Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object

  1. Dec 9, 2003 #1

    They time is the forth Dimention, and they say this as if it were at all similar to width, height, weight, length, and breadth in general. But how many actually think about the very idea of measurement? Why do we act as if the idea of an inch, a foot, or a yard are real things in themselves? Its almost as if a persons name is really the same as the object for which the name is a reference for. But how absurd is this?

    I will conclude, that in terms of emperical entities, there is no such as time. Time is a human construct, and it does not pertain to anything outside the minds of humans.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 9, 2003 #2
    What if space and time are two different dimensions. Maybe we have the wrong classification of a dimension. There are only two dimensions. Time, and space. And space would have length, width, and height. Maybe to be a dimension it has to be on a totally separate plane. What if each brane is a different dimension, and maybe time is the connecting force between all of these.

    So in my conclusion. Each brane in one separate dimension, each with there own length(s), width(s) and height(s). And time connects all of us. Just think someone in another dimension could be standing right next to you.
  4. Dec 10, 2003 #3
    Then why do not all things happen at the same time?

    Furthermore, different people do agree on how long the time between certain events is (ignoring special relativity here), so you're saying that this human construct is somehow the same for all people? Even though they may reason completely different?
  5. Dec 10, 2003 #4

    I am not sure i even understand your thoughts:

    Why does difference in when things happen have to do with the very idea of time per se?

    Time is a system of measurement in the same way a "yard," a "foot," or an "inch" is a system of measurement. It is an idea for the distance in length, or range, between one point, and another. This is why we use different kinds of measuring rods (if you will). Even if we didnt have words like "months,"years, decades," and the what not, you could still say things like, "I will see you in 3 moon rises" instead of saying, "in three days."

    with regards to time, we can say that it relates to the ideas of "change," and "duration." For example, we mark a "year" on earth as "365" days, a day as 24 hrs, a minute as 60 seconds, and so on, and on.

    But do all planets take 365 days to go around the sun? No. Why not? Hence, we use the ideas of time as a way to referring to duration, and change, or observable cycles of some kind in an actual object that has physical structure.

    But realistically, if it were not for change, i am not sure you would have gotten the idea of time. I dont know exactly how the rules came about, but i know time in the olden days was marked by what is called the sun dial, which i presumed was subdived to major sections like a piece of pie depending on how the shadow was cast, and relating the differences in shadow cast with the actual position of the sun in the skies. Hence, midday would be where the sun was directly above the sky, eliminating any real shadows since the sun is beeming directly down on the stick. A shadow is only formed when there is an obstruction of light by an object, hence by marking where the shadow is made by the stick, you could come up with a crude system of time sectors, in the same way you can slice a piece of pie.

    But over and beyond this, there is no such thing as time in the same way a person's "name" is really a real thing. Person's name, or "social security number" is a label that is associated to a particular person. But over, and beyond that, the name is not really a part of a person. In the same way, the idea of a "year," a "minute," and so forth are all labels that relate to the idea of duration, but duration is just something that is made thinkable by the observation of cycles, and based on the smallest system of a cycle, you can compare other cycles. Hence, the earth rotating on its axes is a cycle that seems to have some degree of regularity, and consistantsy. A year, in like manner, is one of those things that is a cycle. Hence, from this sense, we can say that a year constitutes 365 actual spins on the earch part upon its axes as it changes location when it tries to go all the way around the sun. From there, you had to somehow come up with another way of sub-dividing the actual duration of a single spin to get the idea of an hr. From "an hour," you had to move onto a "minute," and so on, and on. In a certain sense, time is really just a labeling system that refers to durations between difference objects of change, or motion. Nothing more.

    But the point is, that in terms of reality, all you have is what is called change, and change is simply the alteration of an objects form, or the location of an object. In this sense, then, there is no such thing as time.

    Think about this way: Suppose nothing moved in the universe except you. How would know that there was a passage of time? Nothing is moving. All is stationary. So how can you say to yourself something like, "that planet over there has spun this amount of times since i have been here." How would yu be able to say, that the sun rose, and the sun sat? What is the rising, and the sunset anyways? Nothing but the actual rotation of the earth. But not all planets rotate at the same speed, hence time is really not an objective reality.

