so what is time?

[regulate]

hey i was thinkin about some stuff my senior high school teacer said about time and i starting think, and all that thinkin made me confused so i thought someone on the forums would know or something.



is time linear, or cyclical, or continual (linear, being a start and a definate end), or another form of control?

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by regulate

is time linear, or cyclical, or continual (linear, being a start and a definate end), or another form of control?

well for me, time is round.

i have a Guess sports watch and its round....

if i were you, i would lay off the weed and quit with the high brow questions....people come here to relax....and i doubt that the majority of folks on here have studied 60 years into quantum astro time physics or what ever this stuff is...so no one will know for sure..

 

[vat_man]

It's something that stops everything happening at once.

 

[Duke]

Time is linear. You can change your rate of advancement along that line, by achieving relativistic speeds, but you cannot change your direction in time.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Time is linear. You can change your rate of advancement along that line, by achieving relativistic speeds, but you cannot change your direction in time.

what would be your idea of how time would "end", as in the quote below?

(linear, being a start and a definate end)

 

[milefile]

Time is that which passes. Time is defined by life and death, without which there would be nobody to ask the question.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
Time is that which passes. Time is defined by life and death, without which there would be nobody to ask the question.

Thats a bit general IMO. I was expecting something a little deeper than [anythng and everything] can(t) exist without life and death,... but true none-the-less.

 

[milefile]

Time is a bit general. The specifics come into play in it's measurement, which is different form time itself. For Earthlings, time is defined by the motion of our solar system. Outside of our solar system this is meaningless, and yet time still passes, but only for living things, which will die, which is the only reason time matters at all. In the absence of life, time is superfluous.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
Time is a bit general. The specifics come into play in it's measurement, which is different form time itself. For Earthlings, time is defined by the motion of our solar system. Outside of our solar system this is meaningless, and yet time still passes, but only for living things, which will die, which is the only reason time matters at all. In the absence of life, time is superfluous.

True,.. but is there an end?.... let alone a beginning? Did time (on any scale) start with the big bang?.. and will it end when the universe implodes upon itself?.....

 

[milefile]

The Big Bang. Heh. Whenever I think about it I see a bang, an explosion. And then I want to place that explosion into a space. But that would be a space that existed prior to the universe, hence time... indeed, prior to space itself. It is indeed a paradox.

 

[Duke]

No, I think time is independent of existance. Time is beginningless, endless, and moving in one direction only. Things appear, change, and disappear (all are really just different ways of saying they change).

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Yeah........

It's fun to speculate,.. as the topics creator suggested.

Question for the believers of an afterlife: Does time exist in heaven and hell?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer


Question for the believers of an afterlife: Does time exist in heaven and hell?

It can't. Eternity precludes time, which depends not only on life, but death, and there is no death in heaven, so there can be no time.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
It can't. Eternity precludes time, which depends not only on life, but death, and there is no death in heaven, so there can be no time.

So,.. essentially,.. in heaven,... and hell,... everyone dies at the same time,... meaning all who have lived and are dead now,.. dont know they are?,.... like they're stuck in a time void?

 

[Timmotheus]

Even celestial objects are affected by time. A sun burns more and more of its fuel as time passes, and, when the supply of deutrium is completely exhausted, ceases to exist as a star. Are stars alive? I think not.

The concept of time is defined by the personal views of the recipient of the question. Christian wackos believe that time os completely linear, and has a start, Genesis, and an end, Armageddon. The standard relativistic approach defines time as continuous, and has always existed, for matter has always existed, and, truthfully, matter and the paths and positions define time, not life. Some theories not so commonly accepted define time as somewhat cyclical, and claim that molecules created after the big bang "tunneled" back in time to create themselves. Space-time is usually represented by a helical graph, where, in an isometric projection, the x and y axes represent space, while the z axis represents time. This is called a world line.

