Time

[Astral Projection]

I was thinking today while I was looking at clock...
So I asked myself how such device can measure "time" so precise? If we cannot feel\see\smell... time how such device can measure it? Maybe our apprehension of time is all in that device (clock). What clock tells we believe that is the "time".. What if that time doesn't exist and all we believe about time is - numbers on the clock...
You opinions about time?

[CFTraveler]

Time is a measurement, like an inch, or a meter... it has no absolute existence, but yet is part of the physical universe.  What does it measure? Changes in space.  So, is there such a thing as space? It expands, it can be warped, things are in it, yet does it have absolute existence?
:blahblah:
How should I know? :angel:

[MisterJingo]

It exists, but what it is I'm not sure. A clock is simply a tool we have created to carve out regular intervals of 'time'.
Time in the sence of what the clock says is just human understanding tacked onto the phenomena of the passage of moment to moment movement.
Electrons orbit atoms through the medium of time, our body funtions through the medium of time. Without time I think there literally would be oblivion - that is there would be no medium for change to be effected through.
Whatever creates mind/consiousness, be it the brain or some form of energy, without the ability to move, surely it would be static?

Recent thoughts on time from the scientific community is that time might be the entropy of the universe along a negative curve. That is, at the point of the big bang there was near perfect order. As with any system, entropy occurs over time (action and reaction, cause and effect). So time would be, in effect, simply the action of the universe entrophy.

[Astral Projection]

It exists, but what it is I'm not sure. A clock is simply a tool we have created to carve out regular intervals of 'time'.

But how do we do it's regular? If 1 second lasts twice longer than one day would be 12hrs, yr 182\183 days... Then we would believe that it is regular interval of time..

[cainam_nazier]

Time is a matter of perspective and is there for not a constant.  For us as humans we consider it to be a constant only because we all view time in the same matter as every one else.  And basically the intervals of time that we use were just kinda decided on.  Much the same way temps and such were also just decided on.

[MisterJingo]

It exists, but what it is I'm not sure. A clock is simply a tool we have created to carve out regular intervals of 'time'.

But how do we do it's regular? If 1 second lasts twice longer than one day would be 12hrs, yr 182\183 days... Then we would believe that it is regular interval of time..

As cainam_nazier said, it is a matter of perspective, and although certain conditions can seem to slow down or speed up time (usually caused by either external drugs or internal chemicals like adrenalin) the brain has a 'time keeping' region. I guess this is why there seems to be a general consensus of time eg we don't seem to live in different time frames - some being much faster or slower than others.
We could have broken time up in many different ways, and in the past there has been many was classifying time (even having different numbers of days per week / months per year etc).

Our current use of time utilises atomic clocks which use the resonance frequencies of atoms to keep time (eg every Cesium-133 atom oscillates at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second).

Our current time frame is just a standard agreed on by humans.

[Stookie]

Another quick note:

CFTraveler mentioned that time is related to space. Our concept of time is built around the amount of time the earth rotates and travels around the sun through space. We could change 1 second to be 3 seconds and still call it 1, but it wouldn't fit in with day/night or the seasons.

[Astral Projection]

Another quick note:

CFTraveler mentioned that time is related to space. Our concept of time is built around the amount of time the earth rotates and travels around the sun through space. We could change 1 second to be 3 seconds and still call it 1, but it wouldn't fit in with day/night or the seasons.

How it wouldn't? If we change that day would have 8hrs, and year still 365\366days..

[dingo]

Here's my view on time:
The only thing that exists is the present - a Universe that changes in a series of everlasting 'nows'. Time can be seen to be relative because the way we measure time becomes distorted at, for example, high speeds. A clock is based on some kind of mechanism with something changing within it. The 'time' we see is the rate at which this thing changes. So, at a high speed, this rate would decrease, making it seem as though time has 'slowed down'.
Let's assume the human's sense of time is chemical-based. If you were to travel at a high speed, the rate of this chemical reaction (probably in your brain) would decrease, and your sense of time would also become distorted.
It makes kind of mathematical sense too - it removes the problem of not being able to measure a change in the rate of time with respect to time.

I also think it's well within human psychological behaviour to believe that time is a dimension - that the past and the future exist - because of the way our brains have formed. You can imagine the future, and remember the past. You believe it to be real, and yet it is not 'here,' so you assume it's somewhere else.

[jalef]

For me time exists but how it is for asome higher beings i dont know..

[MisterJingo]

The only thing that exists is the present - a Universe that changes in a series of everlasting 'nows'.

I agree with wht you wrote. I mean the past only exists to something which maintains a memory. But what is the cause/drive of these everlasting 'nows'? I think thats the crux of it.

[Stookie]

Stookie wrote:

Another quick note:

CFTraveler mentioned that time is related to space. Our concept of time is built around the amount of time the earth rotates and travels around the sun through space. We could change 1 second to be 3 seconds and still call it 1, but it wouldn't fit in with day/night or the seasons.

How it wouldn't? If we change that day would have 8hrs, and year still 365\366days..

My point was that even though perception of time can vary from person to person, it's still a constant in the physical world as seen in the natural revolution of the planets in the solar system, as well as other cosmic factors. The best we can do to manipulate time is change the names of the constants.

[Astral Projection]

The only thing that exists is the present - a Universe that changes in a series of everlasting 'nows'.

I think so too. While ago I got drunk and I couldn't remember many things from that night, so it made me think that past doesn't acctually exists, only that exist is our memories and present events...

[MisterJingo]

The only thing that exists is the present - a Universe that changes in a series of everlasting 'nows'.

I think so too. While ago I got drunk and I couldn't remember many things from that night, so it made me think that past doesn't acctually exists, only that exist is our memories and present events...

To an extent this is just semantics. The past isn't 'another place', it's just a preceding 'now'. But to me at least, the question of whether time exists or not is not based upon the human interpretation of time (thats just an interpretation based upon observation), but what actually is time. Or what we call time. Why does change occur at all, by what mechanism can an object change through these moment to monent nows. What actually are these 'now's. Can they be broken down to constituant parts, or will we find ever finer 'nows' etc.

[dingo]

The only thing that exists is the present - a Universe that changes in a series of everlasting 'nows'.

I think so too. While ago I got drunk and I couldn't remember many things from that night, so it made me think that past doesn't acctually exists, only that exist is our memories and present events...

To an extent this is just semantics. The past isn't 'another place', it's just a preceding 'now'. But to me at least, the question of whether time exists or not is not based upon the human interpretation of time (thats just an interpretation based upon observation), but what actually is time. Or what we call time. Why does change occur at all, by what mechanism can an object change through these moment to monent nows. What actually are these 'now's. Can they be broken down to constituant parts, or will we find ever finer 'nows' etc.

Then you're asking why things try to reach a state of lowest energy. Science is good with the how's but not with the why's
You wouldn't be able to find smaller now's because the only one that does exist is now. Also, if they weren't continuous, and could be broken down into parts, time would become a dimension (as a now would have a length).

[MisterJingo]

Then you're asking why things try to reach a state of lowest energy. Science is good with the how's but not with the why's
You wouldn't be able to find smaller now's because the only one that does exist is now. Also, if they weren't continuous, and could be broken down into parts, time would become a dimension (as a now would have a length).

For something to reach a lower energy state there has to be a medium through which this change can occur, and this is what we class as time. I guess I'm asking is what actually this medium is, what is its base unit etc. By smaller 'nows' I mean for example if we take measurements of distance, there seems to be no 'ultimate' unit. We could keep going smaller forever.

[killua]

well for me time represents a change in the universe, if there is no time, there is no changes so there is no universe,just my point of view

[dingo]

I think what I'm trying to say is that we make time up. We look around and see changes and wonder what causes these changes, and point to imaginary 'time' and say it must be that. The Universe probably knows nothing of 'time'.

