Does Time Actually Exist?

[R1]

<font size="2">I think there are potentially various frameworks.&nbsp; From at least one, the past can be just as probabilistic as the future.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does Time Actually Exist?</DIV></p><p>You can measure it.&nbsp; Therefore, it exists.&nbsp; Well, in as much as we can define the progression of a series of events as "time."&nbsp; It may be that we really don't understand what it is we're truly measuring as it relates to "The Big Picture."&nbsp; But, it works so far so we stick with it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The question really is if there was some type of circumstantial catalyst for the powers that are behind the Big Bang creation of the universe, or whether there was Mischievous Creator playing with matches? &nbsp;Wouldn&rsquo;t said powers be above the laws of physics as we know them to be, and would'nt time have no meaning to this said power? Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV></p><p>Maybe.</p><p>Look at it like this.. at least, this is how I look at it sometimes.</p><p>Symmetry is everywhere.&nbsp; Yet, some things aren't symmetrical.&nbsp; At least, they don't appear to be.&nbsp; It seems as if time should have a symmetrical counterpart yet time flows only in one direction in our normal space.&nbsp; But, if time started flowing backward, would we know about it?&nbsp; How?&nbsp; Where would we have the opportunity in a backwards timeline to say "AHA!&nbsp; There is an effect before a cause!&nbsp; We must be moving backwards through time!"&nbsp; Wouldn't that mean that we're supposing consciousness must be somehow exempt?&nbsp; I don't think it's so easy.</p><p>But, let's just say that there are solutions for time's symmetry problem.&nbsp; What if this universe is simply part of a pair or more universes and we just happened to get an attibution of "fowards" movement through time as this universe and others spontaneously erupted.&nbsp; Our sibling(s) may have a different sort of time altogether.&nbsp; If it was a pair, then the other would have backwards flowing time.&nbsp; Symmetry is preserved. </p><p>What about a situation where a universe was formed where time didn't flow but everything occured at once?&nbsp; The entire timeline of existence was accessible.&nbsp; Cause and effect had no relevance.&nbsp; Time is condensed down to one eternal point.&nbsp; If you were a human being somehow able to exist in such a universe, everything that had ever happened to you would be immediately actionable.&nbsp; But, your actions would already be evident if you had taken them.&nbsp; Action would have no meaning there.&nbsp; Consciousness, as we know it, would be irrelevent.&nbsp; Would you die?&nbsp; There's no reason why not.&nbsp; But, it wouldn't matter.&nbsp; In fact, it would probably be a very boring place. </p><p>Who knows, maybe time will begin to reverse in our Universe?&nbsp; We could have a nice, long arrow of time in one direction and then a turnabout, reverse course, as time flows backwards.&nbsp; Would it make a difference?&nbsp; Would we know?</p><p>If there exists an infinite region anywhere, either our Universe, outside of our Universe or anywhere in between, then there is a probability greater than 0 of anything occuring.&nbsp; There could arise a being that is, somehow, outside of the boundaries of time as we understand them.&nbsp; It could happen.&nbsp; There's no reason why it couldn't.&nbsp; But, there are very definite reasons regarding how much we would be able to perceive concerning this entity.&nbsp; Outside of a certain set of variables, such a being could exist yet we could never interact or receive information about it.&nbsp; At least, given what we know now.&nbsp; So, even if it could happen, it may be that it would occur outside of our realm of possibly being ever able to know about it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[chembuff1982]

As mentioned in a post a while back which turned out in a bitter argument.&nbsp; Time must have something to it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Like I mentioned than when an object travels near or at the speed of light, the object is influenced by a different frame of time than an object that travels at a slower earth like speed as an example.&nbsp; Hence as the example says a man traveling at the speed of light 20 years away from earth and 20 years back (earth time) will not be 40 years older like the rest of people on earth.&nbsp; Therefore, time can be influenced by factors, and time does not always follow a linear path such as that of a ruler which is always constant rather variable depending on the conditions exerted on it.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>

 

[et_earth]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As mentioned in a post a while back which turned out in a bitter argument.&nbsp; Time must have something to it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Like I mentioned than when an object travels near or at the speed of light, the object is influenced by a different frame of time than an object that travels at a slower earth like speed as an example.&nbsp; Hence as the example says a man traveling at the speed of light 20 years away from earth and 20 years back (earth time) will not be 40 years older like the rest of people on earth.&nbsp; Therefore, time can be influenced by factors, and time does not always follow a linear path such as that of a ruler which is always constant rather variable depending on the conditions exerted on it.&nbsp; <br />Posted by chembuff1982</DIV><br /><br />Here is an article&nbsp;giving credence to&nbsp;your comments concerning time and its existence.</p><p>Edit to read: Here is an article giving credence to <em>"some"</em> of your comments concerning time and its existence.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p>AFAIK, speed is irrelevant to observations of events relating to causes. ie: A person traveling near the speed of light will not observe an effect before a cause yet may observe a different time passing between cause and effect.&nbsp; Linearity is preserved.</p><p>If I'm wrong about that, I'd kinda like to know. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[et_earth]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>AFAIK, speed is irrelevant to observations of events relating to causes. ie: A person traveling near the speed of light will not observe an effect before a cause yet may observe a different time passing between cause and effect.&nbsp; Linearity is preserved.If I'm wrong about that, I'd kinda like to know. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />You got me ALP.&nbsp; I made&nbsp;a correction to my previous post by adding the word <em>"some".</em>&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; Actually, I think you are correct.&nbsp; A person may observe a different time while traveling&nbsp;near the speed of light.&nbsp; The effect wouldn't be observed or go before the cause as you have stated.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chembuff1982]

<p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">AFAIK, speed is irrelevant to observations of events relating to causes. ie: A person traveling near the speed of light will not observe an effect before a cause yet may observe a different time passing between cause and effect.&nbsp; Linearity is preserved.If I'm wrong about that, I'd kinda like to know. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</div><br />You got me ALP.&nbsp; I made&nbsp;a correction to my previous post by adding the word <em>"some".</em>&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; Actually, I think you are correct.&nbsp; A person may observe a different time while traveling&nbsp;near the speed of light.&nbsp; The effect wouldn't be observed or go before the cause as you have stated.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />&nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">AFAIK, speed is irrelevant to observations of events relating to causes. ie: A person traveling near the speed of light will not observe an effect before a cause yet may observe a different time passing between cause and effect.&nbsp; Linearity is preserved.If I'm wrong about that, I'd kinda like to know. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><strong>&nbsp;</strong></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><strong>If linearity is preserved between two points of time such as speed is irrelevant to events relating to causes ..., linearity is preserved. We go back to square one, twins (cloned in a lab) Charlie and Barley (10 years old), travel from point A to B&nbsp; (50 light years) in space&nbsp; for a total of 40 earth years, Twin Charlie travels at the speed of light, and Barley travels at 60km/hr.&nbsp; How would that be a linear relationship when Barley is dead upon arrival to point B and Charlie is still alive.&nbsp; This is not a linear relationship. </strong></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">&nbsp;</div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>

 

[et_earth]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If linearity is preserved between two points of time such as speed is irrelevant to events relating to causes ..., linearity is preserved. We go back to square one, twins (cloned in a lab) Charlie and Barley (10 years old), travel from point A to B&nbsp; (50 light years) in space&nbsp; for a total of 40 earth years, Twin Charlie travels at the speed of light, and Barley travels at 60km/hr.&nbsp; How would that be a linear relationship when Barley is dead upon arrival to point B and Charlie is still alive.&nbsp; This is not a linear relationship. &nbsp; <br />Posted by chembuff1982</DIV></p><p>ALP said, "speed is irrelevant to observations of events relating to causes".&nbsp; Nice twist chembuff, you did omit observations from linearity is perserved.&nbsp; There is no way events&nbsp;could happen before their causes when being observed unless one was traveling faster than light speed.&nbsp; Maybe at that speed&nbsp;events could come before causes.&nbsp; From this aspect linearity is preserved.</p><p><span>Linearity for Barley remained intact until he cease to be an observer.&nbsp; If another person (I.D. thief)&nbsp;picked up with the observing when Barley stopped then that linearity would continue.&nbsp; Thereby reaching point B eventually with a live observer.&nbsp; Otherwise the linear relationship ended with the loss of an observer.</span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[seregmir]

i dont think their is such thing as time time is just something people make up. Just as religions and emotions its all fake but we wont see it because we are convinced that it exist

 

[marcel_leonard]

i dont think their is such thing as time time is just something people make up. Just as religions and emotions its all fake but we wont see it because we are convinced that it exist

I think Time as we measure it exists; since we live on average a very short life span of merely 75 orbits around the sun at most. I think that if we had longer life spans we would have a better context to make sense of Space/Time. Case/Point: Look for example at the life span of Giant Redwood Tree which lives on average for about 1500 orbits, then look at the life span of a Fruit Fly who only lives for about a week. If these organisms could verbally communicate w/ us the Redwood would see us as just an other bothersome insect, and the Fruit Fly would see us as slow moving Giant Redwoods???

 

[ZenGalacticore]

i dont think their is such thing as time time is just something people make up. Just as religions and emotions its all fake but we wont see it because we are convinced that it exist

Emotions are fake?

Has anyone close to you ever died? Even a beloved pet?

Emotions are fake?

wth?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I think Time as we measure it exists; since we live on average a very short life span of merely 75 orbits around the sun at most. I think that if we had longer life spans we would have a better context to make sense of Space/Time. Case/Point: Look for example at the life span of Giant Redwood Tree which lives on average for about 1500 orbits, then look at the life span of a Fruit Fly who only lives for about a week. If these organisms could verbally communicate w/ us the Redwood would see us as just an other bothersome insect, and the Fruit Fly would see us as slow moving Giant Redwoods???

So what? Whether it's a million years, or a nano-second, it's still a measurement of time.

