PDA

View Full Version : The nature or the essence of time



north
2010-May-05, 02:04 AM
is time not fundamentally based on movement ?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 03:03 AM
IMHO, yes.

tommac
2010-May-05, 03:09 AM
Is motion not fundamentally based on time?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 03:14 AM
Is motion not fundamentally based on time?

There can be motion without a decision or means to measure it. Therefore, I don't think Motion is dependent upon "time"

tommac
2010-May-05, 03:24 AM
There can be motion without a decision or means to measure it. Therefore, I don't think Motion is dependent upon "time" Are you talking a unit of time OR time itself?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 03:31 AM
"Time" - Time has no self sustaining attributes - rather, it is an intellectual means used to compare, explain, understand, and predict various aspects of motion. IMHO

north
2010-May-05, 03:32 AM
Is motion not fundamentally based on time?

how so ?

does then time have any physicality with it ?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 03:37 AM
Time has no inherent , or intrinsic aspects in and of itself. It is a means of measurement. Can you give any examples of "physicality" of time, in and of itself, without reference to what it is measuring?

north
2010-May-05, 03:43 AM
Time has no inherent , or intrinsic aspects in and of itself. It is a means of measurement. Can you give any examples of "physicality" of time, in and of itself, without reference to what it is measuring?

exactly

no

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 03:52 AM
The challenge I designed is this:

- If everything in the universe stopped, EVERYTHING, down to the atom and smaller, would time be possible?

- Give one example of time that does not require comparison of motions.

tommac
2010-May-05, 03:54 AM
how so ?

does then time have any physicality with it ?

Does space? ( without time? )

tommac
2010-May-05, 03:55 AM
Would space be possible?


The challenge I designed is this:

- If everything in the universe stopped, EVERYTHING, down to the atom and smaller, would time be possible?

- Give one example of time that does not require comparison of motions.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:03 AM
Would space be possible?

Define space

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:30 AM
OK, the classic sense of space, yes.

north
2010-May-05, 04:33 AM
Define space

room

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:37 AM
So I think the question is: if all motion stopped would there still be space? = Yes, if there was space prior to the stopping of motion.

north
2010-May-05, 04:44 AM
So I think the question is: if all motion stopped would there still be space? = Yes,

agreed


if there was space prior to the stopping of motion.

how would you get motion otherwise ?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:46 AM
Just trying to be clear

north
2010-May-05, 04:50 AM
Just trying to be clear

good

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:54 AM
Anything else? Cause I can go deep into this subject, as believe it has been misrepresented for a log time.

north
2010-May-05, 04:56 AM
if there was space prior to the stopping of motion.


how would you get motion otherwise ?

inotherwords , because there is movement ( motion ) there must be space to move in and around

north
2010-May-05, 04:58 AM
Anything else? Cause I can go deep into this subject, as believe it has been misrepresented for a log time.

more than welcome to do so

north

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 05:02 AM
If you include space at an atomic level. Also, a solid object can morph whereby its parts move thru its own solids (space?)

north
2010-May-05, 05:09 AM
If you include space at an atomic level.

of course

how would the micro exist without any space ?

space is not about the size of the object





Also, a solid object can morph whereby its parts move thru its own solids (space?)

thats about the object not time

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 05:15 AM
thats about the object not time

I as responding to your occlusion about space/motion

north
2010-May-05, 05:18 AM
I as responding to your occlusion about space/motion

okay

moving on then

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 05:33 AM
So thats it then?

north
2010-May-05, 05:40 AM
So thats it then?

when I said moving on , I meant moving with your thinking

north
2010-May-05, 05:43 AM
uncommonsense

I want to here what you have to say . really

WayneFrancis
2010-May-05, 05:51 AM
is time not fundamentally based on movement ?

to us photons move but they themselves never experience time then again to them there is no time. To them the universe is just one huge set of superset of the past to present.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 06:00 AM
I always like referring to the experts whenever possible.

Here are a couple from Einstein on the matter:




My solution actually concerned the concept of time. Namely, time cannot be
absolutely defined by itself, and there is an unbreakable connection between time and
signal velocity. Using this idea, I could now resolve the great difficulty that I
previously felt.
After I had this inspiration, it took only five weeks to complete what is now known
as the special theory of relativity.


