Does Time Actually Exist?

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - You posted:<br /><br />Newtonian what you call primordial time is really just a fancy way for saying “before creation of the universe by the one and true almighty god”.<br /><br />That was not my intent. Primodial time does not require God to exist - though you are correct about my belief.<br /><br />Whatever or however our universe was created - the cause required time.<br /><br />Simply: cause and effect cannot proceed without time.<br /><br />Do you agree?

 

[marcel_leonard]

Not necessarily if you think in terms of an intelligent designer; who created the universe, and laid down all the physical laws of said verse. Then you have to conclude that he, or she is above these laws… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[oppca0]

Einstein allegedly said "sit on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. sit next to a pretty woman for an hour and it seems like a minute. that's relativity". I have first hand experience of something similar to this. If you get home from work on Friday, sit down in your recliner and do nothing until Monday a.m. when you go back to work it seems that even though time had dragged, Friday seems a short time ago. If, however, you get home from work on Friday and proceed to do lots of fun, productive things, time seems to go by quickly, but Friday seems a long time ago. Thus, it appears that time is a perception, at least partly?

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

a perception, yes -- attributed to the human side of us. on the other side, we need precise and stable references to measure time properly. <br />so wheter you felt things are transpiring quickly or not, our wristwatches can correctly or at least precisely depict time movement. <br />these days, cesium beam clocks are the most precise timepiece. they precisely calculate time by counting the vibrations of the cesium atoms. on a nutsy side, these vibrations are affected by external forces, magnetism and heat. so the producers are encapsulating them in a protective shield. <br /><br />*on a more nutsy side*, I imagine this cesium beam clock won't work precisely and accurately if it were to be subjected to a very strong gravitational force. since everything is affected by it, the atoms may not vibrate normaly. hence my own idea of how gravity distorts time/time measurement . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Your running out of time! As if time was stationary? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[thespeculator]

I partly believe that...<br /><br />Time is a relative matter, but for all that is relative you need to ask "relative to what?" We already know that time is relative to speed, and it seems relative to size (and both speed and size are also relative to their enviroments). So if there was nothing, how much time would there be? It's simple: infinite. You're basically dividing by zero. Since there is infinite time, there are infinite ways of measuring time. Since there is probably nothing outside of our universe to relate our time to, our universe can be here for vast amounts of our time (since there's plenty to relate our time to 'inside' our universe), yet that would be no time at all for the nothing that's outside our universe. This is why our universe can be here. Its really not here if you're outside the universe, because then you would be on the 'external' time scale and it would have dissapeared already. Since the creation of the universe is an infinitely fast event relative to the nothing that's around it, it doesn't affect the absolute value of the nothing around it because it's basically gone as soon as it's created, relatively speaking. Thus the creation of our universe doesn't break any of our known laws of physics, it simply found a way around them.<br /><br /><br />These are my thoughts on it. Do you think they are correct?

 

[sol_1]

No, time does not exist. LoL, sounds funny but if you think about it, someone invented the idea of time.<br />Time as we know it is very simple, it is simply the order of events or 1-2-3-4-5. Cause allways preceeds effect, we just preceeve the way it happens.

 

[umpa_lumpa]

It is kind of weird knowing that someone thought of the idea of time. This would be somthing to be proud of. THis person could almost i invented time.

 

[marcel_leonard]

I find myself in agreement with your assessment of the situation... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[xmo1]

Our awareness is of past events. From the micro world everything takes time. It takes time for the information to travel to our brain and for our mind to become aware of it.<br /><br />So everything we experience are events that have happened in the past. People can only make the assumption that something is happening in the present, and by and large they would be right, but it is by reason alone that we invent what we claim is reality in present time.<br /><br />Animals do not have a concept of time, or so I heard on the tube.<br /><br />So when people say the mathematics works out, we can say that the mathematics is reasonable. Reason also works out. We can believe with reasonable certainty that things happen in what we might define as present time, but now is really not now. Now happened a few milliseconds ago.<br /><br />Then, since the past does not really exist anymore, and the future does not exist yet, and we cannot experience the present except by reason, then what is reality? What is time?<br /><br />So we have something called reasonable assumption. A version of reality is created by our individual brains, and from the words of Dr. Francis Crick, the mind is what the brain does. So our view of reality depends on the state of our grey matter. Reality may appear quite different when that grey matter is resting rather than being chased by a predator.<br /><br />As you can see reality is not on a very strong foothold, at least not as rock solid as most people would have you think. That is not to say that it does not get serious at times. It certainly does. The real question is whether or not we created the flower. There is an argument that says we did. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

How very prolific… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

A link, that tells you more than you would ever want to know about time:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[xmo1]

Should I say thank you, or is that a famous Bart Simpson quote? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Just say "thank you", and come up w/ a better theory on exactly what time is? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Maybe time is relative to each of our biological clocks. It would seem to me that the days lasted longer when I was a youth; compared to now that I am a middle age man... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Maybe time is relative to each of our biological clocks. It would seem to me that the days lasted longer when I was a youth; compared to now that I am a middle age man...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Perhaps we sense it that way, but a second measured on a clock is insensitive to our biology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

All the more reason to think that <i>time</i> is nothing more than a by-product of our limited life-spans... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[agnau]

Norisk,<br /><br />from your discussion, it seems that you have specific scripture in mind to provide proof of your views of the limited cosmology of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I do not dispute that it may have been limited, but what scriptures do you base them on? I do not recall posts or pillars in the descriptions of the world given by Moses, please, correct me if I am wrong. I will gladly read the materials from several versions of the christian bible.

 

[agnau]

isn't that 4.3 or so not 42 light years?

 

[derekmcd]

I believe marcel is referring to Alpha Centauri C (aka proxima centauri) which is 4.22 ly... So we see it as it was 4.22 years ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - Yes, some believe what you posted:<br /><br />"Not necessarily if you think in terms of an intelligent designer; who created the universe, and laid down all the physical laws of said verse. Then you have to conclude that he, or she is above these laws."<br /><br />I disagree, however. We do NOT have to conclude that our Creator, using intelligent design, is above the laws He has created.<br /><br />A human intelligent designer, for example, is not above the laws he uses to create things. And the Bible compares God's creating to man's creating - remember we were created in God's image.<br /><br />To wit:<br /><br />(Hebrews 3:3-4) . . .. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.. . .<br /><br />Remember also that God's name, Jehovah, comes from a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense such that one definition of God's name would be: He causes to be.<br /><br />Jehovah is thus the First Cause. <br /><br />Cause and effect cannot proceed without time - that is a scientific principle well attested to by scientific observational proofs.<br /><br />The Bible never indicates that God disobeys any of his laws.<br /><br />To the contrary, Jehovah sets a loving example for us in being law-abiding - not above the law.<br /><br />This is why he sent his son, Jesus, to die for our sins - satisfying the law of compensation repeated in the Hebrew Scriptures: soul for soul.<br /><br />Jehovah could not simply save us without obeying this law because He is not above the laws he institutes or creates.<br /><br />This is also true of the laws governing our universe:<br /><br />(Job 38:31-33) 31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation? 32 Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33 Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its

 

[marcel_leonard]

Some people try to make the scriptures GOD...<br /><br />"Thou shalt not worship any graven images!!!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

Some look at time as a forth dimension, but I tend to look at time as an illusion of our cellular degradation. From the time we are born we begin our cycle of slow death, but if you think about it the electrons, protons, and neutrons that make all the material in the universe including ourselves has been here since the beginning of the universe. Now if the universe has no beginning and no end then so do the atomic building blocks that make up our lives.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>Actually if you think about it we really don't have a reference; from which to talk intelligently about Time.</i><br /><br />Marcel, you may be onto something. In fact, the number of posts made to this thread suggests that you are. The discussion would be helped by some agreement on terms.<br /><br />In the meantime, here's something interesting from Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, via the journal <i>Nature</i>, which offers a perspective:<br /><br />Hawking rewrites history... backwards by Philip Ball (Nature)<br /><br />21 June 2006<br /><br /><i>How did the Universe begin? Many scientists would regard this as one of the most profound questions of all. But to Stephen Hawking, who has perhaps come closer than anyone to answering it, the question doesn't in fact even exist.<br /><br />Hawking, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and his colleague Thomas Hertog of the European Laboratory for Particle Physics at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, are about to publish a paper claiming that the Universe had no unique beginning </i>[Hawking S. W.& Hertog T. <i>Phys. Rev. D</i>, in the press (2006)]<i>. Instead, they argue, it began in just about every way imaginable (and maybe some that aren't).<br /><br />Out of this profusion of beginnings, the vast majority withered away without leaving any real imprint on the Universe we know today. Only a tiny fraction of them blended to make the current cosmos, Hawking and Hertog claim.<br /><br />That, they insist, is the only possible conclusion if we are to take quantum physics seriously. "Quantum mechanics forbids a single history," says Hertog.<br /><br />The researchers' theory comes in response to a problem raised by 'string theory', one of the best hopes for a theory of everything. String theory permits innumerable different kinds of universe, most of them very different from the one we inhabit. Some physicists suspect that an unknown factor wil</i>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I like the idea the Craig proposes that the universe may simply have no beginning and no end. Actually this is not a new idea it comes from scripture which teaches us that the Creator of the universe has no beginning and no end. If I am an artist and I create a great piece of artwork, and hang it on my wall I can look at it for as long as I live. If I can live forever that the artwork will be hanging on my wall for a very long time.<br /><br />Don’t get me wrong although as a child I was raised in the Catholic Church; and Seventh Day Adventist teachings I am far from religious. While serving w/ the USMC my dog tags stated my religion as; “No Religious Preference”, and my type “O” blood. I don’t know about you, but my logic was if I got shot I would much rather receive the right blood type than the right religion. Having said that when I think about time there is either never enough of it, or it seems that things are taking to long.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>