[Stookie]

But the changes we see that time is based on are fixed intervals that don't change. When the Earth rotates it doesn't speed up and slow down. Then we create a concept of time that corresponds to these fixed intervals. If we were to get rid of our concepts of what time is, we would still experience the fixed intervals and someone would create a graph to represent them, creating a new concept of time. It's hard to live and plan without it.

So maybe time is fixed, but our perception of it is the illusion, no matter how close our perception corresponds with reality.

[dingo]

But the changes we see that time is based on are fixed intervals that don't change. When the Earth rotates it doesn't speed up and slow down. Then we create a concept of time that corresponds to these fixed intervals. If we were to get rid of our concepts of what time is, we would still experience the fixed intervals and someone would create a graph to represent them, creating a new concept of time. It's hard to live and plan without it.

So maybe time is fixed, but our perception of it is the illusion, no matter how close our perception corresponds with reality.

But the intervals do change. As you approach the speed of light, your personal time slows down. If you travel at the speed of light, you time freezes (I think). Any faster than that and it (theoretically) goes backwards, but of course you can't accelerate beyond the speed of light, so you'd have had to be travelling faster than light since the beginning of the universe (which, to you, would be the end, lol).
There must be a relationship between your velocity and the 'intervals' that make events happen at a seemingly similar rate. Unfortunately, that's beyond my mathematical abilities.

[MisterJingo]

But the intervals do change. As you approach the speed of light, your personal time slows down. If you travel at the speed of light, you time freezes (I think). Any faster than that and it (theoretically) goes backwards, but of course you can't accelerate beyond the speed of light, so you'd have had to be travelling faster than light since the beginning of the universe (which, to you, would be the end, lol).
There must be a relationship between your velocity and the 'intervals' that make events happen at a seemingly similar rate. Unfortunately, that's beyond my mathematical abilities.

Nope. The thing about the speed of light is that it's relative. For example. If a person was travelling at half the speed of light to a static observer, the person travelling at half the speed of light would still percieve the speed of light to be the same as the static observer.
For example, the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. Both the person who is seen to be moving at half the speed of light, and the person who is actually moving at that speed would both measure the speed of light as 299 792 458 m/s. That is why they say it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light (you would literally need infinite energy).
One thing to note is, the person travelling at half the speed of light (Relative to an observer) would seem to be moving much slower to the static observer, wheras the person themselves would still seem to be moving at the same speed. And paradoxically, the person moving at half the speed of light would see themselves as stationary, and to them the static observer would whizz past at half the speed of light (and so be moving slower to him too).

Edit: Just to clarify, however fast you are moving, light will always be travelling 299 792 458 m/s faster than you (the speed of light faster than you). Everything is relative to the observer.

[dingo]

Oh, I don't know. I'm confused now. Lol.

I think I was speaking in absolute terms rather than relative terms. So when I said "If you travel at the speed of light.." I should have really said "If you travel at the speed of light relative to an observer, you would appear to freeze". Not sure if that fixes it all though heh.

[MisterJingo]

Oh, I don't know. I'm confused now. Lol.

I think I was speaking in absolute terms rather than relative terms. So when I said "If you travel at the speed of light.." I should have really said "If you travel at the speed of light relative to an observer, you would appear to freeze". Not sure if that fixes it all though heh.

This is why physics can be quite crazy . There are no absolutes.

"If you travel at the speed of light relative to an observer, you would appear to freeze".

To a 'static' observer you would probably seem to be going so slow you would be frozen. yet to yourself, you would be moving at normal speed. But relative to your speed, the static observer would actually be moving at the speed of light, and so he to you would seem to be near frozen.

[dingo]

To a 'static' observer you would probably seem to be going so slow you would be frozen. yet to yourself, you would be moving at normal speed. But relative to your speed, the static observer would actually be moving at the speed of light, and so he to you would seem to be near frozen.

Yes, that's what I meant. I'm just no good at explaining things.