The illusion which prevailed prior to the enunciation of the theory of relativity—that,
from the point of view of experience the meaning of simultaneity in relation to
spatially distant events and, consequently, that the meaning of physical time is a
priori clear—this illusion had its origin in the fact that in our everyday experience we
can neglect the time of propagation of light. We are accustomed on this account to
fail to differentiate between "simultaneously seen" and "simultaneously happening";
and, as a result, the difference between time and local time is blurred.
The lack of definiteness which, from the point of view of its empirical significance,
adheres to the notion of time in classical mechanics was veiled by the axiomatic
representation of space and time as given independently of our sense experiences.
Such a use of notions—independent of the empirical basis to which they owe their
existence—does not necessarily damage science. One may, however, easily be led
into the error of believing that these notions, whose origin is forgotten, are logically
necessary and therefore unalterable, and this error may constitute a serious danger to
the progress of science

north
2010-May-05, 06:02 AM
to us photons move but they themselves never experience time

interesting





then again to them there is no time.

perhaps

but to the sourse of the photons there is a consequence , loss of energy , hence time of existence

photons only exist as long as objects do

WayneFrancis
2010-May-05, 06:07 AM
...

photons only exist as long as objects do

What do you mean by this? A photon, in theory, could last from the SoLS until the end of time. All other "objects" that are not photons could be gone but the photon would still be in the universe.

north
2010-May-05, 06:09 AM
To them ( photons ) the universe is just one huge set of superset of the past to present.

I see your point

north
2010-May-05, 06:14 AM
What do you mean by this? A photon, in theory, could last from the SoLS until the end of time. All other "objects" that are not photons could be gone but the photon would still be in the universe.

true

north
2010-May-05, 06:22 AM
Originally Posted by WayneFrancis
What do you mean by this? A photon, in theory, could last from the SoLS until the end of time. All other "objects" that are not photons could be gone but the photon would still be in the universe.

at what energy level(s) ?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 08:53 AM
Hello

Strange
2010-May-05, 08:59 AM
The challenge I designed is this:

- If everything in the universe stopped, EVERYTHING, down to the atom and smaller, would time be possible?

You may not be able to measure time but that does that mean time no longer exists or has stopped? (And does that mean spacetime becomes just "space" in your scenario?)

You wouldn't be able to measure distance either - because to measure the distance from A to B you would have to move something from A to B - even if only moving a ruler to line up with A and B. And if there was already, by chance, a ruler lined up with A and B you wouldn't be able to see it because there are no photons flying around. Therefore, by your logic, space ceases to exist as well.

Which makes sense because the scenario is impossible (even in principle).


- Give one example of time that does not require comparison of motions.

For any example given you will "invent" some motion to support your position.

astromark
2010-May-05, 09:20 AM
This becomes one of the word games of comprehending as understanding the question is half of the battle.
Generally speaking the Universe does not keep time. It does not, like we do. Watch the moments proceed. As we observe they do.
Motion takes time from the point of the observer. A photon is a inanimate object and does not experience time. We can prove that time has progressed while those timeless photons would not have that view. Time and motion would seem to be the same thing... Space time is a distance. Is that right ?
Any movement can be only time and distance related. Relative motion takes time. I do not think the opposite is true...

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 09:20 AM
you may not be able to measure time but that does that mean time no longer exists or has stopped? (And does that mean spacetime becomes just "space"


No, Space is just space, What evidence can you suggest that time "exists" or is "running" in this scenario?. I'm open minded, give me ANYTHING.


You wouldn't be able to measure distance either - because to measure the distance from A to B you would have to move something from A to B - even if only moving a ruler to line up with A and B. And if there was already, by chance, a ruler lined up with A and B you wouldn't be able to see it because there are no photons flying around. Therefore, by your logic, space ceases to exist as well.

Yhe yhe, it was a thought experiment. Of course I could not measure any thing be cause neither I nor what a want to measure can move.


For any example given you will "invent" some motion to support your position.

I'm not looking to beat you up on this. If by invent you mean "provide valid counter argument . If I say something that doesn't make sense, or defies logic, let me know.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 09:34 AM
This becomes one of the word games of comprehending as understanding the question is half of the battle.
Generally speaking the Universe does not keep time. It does not, like we do. Watch the moments proceed. As we observe they do.
Motion takes time from the point of the observer. A photon is a inanimate object and does not experience time. We can prove that time has progressed while those timeless photons would not have that view. Time and motion would seem to be the same thing... Space time is a distance. Is that right ?
Any movement can be only time and distance related. Relative motion takes time. I do not think the opposite is true...

I don't think it has to be a word game at all, but it is a bit of a mind game because once you start to see time a little differently, your understanding of the universe becomes a little more clear, IMHO.

So, in a sentence or so, what would you say time is? (its not a trick question, just a starting point)

Strange
2010-May-05, 10:05 AM
No, Space is just space, What evidence can you suggest that time "exists" or is "running" in this scenario?. I'm open minded, give me ANYTHING.

The point is that in your thought experiment, you can neither measure space nor time. From that you assume that time stops (or ceases to exist, I'm not sure) but space is unchanged. That seems inconsistent to me. It seems to me that your different conclusions might be just a side effect of the way we perceive time and space (i.e. as you say, you can "feel" space more directly than you can time) but in fact spacetime continues as it always has (but unchanging in your experiment).

But on the other hand, it may be that (as some philosophers argue) time is just a creation of the way we perceive the world. Which would make spacetime just a mathematical convenience rather than a representation of reality.

But on the third hand, some philosophers argue that space is constructed by the mind as well...

I'm not sure this belongs in the Questions and Answers forum as there is (as far as I know) no mainstream answer to this. Perhaps it should be in the On Topic But Philosophical Babbling forum.

Just to be clear, I don't really have a problem with any of these interpretations. I just don't think your thought experiment proves anything, one way or the other.

Strange
2010-May-05, 10:13 AM
Give one example of time that does not require comparison of motions.

OK. Consider a universe which is completely empty apart from a stationary muon. After a period, that muon will decay. Now obviously you cannot measure the time it took (you don't exist and nor do any clocks). But do you have any reason to believe that the muon would behave differently from one where you do exist and have a clock (but are sufficiently far away that you can't affect the behaviour of the - still stationary - muon)?

Just to be clear, we have no evidence for any internal "clockwork" structure of the muon which is ticking away the microsseconds before it decays. So no movement there.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 10:14 AM
The point is that in your thought experiment, you can neither measure space nor time. From that you assume that time stops (or ceases to exist, I'm not sure) but space is unchanged. That seems inconsistent to me. It seems to me that your different conclusions might be just a side effect of the way we perceive time and space (i.e. as you say, you can "feel" space more directly than you can time) but in fact spacetime continues as it always has (but unchanging in your experiment).

But on the other hand, it may be that (as some philosophers argue) time is just a creation of the way we perceive the world. Which would make spacetime just a mathematical convenience rather than a representation of reality.

But on the third hand, some philosophers argue that space is constructed by the mind as well...

I'm not sure this belongs in the Questions and Answers forum as there is (as far as I know) no mainstream answer to this. Perhaps it should be in the On Topic But Philosophical Babbling forum.

Just to be clear, I don't really have a problem with any of these interpretations. I just don't think your thought experiment proves anything, one way or the other.

Cool. Thanx for being open minded. By the way, did you read my post #31 in tis thread? If you want links to the articles for the quotes, let me know. But you should at least look at post #31

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 10:20 AM
No. I believe it would behave the same either way (assuming all muons decay in an identical manner)

Strange
2010-May-05, 10:36 AM
No. I believe it would behave the same either way (assuming all muons decay in an identical manner)

Right. So there you have time passing (the period until the decay) with no movement ...

Strange
2010-May-05, 10:40 AM
Cool. Thanx for being open minded. By the way, did you read my post #31 in tis thread? If you want links to the articles for the quotes, let me know. But you should at least look at post #31

I could say that that is just an "argument from authority" (but I won't :)). I think that the issue of relativity of time is slightly different from "time only existing because of movement". And, I guess it could be argued that the relativity of time says something about it's intrinsic existence independent of movement (i.e. that it is an essential part of spacetime).

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 10:47 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but I have some questions.

-what is a muon (I assume its a particle or something) and what was happening within the muon prior to its decay, and where did it "go" after it decayed? an finally, explain what (not how much) time passed up to the decay.

Strange
2010-May-05, 12:02 PM
A muon is an elementary particle similar to an electron (but much more massive). It is not thought to have any internal structure.


what was happening within the muon prior to its decay

Nothing. As far as we know there is nothing "within" a muon; it is just a little ball of muonness. :) And there are theoretical reasons (which are beyond me) to think that nothing can be happening (i.e. that there are no "hidden" things which cause the decay).


where did it "go" after it decayed

It is converted to an electron and two neutrinos (usually).


explain what (not how much) time passed up to the decay

About 2 microseconds. But I don't understand the "what" in your question.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 12:35 PM
Right. So there you have time passing (the period until the decay) with no movement ...

I don't see how you can conclude that. From what you have told me about the muon, it sits there, then it decays. The "period until the decay" is what you are calling " Time". OK. The way you described the decay process, we ca agree there was motion involved in the decay.

I asked for an example of time that did not compare motions.

MUON motion = 0---------------(this is what you call a period of time)--------MUON DECAYS motion = something.

you used motion in you definition of time.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 12:58 PM
gotta bolt soon, so in anticipation to you response that what you meant was that time passed during the period before the muon decayed and that was "time without motion"

No, you can not talk about that period without talking about the decay. In fact without the decay, that period is something completely different and not at subject here.

What you have here is a unit of time expressed as "the interval between MUON and MUON DECAY" in the universe you described, it is the smallest measurable unit of time and it is derived by comparing MUON at rest----- and MUON in motion (decay).

Forget the mysteries of whats inside a muon. But if you find something, you may be able to establish an even smaller unit of time than the on you are left with from this scenario.

Strange
2010-May-05, 01:01 PM
I don't see how you can conclude that. From what you have told me about the muon, it sits there, then it decays. The "period until the decay" is what you are calling " Time". OK. The way you described the decay process, we ca agree there was motion involved in the decay.

I asked for an example of time that did not compare motions.

MUON motion = 0---------------(this is what you call a period of time)--------MUON DECAYS motion = something.

you used motion in you definition of time.

See. See. I said you would "invent" some motion! :) What is moving during the period the muon is "waiting" to decay? What does "motion = something" mean? What is being "compared"?

Muon (stationary) ... time passes ... muon (stationary) ... time passes ... muon (stationary) ... time passes ... muon decays (decay products have energy/velocity imparted by the decay process)

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 01:07 PM
See. See. I said you would "invent" some motion! :) What is moving during the period the muon is "waiting" to decay? What does "motion = something" mean? What is being "compared"?

Muon (stationary) ... time passes ... muon (stationary) ... time passes ... muon (stationary) ... time passes ... muon decays (decay products have energy/velocity imparted by the decay process)


Wow, my crystal ball still works:razz:

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 01:30 PM
Nothing is moving during the period the muon is waiting to decay

motion = something represented the motion of the muon decay


Right. So there you have time passing (the period until the decay) with no movement ...

What you compared was muon there and muon gone (decayed)

Strange
2010-May-05, 01:37 PM
Nothing is moving during the period the muon is waiting to decay

Quite. And yet, time appears to pass....


What you compared was muon there and muon gone (decayed)

Which is fine for the "instant" of decay. Or if you want to argue that the decay no longer takes place after 2 us but is instant (beacuse no time can be measured). But, if the muon behaves like "normal" then 2us pass with no movement....

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 02:04 PM
Quite. And yet, time appears to pass....



Which is fine for the "instant" of decay. Or if you want to argue that the decay no longer takes place after 2 us but is instant (beacuse no time can be measured). But, if the muon behaves like "normal" then 2us pass with no movement....

We agree time passes during the period the muon is waiting to decay and that there is also no motion during this period. This is why you can't use any individual part of that "period" to measure time, because there is no motion there. You used MUON and MUON decay to define this period as a whole, by comparing motions, and so you measured time passing between those events. Just because there is no intermediate motions does not take Time away from the entire period.

