- #36
magpies
- 177
- 2
Heh a scientifct theory without the use of time is like a beach without any water. The most you can ever do to argue that time doesn't exist is to say that our understanding of time isn't complete.
Sorry! said:Time does have very real qualities you keep saying 'physical qualities' time is not a spatial dimension it is a temporal dimension. Time is basically what allows motion to take place so if we notice a baseballs movement it occurs in stages the progress of these stages is what we call time... how small you measure these stages or how large is irrelevant. Time also has an apparent direction based on entropy.
DaleSpam said:How is this different from any other physics concept? In other words, is your concern that time is somehow given a different treatment from other physics concepts and you think it should be treated the same, or is your concern that time is not treated differently from other scientific concepts and you think it should be treated differently? Why are you singling out time as opposed to say voltage?
apeiron said:You do seem to be confused about the nature of modelling here. We are pretty sure something time-like exists about reality. Things change, things move.
apeiron said:So then we invent a way to measure change and movement. One way is to treat time as a space-like dimension.
apeiron said:This has all sorts of well-known issues - space allows motion in both directions but time seems to move forward only. So other models of change are talked about. But treating time as a space-like dimension has proved very powerful in a general way - indeed, a general relativistic way. So science would not assume time exists. Science has found certain models of change, motion and development to be effective.
Jarle said:Time exists simply because there is an entity called time which we associate with our concept of reality. It is actually quite absurd to doubt that time exists in this sense. Also, the concept of time is implemented in our very language. We even use it unconsciously.
the_awesome said:Time is the measurement of change. There is change, therefore time exists. So we can say it is independent of observation.
DrClapeyron said:It's 3:05 am. I go to work in 12 hours. I just hope time is correct so that I am not late.
petm1 said:Newton thought of absolute time with the apple falling from the sky. Einstein shows us time is a variable and because of the equivalence principle I can think of Newton dilating out into the apple. Both of these men, seems to me, talk about time as if it exists.
I like to think of time in Planck units, these relative units describe time as the duration of a photon traveling one Planck length i.e. a to b. First the photon is not time, it is the motion we measure as time or a motion of time. It is also a motion in one direction. I would think of time more like an area i.e. if both time and photon started at the same instant at a, the duration of time would be dilating in every direction outward while the photon would be moving out in one direction, to b. Makes time look more like the possible directions a motion could take, and if you had motion dilating out in all the possible directions relative to this point a?
I am glad that that I did take the time too read this thread, even if it is all in my mind.:shy:
Grimble said:Consder, if we had a volume of space that was completely empty, a perfect vacuum, then would time pass within that space?
If there was nothing there to change and, therefore no change happened, could we say that any time passed?
Grimble said:Take this a step further; if we had a body in that space, a totally inert body (this is a thought experiment, so I can stipulate a body with no motion whatever, not even atomic or sub-atomic motion) then, if it never changed, would time pass in that space?
apeiron said:A difficulty for this line of thought is that space is expanding (and so cooling). You can imagine a static space with no contents, but we exist in a universe where the thermodynamics is actually wired in.
It is true that at the heat death in a flatly balanced universe, there would be very little change - as little as possible change. But there would still be change. And the speed of light would still be the yardstick on this change.
planck said:But even something inert, as long as it exists in our universe, has to have mass and/or some motion within it to make it exist? Otherwise, wouldn't it just be nothing.
I'm not sure about the nature of massless particles, Is there something inside that moves or causes it to move?
Grimble said:Maybe it could be a static space with no contents, but IF there exisisted a static space with no change happening within it, would time pass within it?
Is there any reason why it should?
Relativity tells us that there is no universal time, no absolute time, that time varies according to the prevailing conditions, therefore, I contend, there is no requirement for time to exist where there is nothing to measure it by.
Similarly if a body existed with a slow rate of change, if perhaps that change were not only slow but intermittent, for instance, experiencing an occasional flash of light, then would time pass slowly in that environment?
Grimble said:Maybe it could be a static space with no contents, but IF there exisisted a static space with no change happening within it, would time pass within it?