So, as soon as you actually discover what your question is, you'll have your answer. The thread is already beginning to degenerate into an argument over the true nature of the question, and I expect it will continue upon that path. Most likely, the members of the forum will never reach a concrete agreement.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
Most likely, the members of the forum will never reach a concrete agreement.

Pfffft,. do we ever

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
Even celestial objects are affected by time. A sun burns more and more of its fuel as time passes, and, when the supply of deutrium is completely exhausted, ceases to exist as a star. Are stars alive? I think not.

The concept of time is defined by the personal views of the recipient of the question. Christian wackos believe that time os completely linear, and has a start, Genesis, and an end, Armageddon. The standard relativistic approach defines time as continuous, and has always existed, for matter has always existed, and, truthfully, matter and the paths and positions define time, not life. Some theories not so commonly accepted define time as somewhat cyclical, and claim that molecules created after the big bang "tunneled" back in time to create themselves. Space-time is usually represented by a helical graph, where, in an isometric projection, the x and y axes represent space, while the z axis represents time. This is called a world line.

So, as soon as you actually discover what your question is, you'll have your answer. The thread is already beginning to degenerate into an argument over the true nature of the question, and I expect it will continue upon that path. Most likely, the members of the forum will never reach a concrete agreement.

No. We only ask about time because we are concerned with our time, which ends. We say it takes x number of years for a star to burn out. We all know this to mean earth years, defined by the motion of our solar system. We have no other means of measurement. If humanity still exists after our solar system is gone, what unit of measure will we use to describe time? It doesn't matter. It does not effect time.

Our experience of time, which is the only thing that allowed the question, "time", to be at all, is the knowledge that our time ends when we die. What you describe in your star example is a mathematical idea of time, which exists only because living, thinking beings, who die, need to ask about time. Without it there is only dead matter, meaninglessness.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by milefile
No. We only ask about time because we are concerned with our time, which ends. We say it takes x number of years for a star to burn out. We all know this to mean earth years, defined by the motion of our solar system. We have no other means of measurement. If humanity still exists after our solar system is gone, what unit of measure will we use to describe time? It doesn't matter. It does not effect time.

Our experience of time, which is the only thing that allowed the question, "time", to be at all, is the knowledge that our time ends when we die. What you describe in your star example is a mathematical idea of time, which exists only because living, thinking beings, who die, need to ask about time. Without it there is only dead matter, meaninglessness.

Bah! Meaningless to you, perhaps. Not to me. I prefer to consider things on the macro scale. Just because time has no need to be defined doesn't mean that it is meaningless. Did the time that passed before the evolution of sentient beings, or life at all, have no meaning? I realize that humans may not care about anything that happens after they cease to exist, but time is as much a dimension as length or width. The fact that you cling to human supremacy is weakminded and uncharacteristic of you. Did somebody die? Were they old? If they were, it can be fitted into your nonsensical argument on the role of humans in "time."

 

[regulate]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
well for me, time is round.

i have a Guess sports watch and its round....

if i were you, i would lay off the weed and quit with the high brow questions....people come here to relax....and i doubt that the majority of folks on here have studied 60 years into quantum astro time physics or what ever this stuff is...so no one will know for sure..

dude, i dont smoke weed or do any type of drugs whatsoever.
i just happem to think about things that the mainsteam of society doesnt, cant or is to afraid to question because it would mean the fundementa collapse of their belief system, thus afraid of change. anyways getting perspectives about a subject from different ppl from different walks of life is rather helpful to understand ones own perspective.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
Bah! Meaningless to you, perhaps. Not to me. I prefer to consider things on the macro scale. Just because time has no need to be defined doesn't mean that it is meaningless. Did the time that passed before the evolution of sentient beings, or life at all, have no meaning? I realize that humans may not care about anything that happens after they cease to exist, but time is as much a dimension as length or width. The fact that you cling to human supremacy is weakminded and uncharacteristic of you. Did somebody die? Were they old? If they were, it can be fitted into your nonsensical argument on the role of humans in "time."

I don't think you understand me. Time is very important to me, but this is irrelevant to 99.99999999...% of the universe. My little fascination with the big bang and the obviousness of the fact that there really is no "time" but only spacetime has no effect on time. I don't know how you get "human supremacy" out of that. According to the big bang theory of the universe, it existed for approximately 15 billion years before humans asked about time. Interest in the history of the cosmos has nothing to do with what actually happened 5, 10, or 15 billion years ago. Nobody can remember it. It can't be effected in any way, and it ocurred independent of any interest in it, as it still does, and will continue to do. It sounds to me like you are the one invoking "human supremacy" by assuming that because something has meaning to you, that meaning must have a lot to do with its essential definition. All of the physical and quantum properties of the universe would be with or without anyone asking about it and using fleeting, temporally doomed criteria in their definitions. The universe didn't happen because it's interesting.

 

[regulate]

TIME IS CONTENUAL!
you can "through" time by means of your temporal lobe, moving your concesiceness through the various existances in time, experiance-ing those moments.
(yes i know my spelling is bad, deal with it!)

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by regulate
TIME IS CONTENUAL!
you can "through" time by means of your temporal lobe, moving your concesiceness through the various existances in time, experiance-ing those moments.
(yes i know my spelling is bad, deal with it!)

Not just your spelling. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by milefile
The universe didn't happen because it's interesting.

Agreed. I got human supremacy from your insistance that life defines time. As humans consider their race the epitome of life, the leap was easy to make, and at least somewhat logical. Yet, despite the fact that the universe didn't happen because it was interesting, time exists despite a lack of definition. Before life, radioactive elements still deteriorated in a regular fashion, and energy was consumed at a nearly standard rate. Time is is essentially measured by entropy. As the universe ages, entropy is increased. That has happened and will continue to happen whether or not life is present.
To consider life as anything more than it is, a complex arrangement of elements that existed before the question of time arose. And, I'll stick a little thesis at the end here, for those to lazy to read the rest of the post.
The lack of a need to define time does not preclude the notion of time itself, or make it meaningless in any way.

Heh, I was right. This is turning into a debate over the true meaning of the question, and not a debate over the answer.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by regulate
TIME IS CONTENUAL!
you can "through" time by means of your temporal lobe, moving your concesiceness through the various existances in time, experiance-ing those moments.
(yes i know my spelling is bad, deal with it!)

Yet you stay withing the same physical layer of space-time. As a memory imperfect, and does not contain all of the knowledge to completely replicate a moment in time, what you are saying makes absolutely no sense. I'm afraid I'll have to side with milefile on this one, despite the fact that it'd be more fun to debate the point with him.

 

[Duke]

Heh, I was right. This is turning into a debate over the true meaning of the question, and not a debate over the answer.

So?

And, milefile, I understand now where you're coming from, but FWIW I thought you were saying what Timmotheus described above.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
Just because time has no need to be defined doesn't mean that it is meaningless.

I have a problem with this. Are you sure? Can you give me an example of a meaningless thing?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
This is turning into a debate over the true meaning of the question, and not a debate over the answer.

As many good discussions do.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
FWIW

I don't know that one

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by neon_duke
So?

Well it's more entertaining this way. And I was right. That makes me feel special. Except it doesn't.
Time is such an abstract concept that I can't argue over it in school, and am definitely enjoying this debate.
Imagine trying to argue over anything with average 15 year olds. They don't seem to realize how meaningless a statistic is without any reasoning to make it back up their argument. People have told me that Bush is a horrible president because he has "annulled more International Treatys than any other President." They don't seem to understand how meaningless that fact is without saying why it's bad. Most of my arguing consists of short questions such as "why is that a bad thing," and "so." I've won more arguments by default than I care to count.
I have the exact opposite problem. I tend to state my reasoning, but not the statistics to back it up. I'm learning though. milefile is a good teacher. He should be proud.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by milefile
I have a problem with this. Are you sure? Can you give me an example of a meaningless thing?

I take meaningless to mean inconsequential. Even if time does not affect life, it still affects something.