Strange
2010-May-05, 02:12 PM
We agree time passes during the period the muon is waiting to decay and that there is also no motion during this period. This is why you can't use any individual part of that "period" to measure time, because there is no motion there. You used MUON and MUON decay to define this period as a whole, by comparing motions, and so you measured time passing between those events. Just because there is no intermediate motions does not take Time away from the entire period.

My hypothetical muon takes 2us to decay because that is what they always take. But what counts out or measures that 2us?

And extending your argument to your thought-experiment universe where nothing moves: if at some point everything starts to move again, do you know how long it was stationary for? Or was effectively zero time? You have two events: everything stops and then everything starts again. What separates those two events?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 02:25 PM
First off, I don't know what 2us is, but I don't feel bad, because in the previous hypo, you don't either( I mean you wouldn't be able to determine). I'm not following you, are setting up a new hypo? please advise.

No you would not know how long the universe was stationary, but that statement in and of it'self is contradictory because "how long" assumes there was a passage of time, while I'm saying you can't measure time without motion.


What separates those two events? We normally consider such things as fiction. But, use your imagination to answer that question. I would say nothing.

Strange
2010-May-05, 02:41 PM
First off, I don't know what 2us is, but I don't feel bad, because in the previous hypo, you don't either( I mean you wouldn't be able to determine). I'm not following you, are setting up a new hypo? please advise.

Sorry: us = microsecond.

Just to be clear: the muon decay as I understand it is not a process that takes 2us; it is an event that happens after 2us.

My problem with your argument is that we have something which takes a known period of time (waiting for decay of a muon) yet we can put this in a hypothetical universe (just as realistic as yours) where nothing moves: I assume it will take the same time until it decays even though nothing moves. But how can that be when there is no time?

But, I think this is all a bit futile. None of these throught experiments are realistic and I don't think they tell us anything meaningful.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 02:54 PM
But, I think this is all a bit futile. None of these throught experiments are realistic and I don't think they tell us anything meaningful.

Yo Bro, don't hang up yet



My problem with your argument is that we have something which takes a known period of time (waiting for decay of a muon) yet we can put this in a hypothetical universe (just as realistic as yours) where nothing moves: I assume it will take the same time until it decays even though nothing moves. But how can that be when there is no time?

Well, if there is any movement at all associated with the process of the muon decay, in the motionless universe, that motion wont occur. It CAN"T decay because decay is motion. I don't know what's going on in a muon up to the moment of decay, but if there is motion involved there, that motion won't exist in the hypo.

Strange
2010-May-05, 03:14 PM
Well, if there is any movement at all associated with the process of the muon decay, in the motionless universe, that motion wont occur. It CAN"T decay because decay is motion. I don't know what's going on in a muon up to the moment of decay, but if there is motion involved there, that motion won't exist in the hypo.

But... there is (as far as we know) no movement inside the muon. This would not fit with the Standard Model. (And measurements of muon decay have been used as a very accurate test of the Standard Model.)

But, as a smarter guy than me said, eppure si muove !

tommac
2010-May-05, 04:11 PM
Define space
Define time.

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:17 PM
A measurement used to compare motions so that we may understand, explain, and predict motion.

thats pretty off the cufff

m74z00219
2010-May-05, 04:19 PM
If everything in the universe stopped, EVERYTHING, down to the atom and smaller, would time be possible?


IMHO, the absence of time is not the absence movement, rather it is when past events can no longer be inferred from the present events.


M74

Strange
2010-May-05, 04:21 PM
A measurement used to compare motions so that we may understand, explain, and predict motion.

Is that time or space? Could be either (or both).

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 04:23 PM
I think that definition would fall short for space. What's your's?

tommac
2010-May-05, 06:33 PM
I think that definition would fall short for space. What's your's?

why does it fall short for space? and why doesnt it fall short for time?

uncommonsense
2010-May-05, 06:52 PM
Rather than answer that, I'll say that the definition I gave is not very accurate at defining either. I have never attempted to squeeze either into a definition. I will on occasion ask for a definition of one or the other within the context of a dialog where the question is construed as "what do you mean by that here?

I am interested in knowing whether you have definitions of either. Care to share?

Strange
2010-May-06, 11:57 AM
I think that definition would fall short for space. What's your's?

If you want to compare/measure/explain motion then you need to measure both time and space. So your definition is really just a description of motion. But, I guess, for you that means it is a definition of time; because time is motion. Slightly circular, but whatever....

astromark
2010-May-07, 01:15 AM
.. .Lets try and clear this up... Velocity is what ? The relative motion in a measured time period.
Not the same thing as speed., and definitely not just time. Time is what ? The measured interval between moments.
Time is not a measure of distance traveled in a time period is it ? The essence of time is relative measure of a known interval.
In astronomy we use the parsec or the ly. Both are correctly used as measuring tools of distance over a known time.

uncommonsense
2010-May-07, 02:48 AM
Getting closer, but you said:


Time is what ? The measured interval between moments.

A moment is defined as a portion or point of time. You can't define time using a unit if time.

astromark
2010-May-07, 06:46 AM
Yes,

I said this as well... and in context. Its right.


.. .Lets try and clear this up... Velocity is what ? The relative motion in a measured time period.
Not the same thing as speed., and definitely not just time. Time is what ? The measured interval between moments.
Time is not a measure of distance traveled in a time period is it ? The essence of time is relative measure of a known interval.
In astronomy we use the parsec or the ly. Both are correctly used as measuring tools of distance over a known time.

I may not be able to measure a time by using a time... but that is what time is... My clock does this...

uncommonsense
2010-May-07, 07:13 AM
Consider instead of saying time is the measured interval between moments, instead thinking "the measured interval between two locations of a moving object, because as you stated it using "moments" presupposes you already have a way to measure time. Well if you say "yes, I did, I had a clock to measure the interval", --well what does your clock actually represent?--it represents standardized intervals between the movement of its hands -- and what are those based upon? --they are a representation of the interval between locations of something else (1 full rotation of the earth, or vibrations(motion) of a crystal). Measurement of time started, long long ago, by observing motion of things - some motions from place to place seemed to be consistent, so devices were made to emulate those motions --clocks. Then we started using clocks to measure al kinds of other motions, and velocity by using out "time" piece --a clock. The clock was confused as time. But consider the origin of what a clock is based upon---motion.

Strange
2010-May-07, 09:50 AM
Consider instead of saying time is the measured interval between moments, instead thinking "the measured interval between two locations of a moving object

Consider instead of saying space is the measured distance between points, instead thinking "the measured distance between two moments of a moving object".


Measurement of time started, long long ago, by observing motion of things - some motions from place to place seemed to be consistent, so devices were made to emulate those motions --clocks.

Measurement of space started, long long ago, by observing motion of things - some motions from place to place seemed to be consistent, so devices were made to emulate those motions -- rulers.


The clock was confused as time. But consider the origin of what a clock is based upon---motion.

I think you may be the one confusing the clock (or motion) - i.e. a way of measuring or perceiving time - as time.

uncommonsense
2010-May-07, 06:30 PM
You are not getting to the bottom of it. My analysis starts from a perspective before there were such things as clocks. You start right of with a measurement of moments. How do you measure a moment without a timing device?

You would use a ruler to measure motion from place to place?

I'm not following your reasoning and you seem to refuse mine, so lets just say what the heck and do something better with our time? Peace.

korjik
2010-May-07, 07:05 PM
You are not getting to the bottom of it. My analysis starts from a perspective before there were such things as clocks. You start right of with a measurement of moments. How do you measure a moment without a timing device?

You would use a ruler to measure motion from place to place?

I'm not following your reasoning and you seem to refuse mine, so lets just say what the heck and do something better with our time? Peace.

If it isnt rather obvious that the connotative meaning of 'moment' is the time equvalent of what a 'point' is to a distance measurement, then the problem isnt with Strange. You dont need a clock to define time any more than you need a ruler to define distance.

uncommonsense
2010-May-07, 07:26 PM
:confused:
If it isnt rather obvious that the connotative meaning of 'moment' is the time equvalent of what a 'point' is to a distance measurement, then the problem isnt with Strange. You dont need a clock to define time any more than you need a ruler to define time.

