Does Time Actually Exist?

[spaceinvador_old]

I think time is movement. And, the past is not time, nor is the future. Time is the now and that's it. I have gotten some better ideas on what time is to me<br /><br />My faith in God will excell me to better understand time, unless it's a waste of time... One thing I'm sure about is, that God is timeless. Matter has no effect on His being as he made matter...<br /><br />igorsboss, your first comment in your last post to me was very rude! I hope as time plays you'll be nicer to newbies that just want to learn. Good luck in you search for the truth...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

DanIKo, that was an excellent post. You have beautifully explained the evolution of time in our mind or society. I learned something more about history of time. <br /><br />But i'm bothered by Time_M. The question is did Einstein make time more complicated, or it is really that complicated? That he had to integrate time with matter. <br /><br />SpaceInvador: Try to keep Science and religion separate. Science then will make more sense to you. Science does not say anything about God, just nature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">I think time is movement. And, the past is not time, nor is the future. Time is the now and that's it. I have gotten some better ideas on what time is to me</font><br /><br />Since you believe time is movement, you might ask yourself "What is movement?"<br /><br /><font color="yellow">My faith in God will excell me to better understand time, unless it's a waste of time... One thing I'm sure about is, that God is timeless. Matter has no effect on His being as he made matter... </font><br /><br />There is nothing I can possibly say that can prove you wrong about this.<br /><br />Do you know what it means for a statement to be falsifiable?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">igorsboss, your first comment in your last post to me was very rude!</font><br /><br />Sorry. I intended no insult. Perhaps I've been reading the freespace threads too much, where thick skins abound.

 

[magman8]

WAKE UP! Why? It's TIME. Ok.<br /> ---The CONTEMPLATION of Time is purely Human.<br />Time is DIFFERENT for each creature and rock. Yeah, RELATIVITY. Like 'Dog years' or Bristlecone Pine Years, HUMANS make the rules - of measurement. There's current Time, and -if you're a realist- there is NO other Time to contemplate. --no future & no past-- There is only NOW. Yesterday is gone. Blink your eyes... It's History! We know there WAS a past. We HOPE there will be a future. BTW, nothing in the Universe is even "5" Billion (current, Earth/Humam) "years" old.<br />DRD

 

[petepan]

magman8 said...<font color="yellow">BTW, nothing in the Universe is even "5" Billion (current, Earth/Humam) "years" old....</font><br /><br />Would you care to clarify this statement? That sounds like pure speculation....

 

[kmarinas86]

Since space has a size...<br /><br />DOes TIme Itself have an age?<br /><br />I would like to know.

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Time allows change and has order. Man though has choice, which allows time to change in our favour.

 

[igorsboss]

I believe time is best expressed as a count of harmonicly repeating events. For example, it might be the number of times an atom vibrates.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">DOes TIme Itself have an age?</font><br /><br />Here is a thought experiment.<br /><br />Consider any two virgin protons. (They were created soon after the big bang, in close temporo-spacial proximity to each other, have never fused to any other particle, and still exist today.)<br /><br />Now, I don't know for sure if a proton vibrates or not, but just for the sake of illustration, suppose it does vibrate in some way, such that the age of each proton may be expressed as a count of the number of these vibration cycles the proton has completed since the moment it was created.<br /><br />Although created near each other, these two protons take divergent paths through space, until one day, they come into close proximity again.<br /><br />We would find that the two different protons would have vibrated a different number of times. They moved significantly with respect to one another, sometimes at relativistic speeds. As they moved relative to each other, their vibration cycles sped up or slowed down relative to each other.<br /><br />Therefore, the particles that make up the universe do not all have the same age, even if they were created at the same place and time. There is no one unique age of the universe.

 

[spaceinvador_old]

I think that space explodes and then reloads. That's how it keeps reviving its mechanism. Also it's like a string that is vibrating constsntly.<br /><br />Not only are we seperated by time, per say, but we are seperated because no one spot is the same.<br /><br />Also since space is a vacuum it has to be expanding, but reloads within itself.<br /><br />Time is the now, and distance just means different.

 

[spaceinvador_old]

If two identical protons once were virgin and then went opposite ways they'ld have to meet at that point again someday, right? One would have a higher count of vibrations than the other upon retuning.<br /><br />Those two identical protons may not be the same only in vibration count, but in form altoghter...<br /><br />Since they changed form from the forces of the "unknown", we can never know what a rock will evntually come...<br /><br />I love time and my option to change it, me happy!

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">If two identical protons once were virgin and then went opposite ways they'ld have to meet at that point again someday, right?<br /><br />Those two identical protons may not be the same only in vibration count, but in form altoghter... <br /><br />Since they changed form from the forces of the "unknown", we can never know what a rock will evntually come...</font><br /><br />No, they wouldn't have to meet. I'm setting up the thought experiment such that, just by chance, they come close to each other again. By "close", I mean within about a meter or so.<br /><br />I'm also stipulating that they did not change form over their lifetime, so that the experiment is as simple as possible. They never fused with another particle. They haven't decayed. These are the most boring protons you can imagine.<br /><br />I chose protons because they are identical fundamental particles, just as simple and boring as I could imagine. I could just as well have chosen any other object, such as twin people.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">One would have a higher count of vibrations than the other upon retuning. </font><br /><br />Yes, that is my assertion. Can you tell me why this is the case?

 

[daniko]

Hi folks !<br /><br />I see that the discovery of different aspects of Time, Matter, Gravity and so on - excites you a lot. But I think - we only spotlight fragments of the whole. I'll try to bring some order between "the main players" in the scene of nature <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><b><i>The Story of Matter</i></b> ( modesty is essential <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> )<br /><br /><b>--> First Act:</b><br />And <b>GOD</b> took a handful of <b>Matter</b> and threw it into the <b>Nothingnes</b>. And <b>HE</b> said "I call this <b>Universe</b>"<br /><br /><b>--> Second Act:</b><br />And the <b>Matter</b> was not comfortable in the <b>Nothingnes</b> and instantly spawned the <b>4D spacetime</b>.<br />To understand why <b>Matter</b> feels comfortable in exactly <b>4D spacetime</b> - we must look at the nature of the <b>Matter</b>.<br />As believed nowadays the core nature of <b>Matter</b> is <b>Energy</b>. For example when uranium nucleus is splitted (nuclear fission) resulting particles are lighter than the splitted nucleus. The "lost" mass is transformed in to enormous qantity of electro-magnetic emissions (thermonuclear explosion).<br />The smallest piece of Energy that could exist is the Light Quantum or <b>Photon</b>. So what we know about the <b>Photon</b>. It is like a bubble of energy - half of the energy is Magnetic and half is Electric. The two energy components of the <b>Photon</b> are represented by two oscilating fields (Magnetic and Electric field). The direction in which the Magnetic field osciates is orthogonal to the direction in which the Electric field oscilates. Also is known that both directions in which the two fields oscilate are orthogonal to the direction in which the <b>Photon</b> is moving:<br /><br />..........................M<br />..........................M<br />..........................M<br />..........................M<br />........................<b>(O)</b>========> <i>(movement)</i><br />.........................<i>E</i>

 

[spaceinvador_old]

I think the two identical, virgin protons(very boring ones) wouldn't be the exact same, because things age at different rates according to where they've been in the universe.<br /><br />Since they took opposite paths, their time through space wasn't the same. Though, they traveled the same distance.<br /><br />

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">DanIKo-<br />The answer is also in the nature of the Photon. The two fields (Magnetic and Electric) are not just swinging independently. They spawn each other. The change in the Magnetic field creates Electric field which by changing creates back Magnetic field. But the key word here is "change". If one of the fields suddenly stops changing - instantly this energy loop will stop and the Photon will disappear. <br />So for it's existence the Photon needs endless change. That means that for the existence of the Matter - change is compulsory - that's the basic reason for the 4-th time dimention. </font><br /><br />I am happy to see such an out pouring of response on this topic; having said that the one thing that never fails to amaze me is how both professional/amateur physicists seem to think that at the quantum level we have a clear blueprint of how the universe works. It was only about hundred or so years ago that we came up the subatomic particles known as neutrons, protons, and electrons. Photons being the by-product of vibrating electrons; the thing to remember here this is still all theoretical. A good example of this is the so-called electron configurations which are still thought in chemistry labs. It has been shown through observation that electrons do not orbit about the nucleus like planets orbiting the sun. If they did it would possible to tract and predict there location at any time in space. This not possible with today’s technology; scientist can’t tract the location of electrons since they seem to appear at a point A then reappear at a point B. This is where we coined the phrase quantum leap.<br /><br />Until we establish the difference of what we know as fact and what we suspect in theory, we will continue to make speculative conclusions like these. I remember way back in Calculus I my instructor trying to describe the X, Y, and Z components of 3D space by point to the corner of the class room. Imagine that you were a 2D bein <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[daniko]

I'm glad you are back <font color="yellow">marcel_leonard</font>! It's been a long time <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Yes, you are right that I can't ofer my speculations as proven facts especially if they lay on unother speculations <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. But that was some kind of a challenge. I thought that I might just bore everyone with my long posts, so I wanted to see if someone will notice that there was something too much.<br />About the note of <font color="yellow">professional/amateur physicists</font>- I totally deny to have any in common with the professional physics <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. All I'm doing is stepping on my knowledge about physics (which is too modest) and applying logical connections to create interesting speculations.<br /><br />But the <b>Photon</b> really is the smallest piece of the <b>Matter</b> that science knows (correct me if I'm wrong). And as we can't explore the <b>Unknown</b> just stepping on nothing - that's why I think that my approach here is correct.

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Time is something that we seek exsist. Our goal is to be able to harness it at will, yes?'<br /><br />Our brain has limitations to what we can see. So we only can guess about the unkown.<br /><br />We as beings of this universe will never know all the answers. Sometimes though a little faith will bring you to new ideas, from out of this world.<br /><br />

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Looks like you all run out of ideas kind of quickly. I hope this thread gets active again. Maybe I'll just be a speculator and just watch and maybe learn something, "NEW"! Got any more real good ideas of what time might be? <br /><br />If we could just look at the past, we would learn alot... The future is what we do with our past...

 

[rednet]

My 2 cents:<br /><br />I think for the most part certain experiments with atomic clocks traveling at different speeds to corroborate the Einstein-ean view of space and time are only speculative at best. I think gravity plus g-forces (due to motion) play a major part in the results of said experiments, more so than speed or velocity but that’s me and how I look at things. (I would also bet similar results would probably be attained with differing temperature ranges of the instrumentation)<br /><br />To me, time is a manmade concept to explain movement of anything at any level. Nothing is at absolute rest as our perception of time standing still is testament to that. I think a flawed perception of time is only natural, as it is only by pure observation that we have determined it to be a tangible physical property. (can you feel a second go by?) I agree with there to be a concept of time in order to describe how things move such as in thermal-dynamics, but to base it naturally occurring is overstating it. Motion is the only thing natural here. <br /><br />To answer the question best: Time does exist, but its not natural and found only in ones mind.

 

[ordinary_guy]

Interesting thread. Marcel_leonard even kicks it off with what seems like a direct quote from Wired.com with his "Extremely Brief History of Time" timeline. If that was indeed his source, the Wired timeline was an illustration of sorts of Peter Lynds' theory that made a splash on the same subject. The appropriately inflammatory title of the story was "Time's Up, Einstein" and it's a worthy read.<br /><br />Just to nuke your neurons a little, Lynds' paper, published in <i>Foundations of Physics Letters</i>, was entitled "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity." Some think it's a crock, some think it's quite worthy, but just bring up the subject in a crowd of physicists and watch their collective underwear burst into flames. The entertainment value alone can pass the <i>time</i>.<br /><br />Some ideas occured to me when thinking about this, though it gets a bit more technical. If anyone is interested, head on over to the "t i m e" thread in Space Science & Astronomy and ruminate on a variation of the theory.<br />...Though if you do, you might want to bring coffee.<br /><br /><br />But while I'm here, here's my POV on the original query of this threa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Does time actually exist? Is a fair question to ask since out of all the dimensional quantities that we can actually calculate and measure; that Time is the only dimension that we measure linearly as it moves forward; in essence we can not travel back and forth through time. Having said that we can theoretically time travel mathematically; which leaves the question of it being, only a matter of time before we figure how to travel through time.<br /><br />When you look at time from the perspective of a rock, a Redwood tree, or even the vantage point of a planet time becomes meaningless. Think about it the only reason we are so fixated with time is that we only on average live to the ripe old age of 75 cycles around the sun. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[vogon13]

I got this from David Letterman, it is still something profound to think about (in a way the Molotov Pumpkin isn't):<br /><br />Without time, would everything happen all at once, or would nothing happen at all?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

if we end up today ( die ), it is logical to say it is the end of our time<br />if time ends today, it is logical to say we end today.<br /><br /><br />analogy:<br /><br />In cases of Bholes, experts say time is distorted.<br />my point is, there is nothing inside the hole to make itself aware of itself and aware of time....<br /><br />and we are travelling now in time but only forward...<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">the mind is a terrible thing to waste</font><br /><br />I remember Yuri said that...( ??? ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

may be no one knows...( would know)<br /><br />because should time stop (including every single particle and energy flow in this universe) we wont be able to notice so. because we also share the <font color="yellow">stop</font>and we did not feel that everything froze because we shared the same time field with them.<br /><br />but if we had the chance to move while others are in <i>frozen state</i> we can say they stopped (their time) but ours continue.<br /><br />BTW, I was thinking if you could make some weapon or sort for me that could make time freeze without me being affected....<br />I bought myself an <font color="yellow">orgasmorator</font>gun from an alien friend of mine.... <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

and I was thinking also:<br /><br />what if somebody already discovered time freeze?<br />he could go past us, back and forth without noticing him and noticing the <i>time freeze</i>... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />he would be too greedy to share his feat and also, no one can discover him ever. We would be just in a state of shock to know fort knox lost all its gold in an eye's wink and no one ever caught on video....<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - Hi! How are you? I am the former paulharth6 on SDC before the crash is past time.<br /><br />Time does exist. More than one type of time exists.<br /><br />1. Our universe specific space-time which was created at the origin of our universe.<br /><br />2. Other universes's space times.<br /><br />3. Primordial time during which space-time was created by cause and effect - specifically by the First Cause.<br /><br />My definition of time: the medium through which cause and effect flow.<br /><br />Interestingly: existence and time are linked which makes the question "Does time acually exist" somewhat of a paradox.<br /><br />The Bible does not say that God created primordial time - so I have no definite position on whether primordial time always existed or was created by God - I suspect that time always existed, but I am certainly not certain.<br /><br />Note that God's name, Jehovah, is derived from the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense, hence one definition of God's name is: He causes to be.<br /><br />Cause and effect cannot proceed without some form of time. <br /><br />And there is also Thyme!