# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?  (Read 59352 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #175 on: 02/02/2011 23:34:28 »
Time is a illusion Geezer :)

Gravity isn't.
If you was the clock.

Times arrow, aka the 'durations' is the same to you on the floor as on the table, but when looked at from another 'frame', like your wife standing beside you, she will see you age 'slower' the closer you come to the gravity source. I changed my discussion above a little, to fit as I was introducing two frames without thinking of it, so it was slightly wrong, but I actually think it works all the same.

So 'times arrow' becomes an expression of gravity, but the 'durations' of them, although seen to be changing from outside your own 'room time geometry' will to you inside it always be the same.

So sweet :)
And no math..

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #176 on: 02/02/2011 23:56:11 »
Then maybe assigning some sort of weird 'density' to Space isn't that bad an idea?
After all, we see it in 'inertia', don't we?

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #177 on: 02/02/2011 23:59:06 »
Yes, time (spacetime?) is being influenced by gravity, but isn't it time that controls the motion of the "pendulums" in our atomic clocks, as well as every other process in that locality? Just because it doesn't have a constant effect, that does not mean it's an illusion - in that respect it is a bit like air pressure.

Of course, the clocks don't know anything different. How could they? They are measuring time at their locations.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #178 on: 03/02/2011 00:12:21 »
:)

According to me heh :)
Time should be gravity. I've felt something similar a long time, but not being able to formulate it. Bills and yours comments gave me the right 'push' to see how I could put it together.

'Speed' exists of course, as well as 'distance', and 'time' too. It's on that conceptual plane speed and distance disappear to give place for gravity, as their common nominator.

I've had so much trouble with understanding frames of reference Geezer :)
But now it feels as if I have an idea of what they are.
Ahh, maybe ::))

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #179 on: 03/02/2011 00:30:03 »
Were your arms waving when you said that?

Look! I'm waving mine too.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #180 on: 03/02/2011 00:31:15 »
It's a very weird universe. It exist in two simultaneous frames as I see it.

One is the one we know of personally. In that one you will have a 'times arrow' that always have the same duration, not caring what you do. In it you will find 'distance'. Even if contracting with your speed, distance won't disappear. And distance combined with your 'durations' will present you with 'speed/velocity'.

Then we come to the fact that your 'room time geometry' change. That's primary caused by the Lorentz contraction. The simplest solution there is to define it as an 'illusion' as we have defined 'time dilations' as being a purely local result of gravity.

If that is wrong the universe becomes more complicated as your 'room time geometry' then will have to include a whole SpaceTime, one unique for each participant/object existing.

So I have to admit that I would prefer Lorentz contraction to be a illusion, as that simplifies my present understanding.

Because I imagine that I now can define a time dilation as being a local effect, 'invincible' for those inside that frame, but getting 'time-dilated' according to those watching, being at rest relative it.

And it delivers some weird facts, if it is true? According to my understanding a 'time-dilation' then only can exist under your acceleration, as soon as you close those engines and start to coast it 'stops'.

And the 'time dilation' is not a result of speed if so, it's a result of gravity. There are more things to it but I need to see if it makes sense first :)
==

And , I don't know if I'm waving yet :)
Possibly, we'll have to see.

But it makes sense so far
Ah, maybe :)

==

Anyway, the other frame of reality is the conceptual.

There we have several possibilities. I said that making Lorentz contraction a illusion would simplify it, and that's true. but on the conceptual plane I'm not that sure. If I treat it as a real effect I will have the possibility of questioning 'distance'. I really need to question some of my ideas, and see if they will work without Lorentz contraction being real.

Awh, but this is still very cool to me.
Let's hope I remember it tomorrow :)
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 00:51:02 by yor_on »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #181 on: 03/02/2011 00:44:50 »

is to define it as an 'illusion' as we have defined 'time dilations' as being a purely local result of gravity.

You lost me there. How does that prove time is an illusion? Gravity influences matter. I hope you're not going to tell me matter is an illusion too.

Also, if time can be dilated (QED) how can time be an illusion?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #182 on: 03/02/2011 01:02:33 »
Time is 'durations'. And those we define using clocks. When in the same 'frame of reference' we will find our clocks to correlate, making us happy. and me finding it hard to explain why I'm always so late :)

The thing with gravity goes back to how to define a 'time-dilation'. If it only exist when accelerating then it can't be the speed, do you agree? If it is a effect of your engines you need to ask yourself what they did? They 'twisted' your 'room time geometry'. And how did they do that?

Gravity.

If it is so, and it's my proposal, for now, that it might be so, then 'times arrow' is a result of gravity, nothing else. 'Energy', as I see it, is a description of relations coming together, so that one I ignore for now.

No, matter, as well as all the other stuff like time, is 'real' to us, just like 'forces'. It's more like there is two realities, the conceptual and the one where I 'exist' physically.
==

If you look at how I discussed that photon wander, from the light-bulb to your eye, in that space-ship, getting blue-shifted, compressed and of a higher frequency then you will see that I equalized that with falling into a gravity-well. To me that is in fact absolutely equivalent, transforming speed into gravity. And gravity is also what keeps SpaceTime together, inertia being its expression locally and 'instantly' everywhere.
==

Matter is what 'creates' SpaceTime. I'm not sure it 'creates' gravity though, for the moment I prefer to look at it as it is what defines the 'gravity' we see rather. But that is just my gut talking :) And my need to find something from where it comes together.

You can look at it several ways. You can define SpaceTime as something created out of matter, gravity being its expression. Or you can define Gravity like that 'black hole' does. As a infinite source hiding inside what we call 'SpaceTime', controlled and regulated by matter. As I said, I'm weird ::))
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 01:19:17 by yor_on »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #183 on: 03/02/2011 01:42:08 »
I agree that gravity distorts spacetime. But if we move our clock to a relatively undistorted region of spacetime, guess what? It will still measure time in that locality.

That's why I like the static case.

I don't think we can use the term "durations" either, as a duration must imply an amount of time.

It's probably a flawed model, but I tend to think of spacetime in a sort of 3-D sense that has more than three dimensions! Matter distorts all of those dimensions (including time). Anything and everything must obey the laws that spacetime imposes at a particular location.

It gets a lot more complicated when things are dynamic, but if we can't figure out the (relatively) static case, who cares

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #184 on: 03/02/2011 01:45:20 »
Thinking of the 'energy' of that photon. I called it a relation, and it is. What gives it its blue-shift Geezer? As it wanders down that 'gravity well', meeting your eye?

What is that 'blue-shift'? We call it 'energy' don't we :)
So, is that true? Can it do more work when hitting your eye than it could leaving its 'source'? Yep, it can. If so, where did it gain that 'energy'?

It did nothing more than to fall. From its own perspective it has done no 'work'. It's only as it 'interacts' it do any work. So, was work done on it? By what?

Gravity?

No, if that was true we would first of all speak of it as 'interacting' without annihilating. Secondly we know that when a photon leaves a gravitational 'field' it will adapt its energy to what it meets. Thirdly it's the exact same as so called 'potential energy'. You can have a multitude of simultaneous 'potential energies' defined by what object(s) you may interact with, simultaneously.

But there is also this truth. Although the photon may be seen as being a defined 'energy quanta', unchanging. And even though gravity does not 'interact' with it, as that would destroy all definitions we have of a photons interaction, it still delivers a bigger 'punch' the closer you are to a gravity well. And that 'punch' is also real 'work' being delivered.

So what is 'gravity', and what is 'energy'.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 01:53:55 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #185 on: 03/02/2011 01:47:03 »
Yes, there is nowhere without gravity. But then we have 'energy'. Matter for example store an awful lot of energy.
==

Durations is just my word for regular temporal measurements.

You can make a duration by using a clock. Or your heartbeats, or anything you find to be of a regular rhythm/oscillation. It states that there is a past, a present, and a future. As for it's 'length' that's an arbitrary definition. but 'durations' exist, and as they create that causality chain, we get our 'arrow of time'. They will always be the same inside my own 'frame of reference', no matter what length I define them to have. That is, my wristwatch against my heartbeats will always agree, no matter what frame I'm in measuring.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 02:02:41 by yor_on »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #186 on: 03/02/2011 01:59:16 »
Yes, but

try to take it back to basics.

If matter can distort space, why can't it distort time (which is, after all, part of spacetime)?

Space gets distorted, and so does time. Unless we assume that there is some sort of master clock that controls all time, why would we be surprised to learn that clocks in different locations in spacetime do not agree with each other?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #187 on: 03/02/2011 02:08:47 »
It distort SpaceTime. The question is just if the distortion is real when it comes to Lorentz contraction, or if it is a geometrical twist? I think it's real, which complicates things for me.

