Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#1916 06/17/05 02:46 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Dear Friends,

I have just gone thorugh the main article posted on website regarding the non-existence of time.
My question do we really undertand the time.
What is time ?
Time is movement and vice-versa.
Where you see absolute calmness with no movements you will see no time there..
I understand in such a scenario no experiments could ever be performed to verify it. Because the act of verification will disturb the calmness and thus time will come into existence...
I do not disagree or agree with the neagtion to time concept ...I would like to say that timelessness is an unprovable concept...
As far as Big Bang is considered Stirng theory has managed to push back time before the big bang(in the 11th Dimension) hence the time was always there as fas as Observable universe is concerned.
If there is more meat to authors claim then we would love to eat it.

.
#1917 06/17/05 04:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Do we understand time?
No.

Do we understand your statement?
"Time is movement and vice-versa."
No again.


DA Morgan
#1918 06/17/05 06:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
V
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
V
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
I really don't see why this gentleman's posit should sound so controversial. Maybe if I had read his book I would know. I always operated under the assumption that most people agree that time doesn't exist (independently), and that even in combination with movement, it is just a measure we have agreed on with the wink of an eye.

True, some expressions by Big Names about the possibility of time going in reverse, etc. do worry me a little. I sometimes feel that some otherwise brilliant people forget that while natural phenomena can be expressed mathematically, such expressions are just abstractions. When you try to translate some mathematical implications back to the real world, you can't do so indiscriminately, lest you end up with something similar to the well known anecdote of the computer who was asked to translate an English phrase to Russian, and back to English.
INPUT: The spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak
OUTPUT: The vodka is fine, but the meat is rotten.


Look again, look harder
#1919 06/18/05 12:37 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
What is time ?
Time is what an honest clock reads. If you don't like oscillators, use radioactive decay. Movement is irrelevant to the operation of a clock.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#1920 06/18/05 01:49 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Hello!

The formula no mass and no energy = no time is a
very human point of view. We could also say: no
brain = no time smile I mean, just because we can't
see it, it does not mean that it is not there.

We are limited to our senses, and until a mokey is
not able to explain what a zoo is, we are not able
to explain time.

Personally, I have my own theory. I think that
time is not going in a straight time line, like we
think it does.

I think, if you wold take a look from out of the
universe, the time would appear like an old
movie-roll. You would be able, to see all frames
from the beginning till the end at the same time smile

But every frame is interacting with the frame that
comes before. That would make it also possible, to
change things AND to have an absolute time.

At the same time.

#1921 06/18/05 02:08 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
Quote:
What is time ?
Time is what an honest clock reads. If you don't like oscillators, use radioactive decay. Movement is irrelevant to the operation of a clock.
Well, Al, as I'm sure you already know, clocks do run faster or slower depending upon your velocity in measurements of time intervals in relation to another object. Early tests even showed that a clock on an aircraft would run slightly faster because it is further away from the Earth's gravitational pull. Acceleration of an object also affects time relative to another object, so an astronaut moving rapidly away from Earth, say, would have time travel slower for them than those the astronaut left behind. Wouldn't you call that type of movement being relative to clocks?

This, I think, is just one aspect of Lynd's theory; that there is no independent universal time, just motion and the forces that affect that motion. He proves this to some extent by demonstrating that bodies in motion cannot have an underlying time 'instant' assigned to it. Which also means that it has no real coordinate at any given time interval; unless you force an arbitrary 'instant' upon it, as we do. It's like an addendum to Einstein's theory. Lynd is a huge fan of Einstein, after all. If you read Lynd's paper he even dismisses 'imaginary time' in respect to the theoretical 'right angle' relative to 'normal time' that predicts and records anomalous time variances, such as gravity. In this sense time does not have any, for use of a better word, 'un-normal' behaviour because it is only the sequence of events that matters, not a concept of measured time.

I hope this made some modicum of sense.

#1922 06/18/05 03:47 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Well I certainly agree with Rusty Rockets above explanation.
The fact that Scientists have compared two identical atomic clocks, one remained in the Laboratory on Earth, while the other flown around the Earth in a jet and found to run slower,
is good enough proof for me.
However there is another way to look at time.
Our 'human conception of time'. Our body time.
Or our aging process....is dependant and averaged upon our 3 score years +10.
Therefore perception of time must run differently for different species. i.e Time runs faster for
a mouse, or a fly, but slower for tortoise.
Maybe I am expounding an incorrect arguement, but
would 'time'...as perceived by a Photon, last
virtually forever?
And also, if an Atomic Bomb, about to go off, was accelerated to almost the speed of light...would
its end, be just a slow fizz?


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


#1923 06/20/05 03:24 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Hello Guys ,

I just oversimplified time...
Time and Entorpy has something in common ... both can only increase in the forward direction and no way can anyone reverse its direction..
therefore in my opinion Entropy relates to time in a more fundamental way...
Movement was a over simplifaction and those who undertand Relativity know it...
Btw have you ever seen relativistic Entorpy equation...?
I.e have you come across the fact that Entropy depends on the reference frame...
Btw clock is measuring device for a dimension called Time just as your meter tape is for space dimension...
Think more.

#1924 06/20/05 04:52 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Too many mistakes there ... beg your pardon for assaulting your taste of English ...

#1925 06/20/05 08:01 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
On a light-hearted note:

The crew of Red Dwarf - three million years from Earth - find a time machine:

Kryten: Sirs, choose any year.

Rimmer: Since we can't guarantee this time drive is going to function properly, I suggest we select a neutral time period for our first jaunt.

Lister: He's got a point. Let's go to someplace nice and safe and dull. How about 1422?

Cat: How about 1421?

Lister: What's the difference?

Cat: No difference. I just wanted to make it look like I was paying attention.

Rimmer: Load 1421, Kryten.

Kryten: 1421 loaded, sir. August 17th. Engaging the time drive.

Kryten pushes buttons on the remote control. The screen is filled with a flash of red light.

Lister: Hey, we did it!

Kryten: Indeed we did. All the ship's chronometers indicate that this is August the 16th, in the year 1421, just one day out.

Rimmer: Give us visual. Let's see what it's like out there. Lister: Okay, punching it up.

15. Quick shot of empty boring space.

16. Back to the Cockpit -

Lister: Again? We're still where we were!

Kryten: Of course. We're still in deep space, sir, only now we're in deep space in the 15th century. Isn't it wonderful?

Rimmer: So we're still three million years away from Earth?

Kryten: Well, yeah.

Lister: Taking her back to the present.

Kryten: Keyed in. Engaged.

Flash of red light again.

#1926 06/20/05 12:23 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
Time is continuity, just the other side of infinity.
Our universe, a finite derivative thereof,
a white hot ember, aflight,
is bound and determined by the song that molded our ride.

Now!time is a slide show.
As a wave travels through water, the cosmic background hosts life teleported from Now! to Now!
We step to the tune of the CMB,
Now! to Now!, at 300Ghz?, 2x10^-43?

My thoughts' of Planck!time always end with a smile.
Imagine the temerity,
We ascribe the point beyond which time itself can not peer.
We've created God in our own image, and he's returned the favor.

Or, Is this the point at which we lose touch with time,
by definition, the realization denied us for our ephemeral existence?
In time, free from unsanctioned intrusion, a universe is borne.

#1927 06/20/05 02:48 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
V
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
V
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
Well, in the mean time I did read the paper, and to me it seems perfectly commonsensical, although I'm still unsure about one of his arguments. But, as far as I can see, no-one else here, except Mr. Rockets, did read it, or get it. Everyone seems to be enamoured with the concept of time as the fourth dimension, vainly holding on, maybe, to some secret hope of time travel.
I, for one, am more confident than ever now. There is no time dimension except in graphs. In the real world, there are only matter-energy units moving at relative speed to each other. And suddenly, the world seems normal again. Yes, I too lament the demise of time travel, but speculation won't bring Santa out of non-existence either.


Look again, look harder
#1928 06/20/05 03:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
Well, Al, as I'm sure you already know, clocks do run faster or slower depending upon your velocity in measurements of time intervals in relation to another object.
NO!!!

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII pp. 891-921 (1905)

The clock that traverses the greatest amount of space accumulates the smallest amount of time. There is no change within an inertial frame of reference. It is only when clocks are made local and compared that the Twin Paradox (that is not paradoxical) arises.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment

http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#1929 06/20/05 05:06 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Of course there is such a thing as Time. There is a "before," a "now," and a "later."

It is easily measurable, and the fact that time passes is easily observable.

The fact that time is relative does not affect its existence.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
#1930 06/21/05 03:25 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Good Poem but it was more of a spiritual truth.
(every truth has to be spiritual in nature)
Let me add something more to Plank Time.
The Plank Time is Plank Distance divided by speed of light.. At that level the quantum events overshadow our definition of speed and thus in that space it is possible to go from one place to another in an instant...Therefore in my opinion the Time dimension collapses at Plank Scale... you want to know why ?it is simple imagine you wish to calculate Entropy of 2 atoms.. Entorpy is a statistical concept and collapses if we reduce the sample sapce ...
similarly time collapses the moment we reduce the scale to Planks level....
Or may be we enter a new "Time" dimension ... in a sense we do not understand.. for e.g assume that there is a 11th Dimension and there are billions of Gravitons floating around... then we can measure the Entorpy of the gravitons .. which will essentially imply that we have entered a new Time Dimension...
This is my original concept and I think it explains how consciousness is indepedent of Time...

#1931 06/21/05 03:41 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Please dont take my "original concept" idea seriously ... My originality is the reflection of Popular Science books, Discovery Channel , Web and my passion for Physics...
I never took the risk of becoming a Physicist..

#1932 06/21/05 01:09 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
V
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
V
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
Gentlemen, gentlemen...
Lynd never said that there is no such thing as time. What he says is that it isn't existential, you can't isolate any atomic components of it, it doesn't obey any laws that would make it, say, turn in reverse, warp, or dance the hula, and you can't treat is as if it were just another direction.
There are links to his paper scattered all over these sites, you know. You might consider reading it before bashing it. (Dunno, that's my quirky way of thinking: Reading, then bashing... Maybe it's just me)


Look again, look harder
#1933 06/21/05 01:15 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
V
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
V
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
I hear you dkv,
We are in the same boat. Besides, it seems like the theoretical physics elite has been using calculus like ancient I Ching masters would use their little sticks. It doesn't really say anything, it just serves to validate their musings and make it all look cool.


Look again, look harder
#1934 06/22/05 03:26 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Calculus is a wonderful tool and surprisingly it has been very successful in its application because the world is so discreet.

#1935 06/28/05 06:50 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
V
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
V
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11
Certainly. No questions raised. What bothers me is that some venture to treat time as a dimension, of equal rights with dimensions of space. Sure, it can be represented as such mathematically, but let us please keep in mind that mathematical representations are metaphorical.


Look again, look harder
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5