Time

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

You can just say "without time motion would not exist". There is nothing but an equally overactive imagination to say that. There is nothing to show that time is a dimension and there is nothing to show that the first three dimensions are even as definite as we think they are. I don't care how positive anyone is that humans have defined perfectly such a universal concept there is nothing but our own imaginations to show it.

I ignored everything posted after this.

There is nothing to show anything is anything, if you bring it to a point where nothing can be proven. Time is the border line between what can be/cannot be accepted through our perception of spacial motion. Space doesn't necessarily have to be 3 dimensions, as you stated. We just label it that way so it's convenient for comprehension. By creating this entity called time, we can explain various other things in our world using our own logistics and mathematics. Without time, none of our force quantity equations would make sense. Time was merely an entity created to fit what we saw as necessary to comprehend the universe.

As I have said already so many times, what you term "imagination" is exactly what I'm saying as to how far one can believe one's own perception. No one can prove whether our perception is definite/absolute/true w/e. We have no choice but to rely on such "imagination" to comprehend the universe.

[ryanisadouche]

Re: Time

Without reading every other post, I'm gonna go ahead and throw out my thoughts.

I think time is a Force. A force is anything that gives an object acceleration. While obviously time does not physically move us, it accelerates everything through the phenomena of life. Let's compare it to another force, gravity.

Can gravity be seen? Does it exist as a 3 dimensional plane? Can it be quantified in any amount, contained, or measured? Obviously not. But at the same time we know without a doubt gravity does in fact exist, because we can OBSERVE ITS EFFECTS. An object with no acceleration suspended midair eventually hit the ground. This is the phenomena of the force of gravity acting on said object. This happens fast, so gravity is clearly a strong force.

So lets look at time now. Can it be seen, quantified, contained, measured? Nope. But we can still OBSERVE THE EFFECTS it has. Any object left over an infinite amount of time on this planet will degrade into nothingness. This is the phenomena of the force of time acting on said object. This happens over many, many years, so time is therefore a much weaker force then something like gravity.

To suggest time does not exist is ludacris. Without gravity, nothing would be earthbound and the world would be in complete chaos; much like without time, everything would happen all at once or arguably, nothing would ever happen. These 2 forces, while entirely different, help regulate the world we live in, and create a controlled, logical environment. I did read that page Izzy posted, and while it was very interesting and a very fun concept to consider, it doesn't do it for me. With no time, how does one explain the intelligence of a 6 year old in comparison to that of a 30 year old? Surely something has happened during that 24 year gap; time has occured and its force has taken effect.


These are just some thoughts i've had, nothing i feel passionate about or would argue to the death over, so bring on the constructive criticism.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

ryan, you should read some of them... but wow. i guess, my idea states that time has an acceleration, velocity, and scalar properties. Time may just as well be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. That's an interesting thought, but all forces derived from the fundamental force have a particle correlating to it. Otherwise, it's not a force. A dimensional force on the other hand, is a different kind of force that has a motion. Hence, a motion through the 3 or 4 dimensions. 3 Spacial forces and 3 Time forces may exist. I believe it's 3 and not 1 for the sake of being able to "stop" and "decelerate" through time. If there was only 1 time dimension, time travel would not be possible because current tech shows that time is affected by the velocity through space. Hence, if we move at the speed of light, time is minimally moving, but nothing faster is possible because light is massless. But, if time had multiple dimensions, this problem could be circumvented.

[Verruckter]

Re: Time

Time is only the result of everything changing around us, including ourselves. Ryan said everything will degrade over time. But on a much different level, everything doesn't actually degrade, it's only changing. Nature (in the down to earth, non-spiritual way) has no judgement towards the value of things. To us it's degrading because it's not as useful/beautiful as it was before, but all in all, it's just a series of cellular or chemical reactions that occur.

In that sense, time is not a common force but merely the combination of process that every single object, animal, human, plant, etc is being put through. What I mean by that is that we observe, for example, the sun moving from east to west, our parents aging, our food decaying, etc. Each of these events is individual, but the human mind will have the tendency to associate all these events together into a single force, thus creating the concept of time. You must learn to dissociate the molecular changes from the conceptual changes.

Also, nothing tells you time and gravity and of the same nature.

[insanefreddy926]

Re: Time

To quote the revered H.G. Wells:

'Can an instantaneous cube exist?'
'Don't follow you,' said Filby.
'Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?'
Filby became pensive. 'Clearly,' the Time Traveller proceeded, 'any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and—Duration.'