The distortion is made through gravity as I see it. We use 'energy' for creating that gravity. I can't think of any other way creating that 'distortion'. Can you give me another way of doing it?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #188 on: 03/02/2011 02:56:40 »
Well, don't take it too seriously. I can see some, very few flaws, with my proposal already :) Like I could be constantly accelerating at one G which would bring me up to near light speed in a year or so :)

Ahem :)

How the he* would having the gravity equivalent to Earth deliver me a 'time dilation' good enough to see the universe 'die'? I have to admit that I was happier before realizing this ::)) So gravity isn't the answer, maybe, and neither is the the way our photon blue-shifts. even though you could use it as an example of all 'waves' moving faster relative some other frame, at rest relative you. :)

So ok, it has to be the whole room time geometry that get twisted, and what does it is 'energy', and speed. and if so? My arguments about acceleration being the only thing creating a time-dilation have to be wrong, you must get it both ways, 'coasting' as well as accelerating.

so yeah Geezer, count it as qualified hand waving :)
==

If there was a way to prove that the 'potential energy' got stored in some manner it might be a different matter. But as far as I know, even though we use the expression, there is no atoms in that spaceship 'jiggling' more due to any stored 'potential energy', due to its speed relative some origin (Earth).

So what exactly creates the 'time-dilation'?
And now I'm far from what we discussed before, our 'arrow of time'.

But I'm stuck here, any takers?
The room time geometry gets 'twisted' by what?
Speed, gravity,'energy'?

How, and where is it 'stored', does it need to be 'stored'?
If it doesn't, and a plank sized man made black hole can be made.
Containing a infinite 'gravity', what guarantees it evaporating?
Shouldn't that center see our universe 'die' first?

Ahh, better stop this :)

« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 05:49:48 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #189 on: 03/02/2011 04:01:05 »
Okay, some points.

One gravity, constantly accelerating, will not be equivalent to the same amount of time passed on Earth. That's a simple one.

So, what distort the room time geometry?

If it is motion solely, then 'coasting' is good enough.
If uniform motion is good enough, and there exist no gold standard for what speed that might be in black box. then any uniform motion is equivalently 'time dilated'.

The way around that is to introduce a new 'frame of reference' relative your 'black box'

Using that you can define a speed. but you can't define who is speeding relative who. but that's not really true, you can always use relativistic effects to see if it is you or the other object, or can you?

You should be able to use CMB (cosmic microwave background) for it at least?

So let's assume that you can define a speed to your 'coasting' relative the CMB, that makes it as real as it can be, relative the universe, am I right?

But I'm coasting? I'm not expending any energy so I can't say that the time dilation is a effect of me expending energy?

And I have no gravitational forces acting on me. A 'free fall' and me coasting is the same as I understands it, no matter what velocity I measure relative something else. Can you prove that wrong?

No gravity, no energy, but a time dilation?

What have I left, 'speed' yes, but only under the definition that I have found a way of proving it relative the universe.

So is time dilation a relation of 'positional aberrations' only. How does the universe know my 'speed' or that I 'distort' its 'room time geometry'?

You can use light to prove it, and we say that the muons also proves it. But what creates it?

==

Also, if you accept the muon example you will find that it is in a 'free fall' too, no accelerating forces acting on it, although it will 'accelerate', you can put a scale under its metaphorical feet to check if there is some 'gravitational effect' and you won't find one. So even though it relative the ground is gaining 'energy' it will, relative something 'coasting' beside it, being at rest relative it (same frame of reference) have gained nothing at all...

Getting tired here.
Miss spellings and stuff.

Anyway, the muon is just following a geodesic, even if  in a rather big 'dip' (One Gravity deep)equivalent according to relativity to any other geodesic.

And yep, I know the statement that being on Earth is the equivalence to one gravity constantly accelerating. That is true, if you define it in a black box, ignoring tidal forces. But the time dilation created will differ as observed from another frame of reference, and what phreaks me out is how it comes to be..
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 04:56:06 by yor_on »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #190 on: 03/02/2011 04:11:33 »
Ah, but gravity is not constantly accelerating. The acceleration varies, and that variation produces the variation in time.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #191 on: 03/02/2011 04:19:04 »
Geezer, in this case gravity has nothing to do with it :)
And don't I hate that :)

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #192 on: 03/02/2011 05:00:06 »
Which case? I'm still on about the two clocks that are obviously influenced be gravity.

You'll need to slow down if you want me to keep up with you.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #193 on: 03/02/2011 05:03:08 »
Yeah, ah, what clocks?

:)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #194 on: 03/02/2011 05:47:42 »
The really weird thing is that according to this we're all time dilated. there is no way any 'inertial frame' can be defined to a certain speed. We don't have any zero speed in the universe. so we must all contain some 'time dilation'.

That I used the CBR is possibly legal though. I'm not sure there? Probably not, I will have to look that up tomorrow :)

I hope to find some really enlightening answers here tomorrow. And by the next few days we will have us a TOE, and a big one too.

But one can never get enough of them, they say?

Or can there only be one?

#### QuantumClue

• Hero Member
• Posts: 613
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #195 on: 03/02/2011 11:08:12 »
I've lost track here of what the conversation is about any more.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #196 on: 03/02/2011 17:02:23 »
It's just a matter of time QC :)
Soon we will all get it.
==

And when it comes to CMBR

"Since its discovery in 1965, the radiation has been carefully studied and found to be a perfect blackbody as expected from theory. Since, this radiation represents fossil radiation from the initial big bang, any additional motion of Earth around the Sun, the Sun around the galactic center, and the galaxy  through space should be reflected in a slight asymmetry in the background radiation. The net motion of Earth in some specific direction should be reflected by a slight Doppler shift of the background radiation coming from that direction toward shorter wavelengths."

So maybe it would work.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 17:05:40 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #197 on: 03/02/2011 17:21:51 »
The thing irritating me is that I can explain it in form of light, but I can't get my head around what actually creates it. And to me it's also close to all other ideas we have, and cherish :)

Like 'potential energy' and 'energy'.

So do anyone know what creates it, and don't give me 'light clocks'. I have enough light clocks to dress a castle :) and the math may work but it does not define what creates it. The closest I've come I think is my 'positional aberrations' and why that should create it? I don't really know. Wavelengths we already tested in the thread, and that is not sufficient, as I could see? Gravity alone seems not the sole answer, although my own opinion still leans toward it as a answer in some weird way.

'Energy'? Well, let's define 'energy'. what the he* are we talking about there? Light quanta? Is that 'pure energy'? I don't see it that way. 'Energy' is what we use for describing 'work gained' and it comes in different amounts depending on its relations, as we can see when it comes to blue/red-shift. So 'energy' have to be a description of a relation, nothing more. Just as 'potential energy' is.

So what defines those two, from 'potential' to 'real'. Their interactions, do you agree? Then we come back to a 'time-dilation' and the question of time. What defines a time-dilation?
==

One of the really big points I expect that we can make already is that if we assign 'times arrow' to 'oscillations' then those should be apparent in our descriptions of that spaceship relative something being at rest. We use light in simplified description for what time consists of when describing a 'time dilation' but when looking at it as 'matter waves' they still seem to fall short of the real dilation? Or, can you show me the oscillations?

Let's make another experiment.

We will use a mirror pair, or anything with a defined amount of 'oscillations' mounted inside that ship. assume now that 'times arrow' have to have a direct influence on those oscillations. It should, shouldn't it?

So the 'light-corn' have a 'bumping frequency' of ah, ten per second at earth. As we start to move that oscillation must slow, as observed form Earth. Every discrepancy in the twins age relative each other, slowing as the ships speed accumulates, need to be answered by those oscillations to a equal degree, as observed from Earth. Let us assume that this is correct.

So would 'positional aberrations' be the correct nomenclature for it? Not really, we can get the same effect one meter from Earth than one million miles from it. So that is not correct either. So what does it leave us with?

Its speed relative Earth it seems. That gives us a universe where it will be very important to differ between whose speed is relative who. It will not be enough to say that A:s uniform speed relative B is equivalent to B:s speed relative A. From the viewpoint of a 'time dilation' they must differ, do you agree? If they don't differ both will have to be equally 'time dilated' which definitely would make time something very strange, with a very weird 'arrow' at least.

But I wasn't satisfied with those 'waves' was I :) That was when I tried to use them relative the 'gravity well' created by an acceleration. If you look at the balance there the gravity seems very weak and 'out of bonds' compared to the 'time dilation' possible by a constant acceleration.

So the waves created for a 'time dilation' according to that idea, inside the ship, looked at from the viewpoint of a photons blue-shift inside, is not sufficient it seems. But the 'time dilation' still exist. And how did I 'prove it'? By comparing frames, Earth looking at that bouncing light-corn, mounted inside the ship. And that ship could be one meter from Earth, as long as it held the same speed relative Earth.

That one is very weird in fact. Assume that photons blue-shift inside that ship relative you. Then define it as you age slower, as compared to those photons. But you too can be seen as composed of 'matter waves'. And those waves should should follow the same pattern as any other 'wave'? which then should mean that your waves will red-shift relative the photon, as long as it is further from the gravity-well, but then blue-shift as soon as it passed you. So your 'aging' becomes a positional effect only, But no less 'real' because of that.

so yeah, 'relations'
==

Another thing worth noting here. When we are talking about a gravitational time-dilation we can illustrate the gravity by imagining a photon blue-shifting. What that means is the the photons ah, 'clock', relative us on Earth 'ticks faster'. As it 'ticks faster' per 'duration', let's say 20 oscillations per second instead of 10/second it, according to us, will have to age faster, alternatively defining ourselves as 'aging slower'. depending on how you want to look at it.

So, am I right after all?
Gravity is time?

But what the he* would speed be if so?

(Better point out one thing here, I'm using the photon as waves in that example, and then referring to the frequency as equivalent to a 'time-dilation'. But I do not think a photon 'age', and I doubt I ever will. It's just a thought experiment.)
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 19:13:06 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11683
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #198 on: 03/02/2011 18:31:32 »
So, we are getting closer possibly, but, what is it? I would like to describe it as a relation, as my universe seems to be created by, and populated by, 'relations' from 'energy' to 'time'. But the problem with that is how to explain how the interactive relation between Earth and that ship creates a real difference in age, in those twins?

As Geezer said, 'motion is time'. But exactly how is it 'time'?

Inside that ship I would assume everything to have a slight 'time dilation' as created by the constant acceleration, equivalent to a 'gravity', and as seen from the photons 'blue-shift' observed by the participants inside.

But that 'time-shift' is not enough to explain what Earth will see in form of the 'bouncing/oscillation' increase inside that ship. If we satisfied us with defining it as a geometrical aberration, made by the speed relative us then we might ignore it as a illusion. But according to relativity it isn't, it's real.

So, speed makes 'time slow' relative the universe, but only observable when comparing frames. If this is correct the universe must have a simple way of differing what frame is what, and whose time is which. How does it do it?

I define one unchanging frame of 'time', being your own, which will give you an exact same expiration date, no matter what anyone else will tell you about your appearant 'age' relative something else. Is that one wrong then? No, I'm sure of that one, it have to be true.
==

To make the universe able to differ those frames it need to have a 'gold standard' of 'time'. What about it, could you use my idea of those personal 'unchangeable expiration dates' as a such? That one is nice, isn't it? :)

(Not the cosmic microwave background for this. That one was for our benefit only)
====

But how could it 'use' it, if that one would be a possibility?

That must have to do with how we define it? It's like a puzzle in where you can lay the pieces different ways, they will connect and give you a picture, but there will always be another way to lay it, no way being the 'single truth' as I suspect. But I expect some ways to describe it better, hopefully giving us a clearer idea.

As far as I can see?

It's like assuming 'energy' to be 'something' by itself. Well, yeah, to me it is a sum of its relations? And some things, however useful they may be mathematically, do not 'exist' to me. Like 'potential energy', you might say that to me 'potential energy' is a description trusting in the existence of a arrow, as it, to become true, will have to interact before 'existing'. I differ between interactions and possibilities. A possibility is to me the idea of something happening in a arrow of time. A interaction is a 'event', passed and proven by our arrow to 'exist'. The past contains all what's necessary to build what you call your present. And to me the future is only expectations, built on those past interactions that we've observed to be true (existent), and then statistics.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 20:05:17 by yor_on »

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #199 on: 03/02/2011 19:38:45 »
Motion is speed.Quantity of motion is time. [8D]

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #199 on: 03/02/2011 19:38:45 »