Yhe, there was a bit of confusion over the last few threads, I think because I was responding directly to astromark's words, and then Strange was quoting me responding to astromark, but Strange was substituting space where I was using time, and I couldn't tell if he was referring to my or astromarks comments.....:confused:

Strange
2010-May-07, 07:47 PM
Then perhaps, as a very brief final comment, I will simply say that, despite the fact that I often find astromark's comments succinct to the point of being cryptic (albeit interesting), this time he has pretty much hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head with, presumably, a proverbial hammer; on the other hand, I find the attempts to define time in terms of motion (i.e. changes relative to space) ultimately fairly unconvincing and as helpful - or indeed unhelpful - as trying to define space in terms of changes in time.

:think:

I would say that time is, space is, and we have tools to measure both of them. We are free to travel anywhere we want in three dimensions but are constrained to go Only Forward (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-Forward-Michael-Marshall-Smith/dp/0006512666) with regard to time. Which is what makes the journey so interesting...

ETA: Oh, yeah. What Korjik said, too.

uncommonsense
2010-May-07, 08:11 PM
.. .Lets try and clear this up... Velocity is what ? The relative motion in a measured time period.
Not the same thing as speed., and definitely not just time. Time is what ? The measured interval between moments.
Time is not a measure of distance traveled in a time period is it ? The essence of time is relative measure of a known interval.
In astronomy we use the parsec or the ly. Both are correctly used as measuring tools of distance over a known time.

astromark

I wouldn't mind exploring this a little further, if you don't mind. And by the way, your initial comment that this would come down to confusion over meanings of words was correct.

I want to know what you mean by "moments" when you say time is the measured interval between moments.

cosmocrazy
2010-May-09, 12:55 PM
Time - "The relative measurement of conscious existence"

cosmocrazy
2010-May-09, 01:30 PM
So what does this mean? well if we consider the mainstream theory of the BB to be correct then we (all of us and everything that is and was) came into existence measured by us approx 14 billion years ago. After this moment up until the universe as we know it comes to an end (if it ever does) then we will continue to exist. The difference only ever being that we will exist in different forms but may only ever be conscious of it perhaps once or dependent on your beliefs many times over at different relative intervals. So what does this mean for the overall picture? well time is a mechanism that allows the universe to experience its own existence. And to experience this existence as we know it space is also required to allow change/motion and room for other things to co-exist at the same instant. This being that existence has something to measure/record relative to. Consider a stand alone elementary particle in infinite space, would it experience time? well it would have nothing to measure time relative to would it.....?

astromark
2010-May-09, 08:56 PM
You are all correct... ( thats fixed it.)... As we know of no other being that does want for the measure of time.
The Universe and all of the natural inhabitants within it may not .. We simply can not know and as we debate the correct way to calculate and measure the endless progression of whatever interval you choose. Time is a man made concept. Everything else is relativity. Where you are and what motion you have... and time. Are inseparable.
My inability to find a better word than moment is my shortfall for not finding a better way of describing this endless relentless stream of time intervals... mark.

north
2010-May-10, 10:43 AM
try movement , instead of moment

cosmocrazy
2010-May-10, 01:02 PM
Mentioned earlier in this thread was the point of view from a photon's perspective. If relativity is correct then from the perspective of a photon time & space do not exist. It cannot measure distance, time, movement or change. As far as it is concerned it has no time and space to experience therefore it cannot experience existence in any way we are accustomed to. So what does time do for us? well it gives us that room to experience change, gives us space to be conscious, aware of our existence and surroundings. It gives us freedom. We are after all just stardust manifested in such a way that we can be conscious of and experience the universe we are part of.

Schneibster
2010-May-12, 08:29 AM
Time has no inherent , or intrinsic aspects in and of itself. It is a means of measurement. Can you give any examples of "physicality" of time, in and of itself, without reference to what it is measuring?Yes. The Lorentz transform turns "time" into space and vice versa. They appear to be "made of the same stuff," since they can be converted into one another simply by altering one's velocity. Are you unable to see the "physicality" of spatial separations between objects? Can you see a way objects that are separate in time could ever come into physical contact? There you see the physical evidence of the real existence of time.