NDRU said:

Cerebus said:

Instinct, based on climate change. Temperature, wind direction, barametric pressure and the like. All of which they also have no understanding. They don't know that it's March, or October, because those are man made definitions. Instinct.

Man created the concept of time. The very notion of what a clock would do in a vacuum is a thought that only a human being would have, because no other creatures (that we are aware of, but certainly not on this Earth) use clocks.

Exactly, the clock is just a representation of the spinning of the earth.

If t

That I disagree with. A clock would work anywhere. It doesn't have to be confined to Earth.

Of course our clocks are based on Earth. That is the most logical basis to start with.

There's no reason to believe however, that aging only takes place on Earth.

If you ignored time, would you stop aging? What is aging measuring if not the passage of time?

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

I agree, and that is why I believe that just because we might perceive time in relative ways--ie. how sleeping makes time "go faster," or the atomic clock that moves faster on the space ship, or the delayed sound heard from far away that happened seconds ago to the person who was right next to it--that time (if it exists) still moves at a constant rate.

Even if we amplified the effect of the atomic clock experiment, and it turned out that a person on a spaceship aged much faster or slower than a person on earth, in my mind that does not change any absolute passage of time. It might affect the the molecules in that person's body, not the actual passage of time in an objective sense.

My understanding is that the concept of time travel is that it is still impossible to go back in time. You can see time move backward by travelling faster than light, but you won't be able to interact with the past.

I don't know, it's a pretty difficult concept, I don't claim that what I'm saying is actually true.

[Edited 4/28/12 15:37pm]

But it does change the passage of time. One year is not one Earth year, everywhere throughout the Universe.

Jupiter's year is 11.862 Earth years. We define a year as the period of time to make one rotation around the Sun. That is not an absolute measure of time but varies according to where one is in relation to the sun and how fast one is moving around it.

I'm not convinced that time moves at a coinstant rate, everywhere in the Universe. Gravity's affect on the measurement of time is real, but there seems to be some debate about what is actually being measured. If it affects how it's measured is there any artificial distortion or is the measurement real?

I pretty much agree with you. You say it affects the passage of time, I say it changes our observation of the passage of time. But the facts are more or less the same.

I don't think time (as we see it) moves at a constant rate either, it's totally relative. That is why I think it's really just a measurement of other forces, and not an actual thing in and of itself.

If there is an "actual" time, some kind of ultimate clock, it would somehow have to be outside of the physical universe.

NDRU said:

SUPRMAN said:

But it does change the passage of time. One year is not one Earth year, everywhere throughout the Universe.

Jupiter's year is 11.862 Earth years. We define a year as the period of time to make one rotation around the Sun. That is not an absolute measure of time but varies according to where one is in relation to the sun and how fast one is moving around it.

I'm not convinced that time moves at a coinstant rate, everywhere in the Universe. Gravity's affect on the measurement of time is real, but there seems to be some debate about what is actually being measured. If it affects how it's measured is there any artificial distortion or is the measurement real?

I pretty much agree with you. You say it affects the passage of time, I say it changes our observation of the passage of time. But the facts are more or less the same.

I don't think time (as we see it) moves at a constant rate either, it's totally relative. That is why I think it's really just a measurement of other forces, and not an actual thing in and of itself.

If there is an "actual" time, some kind of ultimate clock, it would somehow have to be outside of the physical universe.

It would not have to be outside the physical universe. We know time passes, whether we mark it or not. Halley's Comet takes 76 years to make a single revolution around the sun. Halley's comet of course doesn't mark the time it takes, nor is it on a 'schedule.'

Halley's Comet would loop around the Sun whether we are here to see and record it or not.

If we changed our calendar to shorten or lengthen the year, Halley's Comet's appearance would change from 76 years, Halley's Comet would not alter its orbit so that it appears every 76 years on the new calendar. We would alter our perception of the time period of Halley's revolution around the sun.

Halley's Comet of course can't recognize time but it's revolution is a fixed period of time. There is nothing that says we can't measure a year by the appearance of Halley's Comet. That's just inconvenient for the purposes we use measurements of time for, which is one reason why we don't.

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

I pretty much agree with you. You say it affects the passage of time, I say it changes our observation of the passage of time. But the facts are more or less the same.

I don't think time (as we see it) moves at a constant rate either, it's totally relative. That is why I think it's really just a measurement of other forces, and not an actual thing in and of itself.

If there is an "actual" time, some kind of ultimate clock, it would somehow have to be outside of the physical universe.

It would not have to be outside the physical universe. We know time passes, whether we mark it or not. Halley's Comet takes 76 years to make a single revolution around the sun. Halley's comet of course doesn't mark the time it takes, nor is it on a 'schedule.'

Halley's Comet would loop around the Sun whether we are here to see and record it or not.

If we changed our calendar to shorten or lengthen the year, Halley's Comet's appearance would change from 76 years, Halley's Comet would not alter its orbit so that it appears every 76 years on the new calendar. We would alter our perception of the time period of Halley's revolution around the sun.

Halley's Comet of course can't recognize time but it's revolution is a fixed period of time. There is nothing that says we can't measure a year by the appearance of Halley's Comet. That's just inconvenient for the purposes we use measurements of time for, which is one reason why we don't.

I'm not sure time passes, because I don't know what time is. I know Halley's comet passes, but I also know how it does so is not constant, and that how it appears to do so is not constant.

I see what you are saying, I conceptually know time has passed since I started writing this, but what about time has passed, exactly? Is time passing, or am I passing?

NDRU said:

SUPRMAN said:

It would not have to be outside the physical universe. We know time passes, whether we mark it or not. Halley's Comet takes 76 years to make a single revolution around the sun. Halley's comet of course doesn't mark the time it takes, nor is it on a 'schedule.'

Halley's Comet would loop around the Sun whether we are here to see and record it or not.

If we changed our calendar to shorten or lengthen the year, Halley's Comet's appearance would change from 76 years, Halley's Comet would not alter its orbit so that it appears every 76 years on the new calendar. We would alter our perception of the time period of Halley's revolution around the sun.

Halley's Comet of course can't recognize time but it's revolution is a fixed period of time. There is nothing that says we can't measure a year by the appearance of Halley's Comet. That's just inconvenient for the purposes we use measurements of time for, which is one reason why we don't.

I'm not sure time passes, because I don't know what time is. I know Halley's comet passes, but I also know how it does so is not constant, and that how it appears to do so is not constant.

I see what you are saying, I conceptually know time has passed since I started writing this, but what about time has passed, exactly? Is time passing, or am I passing?

When has Halley's comet been inconsistent? I don't know that it has been, but I accept that it can be.

What do you call the period between Halley Comet appearances?

Of course you're sure time passes. Has time not passed since yesterday?

What about time has passed? Time.

The Earth is not occupying the same place in space as it was yesterday, but that fact has no relevance to most of us.

Things change over a period of observation. Changes we mark for convenience of human activity. But the Earth would still move through space even if we were unable to mark the fact.

The Earth moved through space before we were ever aware of 'space' as we currently see it or the idea that the galaxy, solar system and planet all move through the space in this universe.

Those facts existed before human existence and will exist after.

When human beings disappear from Earth, time will not stop. Our way of marking time may disappear. Most religions envision time continuing past the existence of this planet.

Is interstellar travel possible without time?

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

I'm not sure time passes, because I don't know what time is. I know Halley's comet passes, but I also know how it does so is not constant, and that how it appears to do so is not constant.

I see what you are saying, I conceptually know time has passed since I started writing this, but what about time has passed, exactly? Is time passing, or am I passing?

When has Halley's comet been inconsistent? I don't know that it has been, but I accept that it can be.

What do you call the period between Halley Comet appearances?

Of course you're sure time passes. Has time not passed since yesterday?

What about time has passed? Time.

The Earth is not occupying the same place in space as it was yesterday, but that fact has no relevance to most of us.

Things change over a period of observation. Changes we mark for convenience of human activity. But the Earth would still move through space even if we were unable to mark the fact.

The Earth moved through space before we were ever aware of 'space' as we currently see it or the idea that the galaxy, solar system and planet all move through the space in this universe.

Those facts existed before human existence and will exist after.

When human beings disappear from Earth, time will not stop. Our way of marking time may disappear. Most religions envision time continuing past the existence of this planet.

Is interstellar travel possible without time?

Again, you're saying things happen, but not really saying how time passes. How does time pass, except as an observation of things in relation to one another.

What if there was absolutely nothing anywhere in the universe or in any kind of existence? Would time still pass?

NDRU said:

SUPRMAN said:

When has Halley's comet been inconsistent? I don't know that it has been, but I accept that it can be.

What do you call the period between Halley Comet appearances?

Of course you're sure time passes. Has time not passed since yesterday?

What about time has passed? Time.

The Earth is not occupying the same place in space as it was yesterday, but that fact has no relevance to most of us.

Things change over a period of observation. Changes we mark for convenience of human activity. But the Earth would still move through space even if we were unable to mark the fact.

The Earth moved through space before we were ever aware of 'space' as we currently see it or the idea that the galaxy, solar system and planet all move through the space in this universe.

Those facts existed before human existence and will exist after.

When human beings disappear from Earth, time will not stop. Our way of marking time may disappear. Most religions envision time continuing past the existence of this planet.

Is interstellar travel possible without time?

Again, you're saying things happen, but not really saying how time passes. How does time pass, except as an observation of things in relation to one another.

What if there was absolutely nothing anywhere in the universe or in any kind of existence? Would time still pass?

How time passes. I can't say other than through human observation that this point in time is distinctly separate for another point in time.

But time of course passes whether we are here to mark it or not.

We weren't here for the dinosaurs but just because we weren't here to record their existence and when they existed doesn't mean we deny they existed because it happened before 'time' was 'invented.'

If there were no universe, yes time would exist.

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

Again, you're saying things happen, but not really saying how time passes. How does time pass, except as an observation of things in relation to one another.

What if there was absolutely nothing anywhere in the universe or in any kind of existence? Would time still pass?

How time passes. I can't say other than through human observation that this point in time is distinctly separate for another point in time.

But time of course passes whether we are here to mark it or not.

We weren't here for the dinosaurs but just because we weren't here to record their existence and when they existed doesn't mean we deny they existed because it happened before 'time' was 'invented.'

If there were no universe, yes time would exist.

If there was no universe, how would an instant be any different than eternity? There would be an infinite amount of time before, during, and after every other amount of time

NDRU said:

SUPRMAN said:

How time passes. I can't say other than through human observation that this point in time is distinctly separate for another point in time.

But time of course passes whether we are here to mark it or not.

We weren't here for the dinosaurs but just because we weren't here to record their existence and when they existed doesn't mean we deny they existed because it happened before 'time' was 'invented.'

If there were no universe, yes time would exist.

If there was no universe, how would an instant be any different than eternity? There would be an infinite amount of time before, during, and after every other amount of time

But it would still be time.

The difference would be someone delineating and defining periods of time for the very reason that time encompasses to much to be used unless broken into smaller useful increments.

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

If there was no universe, how would an instant be any different than eternity? There would be an infinite amount of time before, during, and after every other amount of time

But it would still be time.

If you say so!

Because we created calendars and clocks, does not mean that created time.

Just because we created the thermometer with the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, is not a reason to believe we created hot and cold.

Reminds me of the question of what Chistopher Columbus discovered. Actually, he 'discovered' nothing. Plenty of people knew the Americas existed. Mainly because they lived here. He wasn't the first European. Africans and Polynesians had also made sporadic trips to the Americas prior to 1492.

Time exists irrespective of our conscious awareness of it.

Which brings up the question of what time is like after death? I expect a change in perception of time but don't know what that change would be.

cool thread!

btw: i'm not an expert. i just like reading about this stuff and sitting around making my head hurt trying to understand it...

personally, i don't believe time exists. i think humans have invented the concept to explain the patterns and cycles of change we perceive.

the fact that our most reliable measuring devices, such as atomic clocks, run at different speeds when affected by differing gravitational fields and/or speeds suggests to me that time is not an absolute.

and if 'time' changes depending on circumstances, then it is embedded, for lack of a better term, in a function which we don't yet understand, but which is adding to an unknown factor to the equation.

i'm not really hip to the technical terms and math necessary to explain but let's see if i can put this out there....

light from distant stars will reach us tonight and bring to our view the events of millions of years ago. the light which reaches us this way is energy, still reflecting a past event in real 'time'. in similar fashion i think it might be possible that everything that ever has happened and everything that ever will happen is occurring right here, right now and forever, all around us.

i think this could be true if the universe is folded over on itself like a super complex spiraling folded sphere like origami, layers all densely packed and intertwined. only, its not just three dimensional, its infinite dimensional origami.

and our world 'earth' is a unique blend of matter and energy, shifting in and out of other worlds/events on different frequencies (that lack of a better word thingy again) and so, from the inside of this function as we observe patterns of change we perceive time to be passing at a certain rate.

what if everything that ever was, is, and everything that ever could be, is, all at once. within this universe there are worlds like earth that can shift right through each other without interference, or even with certain interference patterns which influence us in ways we don't yet recognize. i like this idea because it might even allow for 'time travel'.

the rate at which change occurs in this scenario, (perhaps depending on the influence of gravity or? dark matter?) would determine the rate of the subjective perception of time passing. but the existence of time independent of observation would be moot. because it all eternally is.

okay. that's all i got

XxAxX said:

cool thread!

btw: i'm not an expert. i just like reading about this stuff and sitting around making my head hurt trying to understand it...

personally, i don't believe time exists. i think humans have invented the concept to explain the patterns and cycles of change we perceive.

the fact that our most reliable measuring devices, such as atomic clocks, run at different speeds when affected by differing gravitational fields and/or speeds suggests to me that time is not an absolute.

and if 'time' changes depending on circumstances, then it is embedded, for lack of a better term, in a function which we don't yet understand, but which is adding to an unknown factor to the equation.

i'm not really hip to the technical terms and math necessary to explain but let's see if i can put this out there....

light from distant stars will reach us tonight and bring to our view the events of millions of years ago. the light which reaches us this way is energy, still reflecting a past event in real 'time'. in similar fashion i think it might be possible that everything that ever has happened and everything that ever will happen is occurring right here, right now and forever, all around us.

i think this could be true if the universe is folded over on itself like a super complex spiraling folded sphere like origami, layers all densely packed and intertwined. only, its not just three dimensional, its infinite dimensional origami.

and our world 'earth' is a unique blend of matter and energy, shifting in and out of other worlds/events on different frequencies (that lack of a better word thingy again) and so, from the inside of this function as we observe patterns of change we perceive time to be passing at a certain rate.

what if everything that ever was, is, and everything that ever could be, is, all at once. within this universe there are worlds like earth that can shift right through each other without interference, or even with certain interference patterns which influence us in ways we don't yet recognize. i like this idea because it might even allow for 'time travel'.

the rate at which change occurs in this scenario, (perhaps depending on the influence of gravity or? dark matter?) would determine the rate of the subjective perception of time passing. but the existence of time independent of observation would be moot. because it all eternally is.

okay. that's all i got

Thank you for your contributions!

I have one question: How does the universe keep events in order?

If everything happened at once, then I could die at the time I was born, but what keeps the intervening events "scheduled"?

How do I experience events sequentially that are all happening at the same time?

I think part of the problem with time is how we think of it, in a more or less linear line.

Time delineations are man-made (seconds, minutes, hours, etc) but I think time exists whether people do or not.

A supernmova star explodes and destroys its solar system. It could destroy entire civilizations that we would never know existed. Awareness of time ceases for them but we are still aware of the passage of time.

When we individually die, time shifts or ends, I don't know which but assuming it's one or the other. On the other hand, time may not change. If death is like sleep, we simply awake unaware of the length of time that has passed.

I think the idea that we see events that happened millions and billions of years ago once their light reaches us shows that time exists apart from humans 'creating' time.

we know we are not seeing real time events, but past events.

If there were no time, we should be looking at real time events, no matter where we look.

XxAxX said:

cool thread!

btw: i'm not an expert. i just like reading about this stuff and sitting around making my head hurt trying to understand it...

personally, i don't believe time exists. i think humans have invented the concept to explain the patterns and cycles of change we perceive.

the fact that our most reliable measuring devices, such as atomic clocks, run at different speeds when affected by differing gravitational fields and/or speeds suggests to me that time is not an absolute.

and if 'time' changes depending on circumstances, then it is embedded, for lack of a better term, in a function which we don't yet understand, but which is adding to an unknown factor to the equation.

i'm not really hip to the technical terms and math necessary to explain but let's see if i can put this out there....

light from distant stars will reach us tonight and bring to our view the events of millions of years ago. the light which reaches us this way is energy, still reflecting a past event in real 'time'. in similar fashion i think it might be possible that everything that ever has happened and everything that ever will happen is occurring right here, right now and forever, all around us.

i think this could be true if the universe is folded over on itself like a super complex spiraling folded sphere like origami, layers all densely packed and intertwined. only, its not just three dimensional, its infinite dimensional origami.

and our world 'earth' is a unique blend of matter and energy, shifting in and out of other worlds/events on different frequencies (that lack of a better word thingy again) and so, from the inside of this function as we observe patterns of change we perceive time to be passing at a certain rate.

what if everything that ever was, is, and everything that ever could be, is, all at once. within this universe there are worlds like earth that can shift right through each other without interference, or even with certain interference patterns which influence us in ways we don't yet recognize. i like this idea because it might even allow for 'time travel'.

the rate at which change occurs in this scenario, (perhaps depending on the influence of gravity or? dark matter?) would determine the rate of the subjective perception of time passing. but the existence of time independent of observation would be moot. because it all eternally is.

okay. that's all i got

Very interesting thoughts.

Changing subjects slightly, I was thinking about dreams recently. Isn't it interesting how a dream might seem very long, but in fact it only took a few minutes?

SUPRMAN said:

XxAxX said:

cool thread!

btw: i'm not an expert. i just like reading about this stuff and sitting around making my head hurt trying to understand it...

personally, i don't believe time exists. i think humans have invented the concept to explain the patterns and cycles of change we perceive.

the fact that our most reliable measuring devices, such as atomic clocks, run at different speeds when affected by differing gravitational fields and/or speeds suggests to me that time is not an absolute.

and if 'time' changes depending on circumstances, then it is embedded, for lack of a better term, in a function which we don't yet understand, but which is adding to an unknown factor to the equation.

i'm not really hip to the technical terms and math necessary to explain but let's see if i can put this out there....

light from distant stars will reach us tonight and bring to our view the events of millions of years ago. the light which reaches us this way is energy, still reflecting a past event in real 'time'. in similar fashion i think it might be possible that everything that ever has happened and everything that ever will happen is occurring right here, right now and forever, all around us.

i think this could be true if the universe is folded over on itself like a super complex spiraling folded sphere like origami, layers all densely packed and intertwined. only, its not just three dimensional, its infinite dimensional origami.

and our world 'earth' is a unique blend of matter and energy, shifting in and out of other worlds/events on different frequencies (that lack of a better word thingy again) and so, from the inside of this function as we observe patterns of change we perceive time to be passing at a certain rate.

what if everything that ever was, is, and everything that ever could be, is, all at once. within this universe there are worlds like earth that can shift right through each other without interference, or even with certain interference patterns which influence us in ways we don't yet recognize. i like this idea because it might even allow for 'time travel'.

the rate at which change occurs in this scenario, (perhaps depending on the influence of gravity or? dark matter?) would determine the rate of the subjective perception of time passing. but the existence of time independent of observation would be moot. because it all eternally is.

okay. that's all i got

Thank you for your contributions!

I have one question: How does the universe keep events in order?

If everything happened at once, then I could die at the time I was born, but what keeps the intervening events "scheduled"?

How do I experience events sequentially that are all happening at the same time?

I think part of the problem with time is how we think of it, in a more or less linear line.

Time delineations are man-made (seconds, minutes, hours, etc) but I think time exists whether people do or not.

A supernmova star explodes and destroys its solar system. It could destroy entire civilizations that we would never know existed. Awareness of time ceases for them but we are still aware of the passage of time.

When we individually die, time shifts or ends, I don't know which but assuming it's one or the other. On the other hand, time may not change. If death is like sleep, we simply awake unaware of the length of time that has passed.

I think the idea that we see events that happened millions and billions of years ago once their light reaches us shows that time exists apart from humans 'creating' time.

we know we are not seeing real time events, but past events.

If there were no time, we should be looking at real time events, no matter where we look.

I have one question: How does the universe keep events in order?

they are already and forever in their patterns, already ordered. we experience them sequentially because we are limited in our ability to perceive various aspects of the physical world. we know humans can't see the full spectrum of light, can't hear all sounds, can't even see all colors. our understanding of 'reality' is likewise limited. we think we are solid, immovable objects but maybe we're more like ghosts, phase shifting through different levels of change

If everything happened at once, then I could die at the time I was born, but what keeps the intervening events "scheduled"?

each 'moment' in time represents a point at which you or i could make an almost infinite number of decisions which would lead us down an infinite number of paths, hypothetically. each location in 'space' can be pierced by an infinite number of lances, in every direction. like a dandelion gone to seed. everything that can happen will happen and has already done so.

just maybe, we ourselves are moving through an eternal landscape. it's as if we give up the notion of seeing ourselves standing still while time flows around us, and readjust to think of ourselves, as beings of non-solid energy/matter/bioelectrical charges moving through events which are and always have been occurring, like an energy wave.

How do I experience events sequentially that are all happening at the same time?

i don't know. i don't think we can ever truly understand how limited our human perceptions are nor accurately determine how that limitation affects us.

XxAxX said:

SUPRMAN said:

Thank you for your contributions!

I have one question: How does the universe keep events in order?

If everything happened at once, then I could die at the time I was born, but what keeps the intervening events "scheduled"?

How do I experience events sequentially that are all happening at the same time?

I think part of the problem with time is how we think of it, in a more or less linear line.

Time delineations are man-made (seconds, minutes, hours, etc) but I think time exists whether people do or not.

A supernmova star explodes and destroys its solar system. It could destroy entire civilizations that we would never know existed. Awareness of time ceases for them but we are still aware of the passage of time.

When we individually die, time shifts or ends, I don't know which but assuming it's one or the other. On the other hand, time may not change. If death is like sleep, we simply awake unaware of the length of time that has passed.

I think the idea that we see events that happened millions and billions of years ago once their light reaches us shows that time exists apart from humans 'creating' time.

we know we are not seeing real time events, but past events.

If there were no time, we should be looking at real time events, no matter where we look.

I have one question: How does the universe keep events in order?

they are already and forever in their patterns, already ordered. we experience them sequentially because we are limited in our ability to perceive various aspects of the physical world. we know humans can't see the full spectrum of light, can't hear all sounds, can't even see all colors. our understanding of 'reality' is likewise limited. we think we are solid, immovable objects but maybe we're more like ghosts, phase shifting through different levels of change

If everything happened at once, then I could die at the time I was born, but what keeps the intervening events "scheduled"?

each 'moment' in time represents a point at which you or i could make an almost infinite number of decisions which would lead us down an infinite number of paths, hypothetically. each location in 'space' can be pierced by an infinite number of lances, in every direction. like a dandelion gone to seed. everything that can happen will happen and has already done so.

just maybe, we ourselves are moving through an eternal landscape. it's as if we give up the notion of seeing ourselves standing still while time flows around us, and readjust to think of ourselves, as beings of non-solid energy/matter/bioelectrical charges moving through events which are and always have been occurring, like an energy wave.

How do I experience events sequentially that are all happening at the same time?

i don't know. i don't think we can ever truly understand how limited our human perceptions are nor accurately determine how that limitation affects us.

"i don't think we can ever truly understand how limited our human perceptions are nor accurately determine how that limitation affects us."

I agree, but it doesn't seem fair! lol

I fully believe the problem is our limited ability to percieve, which limits what we can know.

as far as humans being able to understand the universe... i think our bodies are limited but we can create machines smart enough, with enough capacity for observing thing we cannot, that we will figure things out eventually. like the hubble telescope has given us an altogether fresh understanding of all things outerspace.

i am dead curious about dark matter. what the heck is that? and to think it dwarfs 'our' matter. get this, it is moving through us (and everything we know of) at all times.... wtf?? maybe it's other worlds phase shifting through ours. it's all fun to guess about.

[Edited 5/2/12 16:26pm]

I find these topics endlessly fascinating, but still... 5 minutes of reading about such theories and my head hurts.

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

I feel like maybe time does not really exist, except as an observation of occurrances in relation to one another. But it is totally relative, not absolute.

Or, if it does exist, I think it is not actually being changed by things like gravity, but that other sensual things such as light & sound are being changed, and those things simply alter our perception of time.

It is definitely changed by gravity as a clock in space runs at a different speed than a clock on Earth.

The clock with less gravity, is faster.

But these observations of occurrences don't occur simultaneously. These occurrences also exist even if there are no humans to record them.

"Time" as we know it, is a creation of Man.

On earth 24 Hours is one cycle of Earth and one year a Cycle of the Earths rotation around teh Sun.

If we lived on Mars and Not Earth, Time would be exaclty the same if Mars had teh Gravitational equal to Earth, but Years would be longer as teh cycle around teh Sun is longer.

There is no "Time" in teh running of the Universe. We created Time to measure the period of Solar activity in accordance to Seasons etc.

I think I explained what I am thinking correctly:-?

SUPRMAN said:

Gravity affects time. How?

If time can be altered, it is always linear?

How could we percieve non-linear time?

The speed of light is constant in the presence of, and the absence of gravity. Why isn't time also exempt?

Time exist as space-time. Gravity, which is linked to the mass of an object bends space-time. The more mass something has the more gravity it will have. Therefore, the more it will bend space-time. Sort of like placing a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline. It bends the fabric alot. Place a tennis ball--not so much.

http://youtu.be/wy9gXKwRpXc <-- pretty cool about how Einstein changes the way we see light, space, time, and so forth.

He then goes on to explain gravity, etc. at about 16 minutes into the video (but you really should see it from the beginning)

itsnotallover said:

SUPRMAN said:

It is definitely changed by gravity as a clock in space runs at a different speed than a clock on Earth.

The clock with less gravity, is faster.

But these observations of occurrences don't occur simultaneously. These occurrences also exist even if there are no humans to record them.

"Time" as we know it, is a creation of Man.

On earth 24 Hours is one cycle of Earth and one year a Cycle of the Earths rotation around teh Sun.

If we lived on Mars and Not Earth, Time would be exaclty the same if Mars had teh Gravitational equal to Earth, but Years would be longer as teh cycle around teh Sun is longer.

There is no "Time" in teh running of the Universe. We created Time to measure the period of Solar activity in accordance to Seasons etc.

I think I explained what I am thinking correctly:-?

Yes

But time would occur even if we did not exist.

Dinosaurs as far as we know never measured time, but they lived and died before we came along.

What is that interval called? A period of time. It's something we've named, not created.

If we lived on Mars and observed changes in the heavens around us and the planet itself we would still be observing changes over time. Changes that have nothing to do with the Earth's rotation or movement around the Sun. The constellations are themselves moving independently of Earth. The movement in the sky is for us, due to the rotation of the Earth and the movement of the solary system as part of the galaxy. We generally ignore that they are themselves moving through space over time and thus changing.

imago said:

SUPRMAN said:

Gravity affects time. How?

If time can be altered, it is always linear?

How could we percieve non-linear time?

The speed of light is constant in the presence of, and the absence of gravity. Why isn't time also exempt?

Time exist as space-time. Gravity, which is linked to the mass of an object bends space-time. The more mass something has the more gravity it will have. Therefore, the more it will bend space-time. Sort of like placing a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline. It bends the fabric alot. Place a tennis ball--not so much.

http://youtu.be/wy9gXKwRpXc <-- pretty cool about how Einstein changes the way we see light, space, time, and so forth.

He then goes on to explain gravity, etc. at about 16 minutes into the video (but you really should see it from the beginning)

If time exists as space-time, why is light exempt? Bending light doesn't seem to effect its speed merely the viewer's perception. Time isn't exempt from gravity or space. (How do you move from one point to another without time passing?)

SUPRMAN said:

imago said:

Time exist as space-time. Gravity, which is linked to the mass of an object bends space-time. The more mass something has the more gravity it will have. Therefore, the more it will bend space-time. Sort of like placing a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline. It bends the fabric alot. Place a tennis ball--not so much.

http://youtu.be/wy9gXKwRpXc <-- pretty cool about how Einstein changes the way we see light, space, time, and so forth.

He then goes on to explain gravity, etc. at about 16 minutes into the video (but you really should see it from the beginning)

If time exists as space-time, why is light exempt? Bending light doesn't seem to effect its speed merely the viewer's perception. Time isn't exempt from gravity or space. (How do you move from one point to another without time passing?)

Light isn't excempt. It's constant. It's your 'zero' marker. However, I see your point.

You can slow light down, and indeed scientist have stopped a beam of light. Light only travels at the "speed of light" in a vacuum. But, the interesting thing is that a photon never experiences time. It essentially is born and dies at the same moment from its perspective.

Anything travelling below it's speed (And that's everything) experiences time at it's own rate, and the closer it gets to the speed of light, the more time dialation there is. But if an object could get to the speed of light, time would stop, because it's at the zero marker. If it could go beyond that speed, then time would go backwards according to Estein's theory.

The problem is that nothing can go faster than light, nor can anything go as fast as light. To do so would require infinite mass and infinate energy---not possible.

Some of the galaxies out there appear to be moving faster than the speed of light, but what's happenning is that space-time is stretching faster than light, which doesn't break Einstein's law.

But yeah. Light isn't excempt from time dialation travelling through space-time. It's just that it's at 'zero', where everything else is below that, and therefore light doesn't experiences time's ticking.

I do hope that Einstein is partially wrong, because I find it so disturbing for some reason. However, just as the video states, our GPS systems actually must account for time dialation from the satelights whizzing over us, or else we'd be 7 miles off each day or something like that. Also, the US navy has tested automic clocks on airplanes doing cross atlantic flights, and the time dialation expected occured each time--a very, very VERY tiny dialation, but detectable none-the-less.

Also, I disagree that time is a trick of the mind or a human invention. The way in which we measure it is a human invention. But we experience time whether we want to or not.

It's kind of like the fact that it doesn't matter how you express pi (as 22 divided by seven, as 3.14.... or as a symbol), it is still pi, and exist whether we take note of it or not.

imago said:

Also, I disagree that time is a trick of the mind or a human invention. The way in which we measure it is a human invention. But we experience time whether we want to or not.

It's kind of like the fact that it doesn't matter how you express pi (as 22 divided by seven, as 3.14.... or as a symbol), it is still pi, and exist whether we take note of it or not.

Full on agreement here. Even if we didn't measure its passage, time would still pass.

SUPRMAN said:

imago said:

Also, I disagree that time is a trick of the mind or a human invention. The way in which we measure it is a human invention. But we experience time whether we want to or not.

It's kind of like the fact that it doesn't matter how you express pi (as 22 divided by seven, as 3.14.... or as a symbol), it is still pi, and exist whether we take note of it or not.

Full on agreement here. Even if we didn't measure its passage, time would still pass.

when we observe change occurring, we are not watching 'time pass'.

change occurs at different rates and the way density/gravity has an effect on 'time' relates not to 'time passing', but instead to rate of change, which relates to molecular composition of the object possessing density/gravity.

without playing semantic games by redefining 'time' as 'rate of change', in my imaginary model maybe that which we subjectively experience as 'time passing' is instead a function of our own selves, our physical bodies and the planet we live on. if we each personally had a mass similar to pluto's, we would experience change at a different rate, and subjectively experience that as 'time passing'.

i just don't believe that 'time' exists as an independent function. then again i am not a rocket scientist

XxAxX said:

SUPRMAN said:

Full on agreement here. Even if we didn't measure its passage, time would still pass.

when we observe change occurring, we are not watching 'time pass'.

change occurs at different rates and the way density/gravity has an effect on 'time' relates not to 'time passing', but instead to rate of change, which relates to molecular composition of the object possessing density/gravity.

without playing semantic games by redefining 'time' as 'rate of change', in my imaginary model maybe that which we subjectively experience as 'time passing' is instead a function of our own selves, our physical bodies and the planet we live on. if we each personally had a mass similar to pluto's, we would experience change at a different rate, and subjectively experience that as 'time passing'.

i just don't believe that 'time' exists as an independent function. then again i am not a rocket scientist

But 'rate of change' exists throughout the universe. We know there are billions of planets of varying sizes out there with their own rates of change. So time is there too, although we aren't there to measure it other than by it's orbit around its sun. In cases where we can measure the planet's rotation on its axis, that would give us another measure of time for that planet.

That would not tell us how any sentient beings on the planet would mark time.

I also think that time exists inside a vacuum, although there is no rate of change to guess its length of existence without change. An empty portion of space has no record of anything passing through it. It could be, nothing ever has. Even if we felt we were the first, the next traveler to traverse the vacuum could make the same inferences.

Time can exist without matter, but all matter through transformations between states of matter and energy is subject to various measurements, one of which is time.

Time exists without space. There was a period of time before the Big Bang. We have no idea what that time could have been because we have no way of seeing beyond the Big Bang.

To say that time didn't exist because we couldn't measure is belied by the fact that the universe is expanding and has been for 15 billion years. This expansion, rate of change, if you will occurred over a period of time.

have you heard of the saying
"nothing lasts forever"

that is absolutely true. gravity is to some extent caused by mass, mass is energy, energy can affect time because it is in a dimension of the universe. hmmm. not sure. we don't know the shape of the universe so how can we know if time is linear, but since the universe is expanding then maybe time is linear. the gravity in the universe used to be much more before causing time to slow down, thus the expansion of the universe was slower in the past due to more mass. both.

Oh heck I can't find it anymore. Anyway, no time doesn't exist, motion does. I liked what I read somewhere, "time depends on how high you are" okay, "and how fast your going" So measurements (time) are based on the motion of this planet, migration, seasons and so forth. Take all that out there somewhere, speed it up (or slow it down) a notch and it's "timing" will change. All this math, ugh.