 

[marcel_leonard]

I think Time as we measure it exists; since we live on average a very short life span of merely 75 orbits around the sun at most. I think that if we had longer life spans we would have a better context to make sense of Space/Time. Case/Point: Look for example at the life span of Giant Redwood Tree which lives on average for about 1500 orbits, then look at the life span of a Fruit Fly who only lives for about a week. If these organisms could verbally communicate w/ us the Redwood would see us as just an other bothersome insect, and the Fruit Fly would see us as slow moving Giant Redwoods???

So what? Whether it's a million years, or a nano-second, it's still a measurement of time.

So whats the point of measuring it???

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...So whats the point of measuring it???

Because it's not constant. "Time" is relative. At least, the speed at which it is experienced is relative.

If time appears to behave differently, within different frames of reference, then that is a good argument to say that it does truly exist and isn't merely some psychological construction, isn't it?

 

[FlatEarth]

So why is this thread in SETI?

 

[marcel_leonard]

So why is this thread in SETI?

For the same reason that although I've been posting on this board since 1998 they say I only have four hundred some odd post, and its the same reason that it use to be in the Physics forum???

 

[MeteorWayne]

Bottom line in reality Time exists.

Say you do an experiment, you drop two objects of different weights from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa with different masses. At one instant, they are at the top. At another later (accelerating at 32 ft/sec/sec) they are at the bottom. We can predict how long that will be, using the time measuremnt of a second.

Ergo, time exists, and it is measurable, no matter what the units.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re:

Time is that which stops everything happening at once. Distance is that which stops everything happening in one place. Both can be considered as dimensions, but in different ways.

Science currently says that we cannot know about anything that happened before the Universe came to be, or that which caused it to be. We can only trace time back to the first event in this Universe. In science, the idea of what was around before the universe began is classed as undefined.

Science does not say the universe came from nothing, it says we have no way for getting any data as to where the universe came from. We do have M-theory which suggests a possible cause for the universe, but it is not testable as there is no data or observation to test it against. And of course M-theory needs a cause too! What caused the membranes or cosmic strings to come to be?

As for theism, if there can be an eternal creator who created the universe, there can be an eternal universe that needs no creator, of which our universe is a part. The second option is far simpler.

Using Occam's razor, it is a far more complicated system that contains an eternal creator who contains the complexity involved in being an eternal being and also contains the information and power required to create the universe, than the far simpler system of an eternal universe of which our universe may be a small part of.

In both cases we ask where they came from. Where did the creator come from? Where did the Universe come from? If the creator didn't need to come from anything as they are eternal and therefore outside time, the same can be said of an eternal Universe.

I know we don't think this Universe is eternal, but it could be part of some bigger eternal system, a system which we cannot know of since it is outside our Universe, just like M-theory's membranes. We have no way to test for it in the same way we have no way to test for eternal _______________________________________________
SpeedFreek

Very well said and worth reprinting!!!

Though I for one do believe in infinity. Perhaps God is the Multi-verse. An infinity of Universes. He/She/It is the Omniverse. It's fun to think of a quadrillion Universes, and then add a zero. Ain't it?

 

[thebigcat]

Just as religions and emotions its all fake but we wont see it because we are convinced that it exist

Religions are real, my friend.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Just as religions and emotions its all fake but we wont see it because we are convinced that it exist

Religions are real, my friend.

I for one agree w/ you; if you think about it very thing from the bottom up points to a creator. Case/Point: if look at the Big Bang theory that the God-Particle (For lack of a better word; the primordial single force where EM/G/Ns/Nw all originated from) if God said "Let there be light" then lit the fuse that ignited the Big Bang, and from that zero point of space/time we have been expanding ever since...

 

[bushwhacker]

Ok. Religions are real. that much i'll admit, heck people the world over are dieing for them every day.

What bothers me is why cant everyone agree on just who God is? If there is one true God (The Bible states Thou shalt worship no God before Me). Why didnt He just blast the rest of em into oblivion, and put everyone on the same page.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Just as religions and emotions its all fake but we wont see it because we are convinced that it exist

Religions are real, my friend.

I for one agree w/ you; if you think about it very thing from the bottom up points to a creator. Case/Point: if look at the Big Bang theory that the God-Particle (For lack of a better word; the primordial single force where EM/G/Ns/Nw all originated from) if God said "Let there be light" then lit the fuse that ignited the Big Bang, and from that zero point of space/time we have been expanding ever since...

All of the above was purely speculative; since your can't theorize on a supreme creator who doesn't obey the laws of space/time. After all God doesn't have to punch a clock.....lol ;^D

 

[thebigcat]

Hey. I never said that what they believed in or claim the existence of was real. I only said that they themselves were real. Last I checked Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Shinto, Daoism, Rastafarianism, Baha'i and a host of others actually existed.

 

[marcel_leonard]

The question remains does time actually exist....My answer to that is the concept of Space/Time exist therefore Time is a measurable dimension; having said that is it possible to punch holes to space/time making it seem none existent???

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnsbdgTL4Dc[/youtube]

 

[ArcCentral]

Time exist by not existing. It is the space between that which does exist, I.E. the events that shape our present. A sort of disconnected quantitative measure of nothing at all.