    I think you have confused your ideas.

    What i am saying is, that time is just like the idea of a "foot, a mile," and so on. They are all labels that stand for different units of measurement, but in actuality, all you have is objects that are different in size in relation to one another. The idea of how big certain units are is all man made.

    As for why people aggree, that is explained only by the fact that clocks are manufactured, hence, one clock works like any other clock, and you can objectively click on a button and mark how long it took a runner to do a lap around a track. But over, and beyond that, time is a just a system of measurement that relates to speed, duration, and change.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2003
  6. Dec 10, 2003 #5
    Re: Re: Time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object

    Because time is the 'Illusion' of motion/movement, "Illusion" because it is not an inherant (or pertinent) physical quality of 'matter', but an abstraction, (a useful one though) that is applicable to aid in (more accurate) measurements.
  7. Dec 10, 2003 #6
    If you conclude (or rather: postulate) that there is no such thing as time, or that time is the 'Illusion' of motion/movement, then you should also be able to explain to me why different things do not happen at once, but at different times. This I do not understand, and HeavensWarFire's rant didn't help at all. Maybe you can clearly and logically explain your postulate that there is no such thing as time?
  8. Dec 10, 2003 #7
    Basically predictive ability is predicated upon the notion of "A start point" and an "Ending Point" but when we want to measure that in the Universe, we find that we cannot know the start point (to the degree of detail required) such that, all that has flowed as motion/movement, since them, has all been a function of cause and effect, nothing else, but as you can (easily?) see, it is waaaay to much information.
    As for different things happening at once, you mean you typing there an me typing here "at the same time", things happen at different times because of the sequential nature of cause, and effect, and cause, and effect, and cause, and effect....."ad infinitum" from the beginning!
  9. Dec 10, 2003 #8
    This is not an answer to my question. And the 'too much information' argument is really strange...

    We'll try it another way: if I drop a stone, it doesn't immediately hit the ground after I let go. This takes time. You claim to call this 'cause and effect' rather than 'time'. What's the difference?
  10. Dec 10, 2003 #9
    So you think that when you let go of the stone it should instanteously be on the ground? it's a longer 'explain', as in, (cause) letting go of the stone allows the pull of gravity to re-gain motion upon the stone, (that it had ceaselessly been pulling on) (effect) pressure between the air molecules and the face of the stone cause a slight photonic exchange to arise, as the pressure of the now, gravitationally induced to motion, "rock" is pressing upon air molecules causeing motion in them (heating) and falling through them (pressing/pushing them out of the way) which involves exchanges of energies (that occur at lightspeed, appropriate to the medium) that help to cause the displacement of the air molecules (by overcoming there resistence to motion)....because the rock needs to push all of that air out of the way and it only has so much force/energy to do it, cause/effect/cause/effect that/those motions give the appearance of time, but you should note, clearly, "all energetic exchanges of energy happen at light speed!" (appropriate to the medium of propagation)

    That is about the only real measurablity of time there really is, "lightspeed" as that is the only speed that anything/everything in the Universe really goes at....but you are fooled by that? by the "lightspeed inside" and the "lightspeed outside"? never heard of C2?
  11. Dec 10, 2003 #10
    I will save you the insults.

    Since you didnt read what i said, i will try to use another approach using your analogy:

    Had you read what i said, that in reality, in terms of physical structures you have what is called "change." Change has 2 primary forms: an actual alteration of the objects very nature, or an alteration of geographical location.

    In one moment in time (to use the term) the stone is in your hand. But in another moment of time, it is on the ground. It traveled, hence, it changed locations.

    But like i said, movement is dependant on how you compared it to something else. Generally we use clocks to time things, but the ideas of different durations of time are all man made. We can say that the stone traveled at such, and such a speed, but what is speed?

    You can say, that it took the stone yee so long to go from point A, to point B, but what determines the duration of the travel? Spead. But what is speed? Once more, it is the idea that there is differenrt rates of travel, and travel once more goes back to changes in location.

    I think, that this subject is really beyond you, and that you need to maybe read what others write before you can rebuttal.
  12. Dec 10, 2003 #11
    Re: I will save you the insults.

    Completely disagree with that!
  13. Dec 10, 2003 #12
    I agree that most forces have massless carriers (photon, gluon & graviton) and therefore they indeed go with the speed of light. (However, the W and Z bosons do have mass...) But apart from that, yes you could define time in terms of the speed of light. But that doesn't change anything: you've still got a time-dimension this way.

    I do not understand your comment about C2

    Interesting. I think you should learn some real physics and stop posting nonsense on this board (and not just in this thread!). Also, I think a much more friendly attitude would really suit you! However, such a change will already come too late as far as I am conserned. You're on my ignore-list. [zz)]
  14. Dec 10, 2003 #13
    You misread

    That was not, directed at you, Mr Robinson. Please read my post, and as you will see, i have quoted the dude who was talking about the stone in his hand.

    Heres the post:

  15. Dec 10, 2003 #14
    Cool with me

    No problem.

    Think about it, if i have to explain to you the "idea" of a measurement as opposed to a "physical substance," then clearly you do not comprehend anything. Time is not a physical structure for the last time. It has no properties like a tree does. Time is a context that allows us to communicate about speed, and duration. But apart from the context that it gives, there is no object in the Universe that you can say this is a Time thing. So learn to read.

    Learn to read.
  16. Dec 10, 2003 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: I will save you the insults.

    This "change" is also called "time." Its as if you use the definition but don't like the word itself. From the dictionary:
    It also appears that you make no distinction between the CONCEPT of time and the MEASUREMENT of time. This may also be the source of the confusion.

    I'll admit though to not reading the whole thread - maybe tonight.
  17. Dec 10, 2003 #16
    Well after getting the interspacial spaces going at C, (your answer above) we are left with the idea of motion of the rest of the mass in the universe, if it all 'clumps back up' into the identical structure, that it started from, what amount of time has passed? or is there any consequence to that time?

    Aside from that what qualifies as "Benchmark" for what 'speed of time' really is" We currently use Earth/Sol relationship for our time basis, but what if that mismeasures the actual time of existence of the Universe, by some yet unknown principal, or simpler yet, why that rate/meter of motion? why not another? (the obvious answer is because we inhabit this planet, and it is habitual to us, but there is a deeper question in that one)

    And HeavensWarFire I had not though it was directed at me, but none the less know that "Everyone Can learn!" so the comment is well, you know already......but clearly I agree with what you are saying about time, unsubstantive and simply an "Ideal" being employed, a useful one at that.....
  18. Dec 11, 2003 #17
    Here we go again

    And to make things clear before there is "additional misreadings," i will declare that this is direct at Mr Robinson.

    It has become apparent, that this is going nowhere. I guess, people dont understand the difference between a "conceptual object," and for a lack of a better phrasing, an "emperical object."

    Yes, thoughts are objects in the sense that they are the contents of a person's mind/contemplative material. But seperate yourself a bit from the politics of linguistic gymnastics.

    "Time" is not at all like a "physical object" in the sense that it has "properties" like texture, and color. To a primative mind, a "rock," can be held in their hands, hence, the object has some form of reality that does not depend on having a "Westen Type Level of Education." Even a dog can pick up a rock with its mouth, and move to a different spot in his backyard. Hence the idea of an emperical reality that does not depend on a living orgasming having the power to think any highly "elevated thought."

    "Time," on the other hand, requires a mind developed enough to the point where it can abstract, and thus, percieve, something that is without any actual "physical structure." In this sense, time is not an object reality in the same way fire buring your hand is. It is a concept, that allows us to "contextualise" some ideas-----ideas like "duration, intervals," and "speed."

    Are you to tell me, that a concept cant have a practical purpose? My useage of language in general doesnt say anything other than it is the tool by which i express my thoughts. From this perspective, i see no relevance at all in your above comments.

    You dragging in the above expressions from a book, does not really tell me anything. But since you feel theres relevance in making the above reference, ok, i will play ball with you.

    How do you know, or understand, ideas like, the present, the past, and the future?

    Is it not by observing with your very own eyes things like something happening, hence, in the present tense occurance? And once its done, is it not then in the past tense that we mean when we talk of the past? And something that could happen, in the future, what does that mean? What, that something could happen, such the earth running into the sun, but it hasnt as of yet, or if you are cooking something in the microwave, the completion of your cooking? So the idea of a future then is what? A potential change in the way physical objects are currently related to one an another?

    Now lets break things down even further:

    When we speak of things occuring, what exactly is it that we are speaking of?

    Let me guess, an event?

    Ok, what is an event?

    Let me see, a change?

    Ok, what changes?

    Lets see an object?

    Ok, how has the object changed?

    Lets see, the object was somehow affected by another object?

    Ok, in what ways can an object be affected by another object?

    Lets see, by being either, altered, or relocated?

    Ok, so what then can we say about the changes that can occur in the canvas of physical things"? What, that objects can give the mind an idea about different aspects of what is otherwise known as an event, or a change?

    Ok, in what way can we get the ideas of Time related conceptual things? Answer: duration, context, speed, past, present, and future notions.

    But what do all the above relate to?

    Answer: to an interaction of some kind amongst objects.

    And what is an object?

    Answer, anything that is more than a thought, and that is the opposite of "nothingness."

    But aside from physical things existing, can you ever get an idea for a lack of a better word, "Time." Answer: NO. Hence, time, is an abstraction. Nothing more.

    The measurements themselves are a part of a concept. Sort of hard to get an idea of time differences without the mathematical symbols. Kinda hard to talk about thoughts without language, dont you think? But isnt language to a considerable degree a conceptual scheme?

    And yes, i gathered you didnt read what i wrote. That was not news to me.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2003
  19. Dec 11, 2003 #18
    Re: Here we go again

    Please try re-reading your own post and explain to me Mr. ROBIN Parsons exactly how this is Directed at me Given that the person you are "quoteing" and "agrueing the word" of, is russ_watters....Perhaps you should really follow your own advice respective of 'reading' cause I had said this...
    Clear enough??
  20. Dec 11, 2003 #19
    Perhaps you are right

    I think mixed names when i was scrolling up, and down, and just quickly looking at the names above the pictures.

    But you are right: we should all listen to our own advise.

    My apologies.

    My eagerness to answer a few posts as fast as i could i guess intercepted my neuro firings, and in the process throw out of wack the actual order of my thoughts.

    My bad.
  21. Dec 11, 2003 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Here we go again

    Time has physical structure. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to measure it. Again, you are not distinguishing between the CONCEPT of time and the MEASUREMENT of time.
    No. I'm simply telling you that besides being a "concept," time is a physically real property of the universe. Its as physically real as "lenght" and "width."
    Huh? What "physical things" are you talking about? Objects? If objects didn't exist, then "length" and "width" would be without meaning as well.

    It appears you do not accept the idea that time is a physically real dimension very much like lenght and width. It is.

    And now I'm reading the rest of the thread. A few snippets:
    Well, ok, it appears you have the same misunderstanding about the spacial dimensions as you do with time. The fact that the units are arbitrary does not change the length of an object. Example: a meter stick. If I change the definition of a meter to make the stick two meters long, does that make the meter stick twice as long? No. Hence, both the concpet of length and the measurement of length are physically real. Time works EXACTLY the same way.
    Thats a contradiction. If those alterations are physically real, then any comparison made between them is also physically real.
    Thus proving that time is physically real. Otherwise, no two clocks could ever be made to agree.
    Why? Similar to above discussion of lenght, the fact that we define a second as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium atom does NOT change the fact that a cesium atom oscillates 9,192,631,770 between two events happening a second apart. If we defined a second as 4,596,315,885 oscillations, would that make mean that a cesium atom oscillated 4,596,315,885 between those two events? No.

    Again, the fact that the units are arbitrary does not change the fact that time is physically real.
    The only one who is making that connection is you. time doesn't have the properties of a tree, a tree has properties such as time.
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook