of 2? 2 of Anything, even hypothetical points will have a rellationship with each other with regards to distance, and then when in motion or Changing, Time comes into play. a single "item" cannot acheive this alone, and so where there are 2 or more points, and one (or both) in motion, space-time may exist. without a frame of reference, there can be no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 YT, this thread is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts