What is time??

RJBeery said:
Lastly, I'm maintain that if we're able to influence the decay rate in any way, either by proximity to the sun or by simply staring at the material, then the process is clearly not simply an intrinsic/internal "statistical potential".

"So, what we're suggesting is that something that can't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed." Gotta love it. :)
Click to expand...

It's the old mind body problem, isn't it?
Except by observing, you are affecting something outside your own body.
Although you can't control the thing, you can decide whether to observe it or not. So you increase or decrease the possibility of something happening.

In the double split experiments, the outcome of the experiment depends on whether anything is measuring the outcome.
Without measurement, we get interference, a bit of everything. But with measurement we get specific events.

The thing measuring does not need to be something with a brain. It can be a machine.
I wonder if that means that consciousness begins with any measurement.
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
I suggest you check the facts.
The reason for the difference in running speed is not the "difference in spatial location" - it's the strength of the gravity (i.e. the acceleration it is subject to) in which each clock is located.
If your contention were true why is there no difference in reading between a clock at the top of Everest and another at the same altitude but displaced (Top of Everest-bottom of Marianas) miles sideways?
Click to expand...

So time is motion?
Isn't that what I said before?

The truth is there is a difference in time in different parts of Everest they're just not measurable. It's about mass. Not altitude. NASA can fly a satellite over a mountain and find out by it's increase in acceleration how much mass it contains.

----
I'm not trying to get you all riled up again.
I understand this time I engaged you...but there were no wrong facts in that statement.
Did you not like how it was said?
 
Saquist said:
So time is motion?
Click to expand...
Where do you get that idea from what I wrote?
No, time is not motion.

The truth is there is a difference in time in different parts of Everest they're just not measurable. It's about mass. Not altitude.
Click to expand...
Nearly correct. In the case of Everest vs. Marianas it IS about altitude because the difference is caused by the nearness (or otherwise) to centre of mass of the Earth - and gravity falls off with radius.
 
If time is a function of velocity, like someone said, then gravity affects velocity by slowing this function down.

But the function is imaginary--we invent this function to explain motion and changes in distance. When you throw something 'upwards' so it falls under its own weight, there is no "instant" where it changes direction from up to down.

But, algorithmically such an object "in motion" describes a cycle. The object passes through a point which is like a crossing, any object will reach a crossing point like this if you launch it with a low velocity.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Where do you get that idea from what I wrote?
No, time is not motion.
Click to expand...

What did you mean by the acceleration it is subject to?


Nearly correct. In the case of Everest vs. Marianas it IS about altitude because the difference is caused by the nearness (or otherwise) to centre of mass of the Earth - and gravity falls off with radius.
Click to expand...

Yeah the deeper into the gravity well the more intense the field.
 
Saquist said:
Yeah the deeper into the gravity well the more intense the field.
Click to expand...
Ah. But how deep is the well, or where is the deepest place?

One characteristic of Newtonian gravity, of the earth, is that an object farther from the surface has more potential than an object on the surface. You can say that a clock on top of Everest runs faster than a clock at sea level because the potentials are different.

But this means the farther from the surface an object is, the more potential it has; a clock at infinity has infinite potential and should run infinitely fast--this "infinite clock" can't be observed though. Newton of course, was unaware of the effect of gravity on clocks.
 
The following is misleading.
Yeah the deeper into the gravity well the more intense the field.​
As an airplane descends, the gravitational force on it increases. As you descend into a mine, the gravitational force gets weaker.
 
Read-Only gave you a very good and concise definition of time. I think there are two questions here, one about time and the other about common human perceptions of time. The past, present, and future exist all at once. Think of time and space as a roadmap. Time is just another coordinate on a map, a coordinate that remains invisible to us.
 
joepistole said:
Time is just another coordinate on a map, a coordinate that remains invisible to us.
Click to expand...
A coordinate that changes depending on how you're looking at the map...
 
Galvin said:
Any one there who explain the "Time" clearly and have the best one definition of it...
Please share the best one intro of the term Time....
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's VERY simple - I defined and explained it right at the start of this thread in my first response to the OP. It's simple to understand, it's just people who try and make it difficult.

Time is just a dimension - a coordinate - and no different than the three others we commonly use everyday. The three common dimensions (x, y, z) are called length, width and height. They specificy WHERE. Time (call it t) specifies WHEN.

Here's an easy to understand example: Suppose you have an appointment in the building located at 10th and Main on the 6th floor on Monday.

10th and Main are the x and y coordinates. The 6th floor is the z (height/depth) coordinate.

Monday is the t coordinate.

If you get ANY one of the four coordinates wrong, you will miss your meeting. Going to the 4th floor won't work (wrong z coordinate) any better than getting there on Sunday (wrong t coordinate).

It's just that simple - and it doesn't get any easier than that.
 
Last edited:
There have been a lot of Off-Topic Posts to this Thread.

There have also been some descriptions which made the issue more complex than necessary. There have also been some misleading concepts.

Saying that time is a dimension implies that it is equivalent to distance, which it is not. It is like saying that Longitude is a dimension when using Spherical or Polar coordinates.

In post 19, I paraphrased the view expressed by Einstein, which seems to be simple, sufficient, & accurate. It is repeated here.
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.

There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.​
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.

I think the above provides an excellent definition of the concept. Does anyone here think that the above is incorrect or incomplete? If so, what is incorrect and/or what is missing?

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
 
Mass moves, energy moves, TIME moves. But, time does not interfere with the movement of mass or energy. Thats why inertia is there and concept of force came into being. So, time is neither force, nor mass nor energy. Time is totally different an independant entity. Mass and energy can move east-west, north-south or up-down. But for time only two directions are possible : either from present to past or from present to future. As all the mass and energy moves from present to future along with their own individual direction of motion in space ; it is quite logical to conclude that time moves from present to past. Now, what is present ? Present is with respect to an observer. An observer is also moving from present to future. So, with respect to the observer, time moves from present to past.

My understanding of relativity is that : " Relativity is nothing but manifestation of the property of elasticity of space."
 
Dinosaur said:
There have been a lot of Off-Topic Posts to this Thread.

There have also been some descriptions which made the issue more complex than necessary. There have also been some misleading concepts.

Saying that time is a dimension implies that it is equivalent to distance, which it is not. It is like saying that Longitude is a dimension when using Spherical or Polar coordinates.

In post 19, I paraphrased the view expressed by Einstein, which seems to be simple, sufficient, & accurate. It is repeated here.
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.

There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.​
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.

I think the above provides an excellent definition of the concept. Does anyone here think that the above is incorrect or incomplete? If so, what is incorrect and/or what is missing?

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
Click to expand...


Based on your definition of time as BEFORE and AFTER ; how can you explain dilation of time. Does TIME really dilates ? TIME is uniform or non-uniform ?
 
Time is nothing, yet time is everything. Time has two meanings. First, you have the time on the wall, or, where the sun is currently positioned in relation the Earth. Then, you have TIME. Time is not palpable thing. You can not see it. You can not smell it. And no mater what you do, its coming for you. Time is the rate at which every living thing on Earth ages, day by day, second by second, millisecond by millisecond.

They say the west was the last frontier, but we still have space, and after that we have time. Can time be split? How does time exist, its not a real thing? Do we age according to TIME, or if the world stopped turning would we stop aging? Since can not be seen, or felt, but it is clearly among us, does that make it a spirit? Is time the hand of God?
 
I have seen a lot of impressive answers to the question, "What is time?" and would like to open your eyes to another concept of time.

The inception of time has been destroyed by the need to get things done on time. Time today is used as the control factor of life and what we can do, should do, want to do, will do, ect.. A very simple answer is TIME IS CONTROL! Take time away and nothing will get done. We all would just be. Nothing to do because we have all the time in the world and no one will get in trouble for not doing anything! We would just be! Time is like a boa constrictor of life as we know it. Time is your own reality and what you make of it. We all look to TIME for answers to any question, job, understanding, past, now, and even how long it takes for me to type this out. Your answers to that question are yours and no one can take that away. Time wont allow it!
 
We have seen that TIME can not change inertia. Then , how time can change the inertia of an atomic clock ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top