Ponder THIS

[Ra1nfade]

My cat does the same thing lol It'll pester me for about an hour before she gets her treat and then after she gets it she just goes off and does whatever cats do for the rest of the day

 

[RA_pierce]

How?
I hope you're not implying you need to be able to sense something personally for it to exist.

No. What I mean is that energy is something tangible that does exist regardless of whether I am dead or alive, conscious or unconscious, aware of it or not. I can observe the effect of (whatever force) directly like watching the numbers increase and decrease on an LPM or frying an egg on a pan, and I am positive that an egg will fry on a hot pan just the same long after I am dead and unable to sense it personally.

I think that measuring time is different because I cannot detect the effect time has on the physical realm. The change that takes place could be accounted for by movement of atoms and the exchange of energy as in the laser power meter example. If time does have a unique effect on physical objects then what is it?

That is, I cannot directly observe the effect of time separately from the change that occurs due to the physical forces that I aware of. I don't see how the passing of "time" is separate from "change."

There are many organisms that coordinate mating, breeding, feeding, and migrating with "time" but what they are really doing is coordinating their behaviors with the tides, the availability of a staple food source, the seasonal climate, etc. They observe time just the same way we do... by taking note of physical changes in the environment.

So it is obvious that developing a system to measure and predict the changes that occur in the environment would be useful to us just as it is for other organisms. And the evolution of the concept of time would by now be an almost inherent part of us culturally and biologically (we sleep at dark time and wake when the sun comes up) so it is easy to accept the existence of it when we (in some cultures) rely on it so much and when it is so unavoidable in (most) language(s).

So, if the conception of time (which requires language and a numbers system, and abstract thought follows) was developed as an evolutionary advantage, then it was not derived spontaneously as a fixed element of nature or something that was already there... Time in that sense is more like a tool. Then I suppose that before the invention of the tool "time" there was only "change."

If time is an imaginary concept and just an abstract idea, then it does not exist objectively in the universe. If it is "real" then that implies it exists independently of all conception, perception, and imagination... and there would be mathematics to prove it. Is there?

I know that there is a lot of scientific measurement that requires time as a variable. My question is this: is the variable time simply a tool we use for computation or is it a real "object" in nature?

There is a lot about time in relation to physics that I do not understand... Einstein's relativity and time dilation is something that I definitely have a hard time understanding...
I don't profess to know any of these things. It is just my thought. I would consider myself an artist while science and physics is a hobby or something I enjoy learning about. I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as some others here may be in this subject, so those of you that do know something, I'd like to read it. I think it is good to question understanding before accepting it as "truth" and I'd appreciate any opposing ideas.

 

[chipdouglas]

Your first 2 paragraphs don't make sense with each other. You are saying energy is there regardless if you are aware. Then that time isn't something you can't detect. You detect the effects of time via old age.
If that isn't a good example then let's discuss what time is.... The changing seasons? Or earth spinning around the sun? These will all happen with out us here. Time is very observable.

No. What I mean is that energy is something tangible that does exist regardless of whether I am dead or alive, conscious or unconscious, aware of it or not. I can observe the effect of (whatever force) directly like watching the numbers increase and decrease on an LPM or frying an egg on a pan, and I am positive that an egg will fry on a hot pan just the same long after I am dead and unable to sense it personally.

I think that measuring time is different because I cannot detect the effect time has on the physical realm. The change that takes place could be accounted for by movement of atoms and the exchange of energy as in the laser power meter example. If time does have a unique effect on physical objects then what is it?

That is, I cannot directly observe the effect of time separately from the change that occurs due to the physical forces that I aware of. I don't see how "time" is separate from "change."

There are many organisms that coordinate mating, breeding, feeding, and migrating with "time" but what they are really doing is coordinating their behaviors with the tides, the availability of a staple food source, the seasonal climate, etc. They observe time just the same way we do... by taking note of physical changes in the environment.

So it is obvious that developing a system to measure and predict the changes that occur in the environment would be useful to us just as it is for other organisms. And the evolution of the concept of time would by now be an almost inherent part of us culturally and biologically (we sleep at dark time and wake when the sun comes up) so it is easy to accept the existence of it when we (in some cultures) rely on it so much and when it is so unavoidable in (most) language(s).

So, if the conception of time (which requires language and a numbers system, and abstract thought follows) was developed as an evolutionary advantage, then it was not derived spontaneously as a fixed element of nature or something that was already there... Time in that sense is more like a tool. Then I suppose that before the invention of the tool "time" there was only "change."

If time is an imaginary concept and just an abstract idea, then it does not exist objectively in the universe. If it is "real" then that implies it exists independently of all conception, perception, and imagination... and there would be mathematics to prove it. Is there?

I know that there is a lot of scientific measurement that requires time as a variable. My question is this: is the variable time simply a tool we use for computation or is it a real "object" in nature?

There is a lot about time in relation to physics that I do not understand... Einstein's relativity and time dilation is something that I definitely have a hard time understanding...
I don't profess to know any of these things. It is just my thought. I would consider myself an artist while science and physics is a hobby or something I enjoy learning about. I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as some others here may be in this subject, so those of you that do know something, I'd like to read it. I think it is good to question understanding before accepting it as "truth" and I'd appreciate any opposing ideas.

 

[RA_pierce]

Your first 2 paragraphs don't make sense with each other. You are saying energy is there regardless if you are aware. Then that time isn't something you can't detect. You detect the effects of time via old age.
If that isn't a good example then let's discuss what time is.... The changing seasons? Or earth spinning around the sun? These will all happen with out us here. Time is very observable.

Yes, I suppose you could say that time is observable in the sense that things change progressively, but if you read my other posts, I posited that what we are really observing is motion or continuous change and not time itself. We understand that time is associated with change only because we remember what once was and can predict how things will be.

The bit about the existence of energy was to clarify that observation is not necessarily a precondition of existence (for "real" things).

 

[Cyparagon]

I cannot detect the effect time has on the physical realm.

Or maybe you detect it all the time and know no other sensation.

How about radioactive decay? (as far as I know - I'm no nuclear physicist) The only thing required for it to happen is time.

I don't see how the passing of "time" is separate from "change."

Change requires time. Time does not require change.

we are really observing is motion or continuous change and not time itself.

Just like the a power meter measures the electrical potential difference between an array of metal junctions... and not power itself.

 

[Meatball]

Change can be experienced outside the need for time...

Consider quantum entanglement.

 

[ShortyInCanada]

I'm with you RA.
The problem that some people are having is understanding that the concept of "Time" is a human derived theory. It is a manifestation of a sort of understanding that we need to be able to cope with the events that we perceive around us.
This doesn't preclude that if we don't see it that it doesn't happen, as stated previously. It simply means that for our own mental well being we devised a construct that seems to explain the circumstances we experience. Due to our nature and the manner in which we live, we impose a form to this idea that reflects our own existence, that is we make it a linear process.
As I pointed out before, animals, bugs, viruses, etc. do not have the ability to understand the concept. For them there is no "time". They simply exist moment for moment with evolutionary development predicating their actions. ie: they have evolved successfully because their ancestors learned to avoid eating the poisonous berries in the dark. Perhaps it is because they have exceptional smell or super-sensetive eyes, or maybe because they hunt for them after sun-up. So today's offspring know that when the sun comes up they should find something to eat. It isn't because they know it is "breakfast time". The idea of "time" isn't any part of it. They simply react in a pre-disposed way that has developed through the species passed on from one generation to the next. They also can react to situations occurring before them. Those are also evolved abilities. Learning that an uncomfortable sensation means that you are hungry and should eat does not require you to know about "time".
Having a pet that understands how to get something it wants from you doesn't indicate that they know what "time" it is. They have learned that certain events or circumstance occurring means that they can cause you to do their bidding. Your cat doesn't care about "time". It simply knows that (for example again) after you have had a meal near nightfall that they can pester you and you will give them a tasty morsel. They have learned not to pester you in the middle of the night because you won't get up and get it. It isn't because they know it is night "time". It's simply that it doesn't/won't work if you are sleeping.

The other part of what I wrote had to do with questioning the concept that we call "time".
Are we sure that it is such a perfect idea ? Is there a possibilty that there are situations or circumstances that happen that may be indication of something that doesn't fit in with the theory/definition of "time" ?
Further from the example from my first posting : If the 4th dimension is beyond what we concieve "time" to be and a being from that dimension was to try to exist in our `simplified 3D' realm, how would we percieve it ? How could we understand it ? How would we communicate what we experienced. Everything that we do is limited by our own understandings or evolved abilities to think. With no ability to be 4th dimensional our actual understanding of it can't exist. This doesn't mean that we can't put together a sort of 3D theorem that would be an indication of a 4D event/object/being. Much like the 2D shadows of a 3D object. If you view/record enough of the 2D shadows you can conceptualize how the possible 3D object appears even if you never get to see the 3D object. For us, as 3D entities, it is, for the most part, a simple mental task. For a 2D being it would be beyond their abilities. But they could still put together 2D models to show how a 3D object would cast a shadow. They just would never be able to make a 3D object. (Imagine that they live only on the flat of your monitor. They would never be able to put together a 3D apple but they could create a simple black shadow that shifts and changes it's 2D shape. If you watch it you will recognise that it is the shadow of an apple after just a short duration because you know what a 3D apple looks like and how it casts that kind of shadow. For the 2D inhabitants of your monitor surface it is a mysterious shifting black mass that follows certain rules and concepts that they are familiar with in their 2 dimensions. They can never fully understand about that other dimension.)

This is why I said that "time" is an idea. An idea that was made up by man to help him try to make sense of the universe around him. If you are not trying to understand it, then you don't need "time". Everything just keeps going on happening the way it does. Energy is always flowing trying to reach an equilibrium, where everything is at the same state. Then there is nothing.

Now it is once again waaaay past my "time" to go to bed.

 

[chipdouglas]

This is why I said that "time" is an idea. An idea that was made up by man to help him try to make sense of the universe around him. If you are not trying to understand it, then you don't need "time". Everything just keeps going on happening the way it does. Energy is always flowing trying to reach an equilibrium, where everything is at the same state. Then there is nothing.

Now it is once again waaaay past my "time" to go to bed.

lay people don't need to "make sense" of time. they just want to know what time it is. so this brings another question. is time different for scientists and non scientitsts.

And you don't need to try to understand time to need it.

 

[millirad]

Time is an illusion. But just in case it isn't, cut the white wire. Not the black wire.

 

[DJNY]

 

[Ray J Neal]

Ha! JJJJGGYYYYeeeeeeeeeeah BOOOOIIIIEEEYYY. What a damn tool.
This just in kiddies, crack DOES kill.

 

[Ray J Neal]

Aw HELL NO. Through the Worn Hole with Morgan Freeman is discussing this exact issue right now.

 

[JBTexas]

How it all started.

 

[Xplorer877]

Hey Ray! I'm Archerx66 over on HBF. lol

Check this out. It's pretty interesting.



-Tony

 

[joenobody]

One question I have had was always this,

If travelling in your car at the speed of light or just beyond (I know, one bad mother of a car, lol) and you turn on your headlights, would they do anything???

Would you catch and/or surpass your own headlight light, or would it in turn project out in front of you since the bulb housing making the light is already travelling at the speed of light too, thus the lightspeed light from that would project?

Not sure we will ever know? But probably sure there is a math formula already out there explaining this. Though I could never work it out with my math skills learned some 25 plus years ago. lol. Give you any idea of my age? -OLD.

Thanks, Joe

 

[Trevor]

When you're moving at the speed of light, the time dilation formula divides by zero, and when you're going faster, it takes the square root of a negative. Plus, it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light. So... for the purposes of making this as "simple" as possible, let's say you're moving at 99% the speed of light - 0.99C.

You will see beams of light come out of your headlights and move away from you at C, despite the fact that your inertial frame is moving at 0.99C. The photons would move away from you as if you were stationary. To an outside observer, they would "see" you go by at 0.99C, with the photons from your headlights moving at C.

The speed of light is always C in a given inertial frame, no matter how fast that inertial frame is traveling.

-Trevor