Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asexperia said:
The construction of the perfect clock. Current clocks use a frequency
or vibration that can be affected for the speed and gravity. Time
wouldn't be relative if They used a perfect clock.
Click to expand...
I am interested in this connection too. I'm not interested in another thread about Sci Fi & Fantasy; I want to see how putting a label on an ineffable quality leads you to conceive of "the construction of a perfect clock". Just describe how they relate.
 
Asexperia said:
It was just a coincidence; but time is magnitive no matter
how they measure it.
Click to expand...
Explain again magnitive because I didn't think I have the hang of it yet

From my understanding, which I explain each post l, time does not exist and there is nothing to measure.

From
The Invention of Time and Space by
Patrice F. Dassonville

I post this part

The second cannot be the duration of 9,192,631,770 cesium cycles, because the
second is defined precisely in terms of cesium cycles. The conceptualization must necessarily be one-way:
9,192,631,770 CESIUM CYCLES (artifact + phenomenon) ) ONE SECOND (concept)
Therefore, a consistent definition of the second is:
THE SECOND IS A UNIT CORRESPONDING
TO 9,192,631,770 CESIUM CYCLES
This definition of the second does not go against the provisions of the
Conferences of 1967 and 1983, including reference to cesium frequency; but its
wording has the advantage of not using the word duration. In addition, this defi-
nition emphasizes that the international unit of time has no physical existence.
In 2011, a British clock reached an accuracy of 2.3 10−16 s, which is an error of 1 s/138 million years. It illustrates the considerable role of high technology and state-of-the-art physics.

The leap second between solar time and atomic time requires periodic resyn-
chronization: if time was a physical component of nature, such questions would obviously not arise. The accuracy of measurements is determined by the accuracy of clocks; but the accuracy also depends on the rigor of the definition of the second.
Terrestrial rotations, terrestrial revolutions, and the cesium oscillations, produce observable and measurable cycles, but they do not produce time; even if a misleading field effect suggests the idea of an arrow of time

:)
 
Michael 345:

Time is the measure of duration. Time is mathematical.
Magnitive (imperceptible) is the reason by which you think time doesn't exist.
 
Asexperia said:
Michael 345:

Time is the measure of duration. Time is mathematical.
Magnitive (imperceptible) is the reason by which you think time doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
More from

The Inventionof Time and Space by
Patrice F. Dassonville

I post this part

Defining a first word with a second word, and then defining the second word with the first, you have a truism. Time is often defined by duration and duration is frequently defined by time; these are fallacies, because time and duration denote the same concept, and they are both expressed with the same units.

What is measured between two moments is AGE and age is not TIME

The PAST non existent
The FUTURE non existent
Only NOW is in existence
NOW does not have any THICKNESS between PAST and FUTURE

:)
 
I have explained the difference between TIME and DURATION.

Time is the measure of duration.
Duration is the permanence of things in reality.
 
DaveC426913 said:
That discussion has already sailed.
Click to expand...

Hoist the Jolly Roger

Patrice Dassonville then puts forward a general definition of time, as “a concept
corresponding to what separates two states of a system”. He then examines the
etiology of aging, distinguishing between biological and chronological age. The
physical inexistence of time is linked to the fact that time has no source. The author then ends the chapter with some examples taken from different areas of theoretical physics, such as general relativity and quantum physics, to show how time is difficult to manipulate, and difficult to define rigorously

The Invention of Time and Space

We have 7 seas to sail

:)
 
The fun begins when we realize that there is no reason why the outcome of any particular definition of time should behave the way we expect it to behave from everyday experience, no matter how hard we try to come up with the best definition. This is what happened with Relativity, but that gets boring quickly. Time is a psychological construct meaning that it does not exist immediately in perception.
 
Jordan.S said:
The fun begins when we realize that there is no reason why the outcome of any particular definition of time should behave the way we expect it to behave from everyday experience, no matter how hard we try to come up with the best definition. This is what happened with Relativity, but that gets boring quickly. Time is a psychological construct meaning that it does not exist immediately in perception.
Click to expand...

To your last sentence , go on ..
 
What i meant was that the connection between science and everyday experience is the interesting part...Now as some other people pointed out, time is a psychological construct, i.e. it doesn't exist immediately in perception. You have the ability to see a computer, touch a tree, think a thought ...however, you don't have the ability to see, touch, smell, or think time. You have to piece together memory and current perception to get the idea of time. Any operational definition of time will also have to compare a before and after.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top