Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Time (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=94087)

Izzy 06-9-2008 07:31 AM

Time
 
time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[6] and Immanuel Kant,[7][8] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable.


From wikipedia. Is there any reasoning behind any other ideas of time? A person i know on aim is trying to argue that time is related to matter and some bull**** i don't even know whats hes trying to say anymore.

Chaosvermin 06-9-2008 07:42 AM

Re: Time
 
If time itself is not measurable then what is it that we use to order our events of whats happened and of what will hopefully(not) happen.

Time cannot be related to matter for the lack of it being a physical entity, time is just something we created in our minds, who knows maybe there are mentally handicapped people who do not know time for they cannot create it within there own minds.

By the way this is only what I've thought of know, i have no time nor real motivation to put proper thought/research into this

Izzy 06-9-2008 07:54 AM

Re: Time
 
I don't think it means time is unmeasurable in the way you are thinking. They are saying there is no definite measurement of time because its a measurement we put together.

Chaosvermin 06-9-2008 07:57 AM

Re: Time
 
Well thats true not all people would have the same measurement of time, it would be impossible for multiple people to have the same personal measurement of time.

TheRapingDragon 06-9-2008 07:59 AM

Re: Time
 
Time is simply something incomprehensible that man decided to give a name and dictate how it runs. Time is thusly man-made.

Man decided how long a second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year was. Man decided that time flowed in a certain way. Hell, how do we not know that "time" (as defined by man) is actually wrong and that we are just sitting at the same "time" as when all of the universe began.

All I can think is that man defined "time" as a way to understand biological deterioration.

And I understand I'm probably explaining all my views wrong but it's very hard to describe an indecipherable thing such as no concept of time ever existing but being man-made.

Chaosvermin 06-9-2008 08:05 AM

Re: Time
 
Yeah i was thinking about the biological decomposition definition, it is a good point.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRapingDragon
we are just sitting at the same "time" as when all of the universe began.

Arg thinking about it like that screws my mind up lol.

windsurfer-sp 06-9-2008 08:15 AM

Re: Time
 
Also time is different in different frames of references.

The time between event A and B is different for two observers traveling at two different speeds. Neither observer is more right then the other.

TheRapingDragon 06-9-2008 08:20 AM

Re: Time
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp (Post 2202113)
The time between event A and B is different for two observers traveling at two different speeds. Neither observer is more right then the other.

Though if you want to speak logically then you would just say that the time at event A and event B is the same no matter what.

Both men start at event A at 1pm, it is 1pm for both of them.

Man A gets to event B at 2pm, it is still 2pm at event B for both men even if Man B has not reached there yet.

Man B gets to event B at 2.30pm, it is still 2.30pm for both men at event B.

Izzy 06-9-2008 08:22 AM

Re: Time
 
I don't think you can explain it in another way by explaining theory of relativity because you still have to have an idea of what time is to do that.

Reach 06-9-2008 09:12 AM

Re: Time
 
Quote:

Though if you want to speak logically then you would just say that the time at event A and event B is the same no matter what.
That's not the point though. The point is, the *perception* of time in between event A and event B were very different for those men, due to the effects of time dilation.

Time is a necessary constraint for anything to happen in the universe. In order to specify how and where a physical event happens in space, it requires time, and thus the word 'spacetime' is often used to combine the two, as they're quite similar in many respects. What is happening in space will determine how time is perceived for those in some frame of reference, which is determined by the amount of mass (or energy) an observer has, and this is probably what your friend was getting at Izzy. As this mass/energy changes, so does the perception of time. As such, modern physics sees the spacetime of an object as an intrinsic characteristic of it, much like length or mass.

Time itself isn't man made - it's just that it's measurement can be arbitrary. Just because someone decided an inch was of a certain length does not mean that length does not exist. I would argue this from the analogy here: Length does exist because all things in the universe have innate properties of length that can be measured (arbitrarily) and are intrinsic to them. Likewise, Time does exist because time is an intrinsic characteristic of the universe and all things in it, that like length can be measured (arbitrarily). If you were to remove time, we wouldn't exist, and the fundamental properties of the universe would be vastly different.

Izzy 06-9-2008 09:20 AM

Re: Time
 
But maybe its not really time that we are thinking of. Just that things change naturally and we label it as time. It's not being recorded anywhere so i don't think its really a thing.

And that's not how the guy was describing it reach. All he said was time exists so he exists.

devonin 06-9-2008 11:41 AM

Re: Time
 
It sounds mostly like he's just not explaining his position very well, rather than that he is holding some strange position.

I usually argue that time is a spatial dimension no different from length, width and depth, and measures the size of an object's duration. The measures of time we use (second, minute hour et al) are as Reach said completely arbitrary just as foot, inch, cubit and parsec are arbitrary measures of physical dimensions, but those dimensions do exist.

There is a philsophical basis to support arguing that time doesn't actually exist, and that reality is in fact a series of unconnected still-frames, and that time is a construction wholly of the human mind to enable it to basically -pretend- that there's a logical flow there and thus be able to actually process incoming sensory inputs in a useful way.

These are often also the people who will claim things like "There's no such thing as objects either" on the grounds that the mind, once again, clumps certain things together as discrete objects in order to be able to function, but that what is actually being processed by the mind is a large mess of unconnected stuff.

Izzy 06-9-2008 03:58 PM

Re: Time
 
So time becomes a dimension just because we declare it is?

bluguerrilla 06-9-2008 04:08 PM

Re: Time
 
Err... I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Usually theories are declared and tested.

I don't see how time existing proves the existence of himself.

I wouldn't say time is related to matter in any way, matter exists in time much like it exists in space.

Izzy 06-9-2008 04:15 PM

Re: Time
 
I don't think there is anyway to test time. Only the effects of time. Everything can still happen its just how things work. Time doesn't need to be some dimension because things just change or can be manipulated in the first three dimensions.

bluguerrilla 06-9-2008 04:22 PM

Re: Time
 
Relativity? Of course there are ways to test the theory.

Without incorporating the effects of relativity GPS wouldn't work nearly as well as it does.

You need to be more specific with your definitions if you don't like time being called a dimension.

devonin 06-9-2008 04:31 PM

Re: Time
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 2202590)
So time becomes a dimension just because we declare it is?

Um...no. That's rather the opposite of what I was saying.

Time is a dimension because it is. We can observe things moving through it, we can see evidence of the movement of time previous to us, and predict the movements thereof after us as well.

Our -labels- for the passage of time are simply declared by us in the same way that the label of "dog" or "tree" is declared by us. The object exists anyway whether we name it or not.

Time exists whether we name its passage or not.

Izzy 06-9-2008 05:04 PM

Re: Time
 
I just really don't think the idea of time would exist if we didn't make the concept up. We observe things changing. Thats very irrelevant evidence of time. Things dont have a past and they dont have a future until it happens.

Xx{Midday}xX 06-9-2008 05:27 PM

Re: Time
 
I didn't read anything here... too frustrated with my horrible FFR playing today.

Anyways, my thoughts about time.

It's the 4th vector quantity that creates the spacetime fabric today. The vector is as essential to the existence of matter/energy of all forms as space is. Just as baryonic matter has the ability accelerate through space, baryonic matter also has the ability to accelerate through time. This is shown by the fact that Einstein's theory of relativity, in which as an object reaches absolute zero, the relativistic lapse of time is significantly faster in that object than the observer at a normal energy potential. So, if we brought a person down to absolute zero (hypothetically. this is impossible.), we would see the person grow, mature, die, and decompose in an instant of our velocity of time. In the opposite sense, as matter or energy approaches the speed of light, its lapse of time is slower than the observer at a normal energy potential. Therefore, we would observe a human traveling at the speed of light (impossible. hypothetical.), we would see him stay exactly the same while we would grow, mature, and die. Time is a vector, whose acceleration could be changed in proportion to the motion of acceleration through space.

Notice, people may say, "we're usually not accelerating through space, as in standing still," but that is not true. As long as the quarks inside a hadron vibrate, or leptons surrounding a nucleus rotate, there is eternal motion. Therefore, to reach absolute zero, the spacetime fabric itself must be inexistent, which is why absolute zero is impossible. (An offshoot to the infinite step theory, where it's impossible to reach absolute zero because a colder object has to exist to lower the temperature of an object.) Also, going faster than the speed of light is also impossible because that would transcend the limitation of spacetime fabric. (An offshoot to the idea that nothing can transcend the velocity of a massless object with the greatest kinetic energy, which is known as a photon.)

Unfortunately, humans do not grasp the idea of time very well, because it is usually a constant and unchanging vector quantity. We can grasp the concept of space travel, because there is a quantized form of its representation, which is commonly known as meters per second. The acceleration is meters per second squared. Time can be represented by seconds per meter, whose acceleration would be seconds per meter squared. However this is not found in modern science because we have not yet discovered a realistic method of time travel.

This is all strict interpretation of Einstein's and Planck's work. It is clearly stated that this is the mainframe of the standard model, and the accepted creation of spacetime fabric of the big bang (or big splat, or big crunch, w/e you believe in.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 2202696)
I just really don't think the idea of time would exist if we didn't make the concept up. We observe things changing. Thats very irrelevant evidence of time. Things dont have a past and they dont have a future until it happens.

None of the scientific laws of this universe would exist if we didn't make the concept up. Everything is based on human perception. Whether to believe that perception as the given truth is an entirely different story. No one can tell if what we percept is exactly what the truth is, but that doesn't matter, because we only have our perception to rely on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 2202607)
I don't think there is anyway to test time. Only the effects of time. Everything can still happen its just how things work. Time doesn't need to be some dimension because things just change or can be manipulated in the first three dimensions.

This is a misconception. Sight is the sense that allows us to perceive space. Most humans think motion is a granted given standard because our sight can perceive it in a way that is easily understood. We don't have a direct perception of time, but that doesn't mean time doesn't exist. In "The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi," Nagato and Asahina explain that time is made up of segmented regions of spacetime fabric, represented by a flap book of still pictures which creates the illusion of motion. If this is true, then the entire concept of linear vector quantity has to be taken back and rejected, because the motion through space is also an illusion of our perception that doesn't exist. A linear and continuous motion of space cannot exist without the linear and continuous motion of time. If linear and continuous motion of space exists, so does the linear and continuous motion of time. They are definitely coexistent. If we are to follow the concept of this scifi anime, then time and space are not continuous, but rather still quantities connected by void, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Another thing about time. The current model of spacetime fabric incorporates 11 dimensions. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable in this region of physics... but all I can say is that time is a vector quantity composed of one dimension, usually entitled as the 4th dimension.

Izzy 06-9-2008 05:42 PM

Re: Time
 
And that's the entire different story im trying to talk about. You are making a lot of statements that are based off of someone already thinking in a certain way about time. Which is not what i care to know because ive read about it already.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution