Time

[bluguerrilla]

Re: Time

Relativity? Of course there are ways to test the theory.

Without incorporating the effects of relativity GPS wouldn't work nearly as well as it does.

You need to be more specific with your definitions if you don't like time being called a dimension.

[devonin]

Re: Time

So time becomes a dimension just because we declare it is?

Um...no. That's rather the opposite of what I was saying.

Time is a dimension because it is. We can observe things moving through it, we can see evidence of the movement of time previous to us, and predict the movements thereof after us as well.

Our -labels- for the passage of time are simply declared by us in the same way that the label of "dog" or "tree" is declared by us. The object exists anyway whether we name it or not.

Time exists whether we name its passage or not.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

I just really don't think the idea of time would exist if we didn't make the concept up. We observe things changing. Thats very irrelevant evidence of time. Things dont have a past and they dont have a future until it happens.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

I didn't read anything here... too frustrated with my horrible FFR playing today.

Anyways, my thoughts about time.

It's the 4th vector quantity that creates the spacetime fabric today. The vector is as essential to the existence of matter/energy of all forms as space is. Just as baryonic matter has the ability accelerate through space, baryonic matter also has the ability to accelerate through time. This is shown by the fact that Einstein's theory of relativity, in which as an object reaches absolute zero, the relativistic lapse of time is significantly faster in that object than the observer at a normal energy potential. So, if we brought a person down to absolute zero (hypothetically. this is impossible.), we would see the person grow, mature, die, and decompose in an instant of our velocity of time. In the opposite sense, as matter or energy approaches the speed of light, its lapse of time is slower than the observer at a normal energy potential. Therefore, we would observe a human traveling at the speed of light (impossible. hypothetical.), we would see him stay exactly the same while we would grow, mature, and die. Time is a vector, whose acceleration could be changed in proportion to the motion of acceleration through space.

Notice, people may say, "we're usually not accelerating through space, as in standing still," but that is not true. As long as the quarks inside a hadron vibrate, or leptons surrounding a nucleus rotate, there is eternal motion. Therefore, to reach absolute zero, the spacetime fabric itself must be inexistent, which is why absolute zero is impossible. (An offshoot to the infinite step theory, where it's impossible to reach absolute zero because a colder object has to exist to lower the temperature of an object.) Also, going faster than the speed of light is also impossible because that would transcend the limitation of spacetime fabric. (An offshoot to the idea that nothing can transcend the velocity of a massless object with the greatest kinetic energy, which is known as a photon.)

Unfortunately, humans do not grasp the idea of time very well, because it is usually a constant and unchanging vector quantity. We can grasp the concept of space travel, because there is a quantized form of its representation, which is commonly known as meters per second. The acceleration is meters per second squared. Time can be represented by seconds per meter, whose acceleration would be seconds per meter squared. However this is not found in modern science because we have not yet discovered a realistic method of time travel.

This is all strict interpretation of Einstein's and Planck's work. It is clearly stated that this is the mainframe of the standard model, and the accepted creation of spacetime fabric of the big bang (or big splat, or big crunch, w/e you believe in.)

I just really don't think the idea of time would exist if we didn't make the concept up. We observe things changing. Thats very irrelevant evidence of time. Things dont have a past and they dont have a future until it happens.

None of the scientific laws of this universe would exist if we didn't make the concept up. Everything is based on human perception. Whether to believe that perception as the given truth is an entirely different story. No one can tell if what we percept is exactly what the truth is, but that doesn't matter, because we only have our perception to rely on.

I don't think there is anyway to test time. Only the effects of time. Everything can still happen its just how things work. Time doesn't need to be some dimension because things just change or can be manipulated in the first three dimensions.

This is a misconception. Sight is the sense that allows us to perceive space. Most humans think motion is a granted given standard because our sight can perceive it in a way that is easily understood. We don't have a direct perception of time, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist. In "The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi," Nagato and Asahina explain that time is made up of segmented regions of spacetime fabric, represented by a flap book of still pictures which creates the illusion of motion. If this is true, then the entire concept of linear vector quantity has to be taken back and rejected, because the motion through space is also an illusion of our perception that doesn't exist. A linear and continuous motion of space cannot exist without the linear and continuous motion of time. If linear and continuous motion of space exists, so does the linear and continuous motion of time. They are definitely coexistent. If we are to follow the concept of this scifi anime, then time and space are not continuous, but rather still quantities connected by void, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Another thing about time. The current model of spacetime fabric incorporates 11 dimensions. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable in this region of physics... but all I can say is that time is a vector quantity composed of one dimension, usually entitled as the 4th dimension.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

And that's the entire different story im trying to talk about. You are making a lot of statements that are based off of someone already thinking in a certain way about time. Which is not what i care to know because ive read about it already.