Basically, all objects, that is everything with mass, must have at least the four dimensions of spacetime. We aren't able to move at the speed of light because we have mass, we must have a duration. Assuming photons do not have mass, they are able to exist at the point where time ceases to play a part. They have no spatial dimensions; therefore they have no time dimension. But then again, light takes time to travel so that could all be wrong. I don't know.

Maybe the mass that particle have "slows them down" in time. The Higgs boson is the particle thought to give other particles mass. From the best of my understanding, everything exists in this "Higgs field" and interacts with Higgs bosons which give them some property in the Higgs field that we call mass. Maybe time is a certain "field" and some "time particle" influences others in a way that gives them "duration"? But I'm just rambling at 12:30 in the morning here, just saying whatever comes to mind.

[Mans0n]

Re: Time

Let's think real for a second. Time is universal, thus it happens everywhere, just like gravity. Notice how, Jupiter has a longer year than earth? Its because the objects gravity make it spin slower thus slowing it down.
Since earth is small it spins faster.
In my theory, time and gravity are brothers.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

actually manson jupiter has a longer year because in our concept a year is how long it takes the earth to go around the sun. Gravity is related to the mass of an object which is unrelated to the concept of time.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

To quote the revered H.G. Wells:


Basically, all objects, that is everything with mass, must have at least the four dimensions of spacetime. We aren't able to move at the speed of light because we have mass, we must have a duration. Assuming photons do not have mass, they are able to exist at the point where time ceases to play a part. They have no spatial dimensions; therefore they have no time dimension. But then again, light takes time to travel so that could all be wrong. I don't know.

Maybe the mass that particle have "slows them down" in time. The Higgs boson is the particle thought to give other particles mass. From the best of my understanding, everything exists in this "Higgs field" and interacts with Higgs bosons which give them some property in the Higgs field that we call mass. Maybe time is a certain "field" and some "time particle" influences others in a way that gives them "duration"? But I'm just rambling at 12:30 in the morning here, just saying whatever comes to mind.

Wewt. There we go. Someone agrees with me.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Well i agree with verruckter.

[Verruckter]

Re: Time

I'm not 100% convinced that time is a dimension, but it's definitely not a force.

[Mans0n]

Re: Time

According to scientists, Any object that goes as fast as light, will then start to go back in time. and 15 minutes to that person could be 500 years, to anyone who's not moving that fast. I think that time gets distorted when this happens,
Example: your riding your bike down a path, (at the speed of light) then on another trail, you see a Carrage, (wtf?) you guys are then are about to collide head on, but in reality (you) while moving at the speed of light, to someone else, it would look as you swirved for no reason. THEN a few seconds late the cariage arrive.

[Izzy]

Re: Time

Well its impossible to get something that has mass to go the speed of light. But the whole back in time this is only in reference from the person who is not going at the speed of light. So they say he will go back in time but that means he would start getting younger or something not disappear.

[insanefreddy926]

Re: Time

If you're saying that the speed of light is the point you must cross to start moving backwards in time, then time would get relatively slower and slower, the closer you get to the speed of light. At the exact speed of light, time would stop altogether, well relatively. If one could observe you moving at the speed of light (say, in a train or something) without moving at that speed themselves, then you would appear to be completely motionless inside the moving train. Even though you would experience no change in the passing of time yourslef.

If they saw the train moving faster than the speed of light, then they would see you apparently moving backwards in time. I think. But would you experience moving backwards or still forwards through time? If you sense no change in time yourself all the way up to the speed of light, then you would probably still feel like you're moving forward through time, while the observer sees you moving backward through time. Well I've gone and confused myself again, what do you guys think?

[Izzy]

Re: Time

No that makes sense. You wouldn't feel a change because its all relative. Also i am not sure how that all works out but for some reason i feel like we have it backwards. If you could accelerate mass to the speed of light i think it would age faster. So if you could observe someone going at the speed of light maybe they would just age to death before your eyes but they would still feel like its been 50+ years. Either way noone is going backward or forward in time so it doesnt show anything about time being a dimension that can be manipulated.

[insanefreddy926]

Re: Time

No it's not backwards; the faster one moves, the slower they age. If you took a spaceship from earth and traveled at near the speed of light for what you experienced as 10 years, when you returned you would find that the world had experienced 10 thousand years or something like that. If you moved at the speed of light past a still observer, you would see them age and die in an instant, and they would see you completely motionless.