[Reach]

Re: Time

We observe things changing.

Which is what time is, essentially. I think you're missing a point here. Time is the name we denote to the phenomenon of change. It is something that can be measured and quantified, and also manipulated.

Imagine for a second if we removed time. What would happen? Everything would happen at once. Everything. Evidently the physical constraints at the beginning of the universe (i.e. the big bang) did not or could not allow this, and attributed some measurable space-time quantity to all objects. Without time, there is no separation of cause and effect and the universe would be incredibly chaotic.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

Actually, I think nothing would happen at all, as in if there was no time, there would be no space. Time and space are coexistent. One cannot exist without the other. If we hypothetically remove time, we would also remove space.

Another interesting idea:
Just like the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, gravity) are all variations of the same force, and matter and energy are variations of the same substance, what if time and space are variations of the same vector quantity? Of course, the origin of this superforce, supersubstance and supervector is impossible to experimentally discover without observing the big bang. (No, Large Hadron Collider will definitely not recreate the big bang. Definitely not enough energy (or rather, something more exotic. It's not energy that started the universe), so that's just a rumor.)

[Reach]

Re: Time

Actually, I think nothing would happen at all, as in if there was no time, there would be no space. Time and space are coexistent. One cannot exist without the other. If we hypothetically remove time, we would also remove space.

Right. Congratulations, you put the pieces of the puzzle together.

I was being hypothetical to show Izzy that consequently there must be time in the universe and it does exist (or you otherwise run into problems explaining how we're here in the first place, as you just pointed out.)

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Which is what time is, essentially. I think you're missing a point here. Time is the name we denote to the phenomenon of change. It is something that can be measured and quantified, and also manipulated.

Imagine for a second if we removed time. What would happen? Everything would happen at once. Everything. Evidently the physical constraints at the beginning of the universe (i.e. the big bang) did not or could not allow this, and attributed some measurable space-time quantity to all objects. Without time, there is no separation of cause and effect and the universe would be incredibly chaotic.

I understand that but you are also missing the point. Because you cant remove time because its not a thing that can manipulated as an actual thing. Its just a concept.

[bluguerrilla]

Re: Time

Time isn't a vector, it's a component of a vector.

And of course the idea of time wouldn't exist if we didn't make it up.

Edit: Why do you think time just a concept?

[Reach]

Re: Time

I understand that but you are also missing the point. Because you cant remove time because its not a thing that can manipulated as an actual thing. Its just a concept.

What. You can manipulate time. What exactly is an 'actual thing' defined as?

You can't remove gravity either, and it is not a 'thing that can be manipulated as an actual thing', yet I would challenge you to tell me that gravity does not exist and is just a concept.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

I understand that but you are also missing the point. Because you cant remove time because its not a thing that can manipulated as an actual thing. Its just a concept.

How do you differentiate between time and space in that time is a concept and space is not?

Bluguerilla, time is definitely a vector quantity. It has the properties of acceleration as shown by Einstein's theory of relativity. Calculus shows that anything with an acceleration has an integral, which is a velocity (both vector quantities).

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Why do you think time isn't just a concept. We might be trying to think about two different things here. I am not sure anymore. The first post sums up what i am talking about pretty easily.

Edit: Also you can manipulate gravity with mass.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

You can manipulate time with space. It is experimentally proven that a clock in motion (considerable motion, as in as close to the speed of light as possible) ticks slower than a clock standing still.

If you think time is a concept, then you should be thinking that space is also just a concept. Correct? If so, then I wouldn't have anything against it, because it is impossible to prove that human perception is justifiable as the truth. (In which concept is defined as an illusional theory with no sound foundation.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Yes i know you can manipulate what we perceive as time by a difference in whats changing because of the speed. A clock isn't some godly object that is the definition of time. A clock works by things moving. Has nothing to do with time.