The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does time really exist?  (Read 11467 times)

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #25 on: 07/09/2012 06:15:21 »

If there were no clocks would everything cease to move? (No.) I think time is the concept required for movement.
[/quote]

I would think the question should be phrased the other way around - if nothing moved - if the world was somehow completely static and unchanging, would there be time?
[/quote]


   time is not a "thing", it is not made up of anything...it is only observation..

   progression, expansion, aging, decay, movement, etc..  these are things that "time: is used to describe...
 

Offline stu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #26 on: 07/09/2012 06:39:16 »
"Time is there to stop everything happening at once "
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #27 on: 07/09/2012 07:07:07 »
"Time is there to stop everything happening at once "
 
LOL, but seriously.

  Time is just a word invented by Humans to describe events.
 

Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #28 on: 07/09/2012 07:25:38 »
"Time is there to stop everything happening at once "
 
LOL, but seriously.

  Time is just a word invented by Humans to describe events.

Of course "time" is a word invented by humans. Everything we are discussing are "words". This statement is usless. If someone asked what christmas was you could say "christmas is just a word invented by humans to describe an event". So is christmas the same as time?

Whatever word you use, it is describing a phenomenon which is as real as anything else in this bizarre state we call "existence". It is another direction for matter to travel in and provides a mechanism in which matter can arrange itself in different configurations.

The title of the thread is "Does time really exist" and you can get bogged down in semantics until the cows come home (which would prove it does exist! :P) or you could look at the fact that everyone and nearly everything experiences a motion that runs perpendicular to the three conventional dimensions of space. We can't control the direction as such, but if we run fast enough in one of the other spacial dimensions, we can control the speed (or velocity - I'm never sure which) in the time dimension.

If time did not exist, energy could not have developed into mass, mass could not have evolved into life, life could not have evolved into humans and no one would be around to ask about time.

I think that's what I wanted to say. I tend to go off in tangents.
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #29 on: 07/09/2012 10:23:02 »
Time does not exist....

  if you say it does, then tell me exactly what time is made out of ?

  Time is a word, and that is important, not irrelevant...because it describes something, but it itself is not a "thing".

  that is key to understand........

  what does exist, is progression, expansion, growth, aging, seasons, decay, etc. etc these are all real "things" that the word time is used to describe.........

  so time is observation of an event, not an event itself....

   
  and to prove that time does not exist, except for the observer,  consider this.

  time is  past, present, and future..

  does the past exist ?
  does the future exist ?
 
  NO......

 the only thing that exists right now, "is now", so time "technically" can only exist in the here and now anyways...

 and it only exists to the observer, because it is just an observation of the present....


« Last Edit: 07/09/2012 10:34:14 by Emc2 »
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #30 on: 07/09/2012 18:02:05 »
There's no scientific evidence that gravity exists on planets we haven't yet discovered, but I'm betting it does.  The nice thing about the scientific method is that it allows you to predict things that you haven't yet experimentally observed.  You can always say that the theory could break down in some as-yet-untested scenario, but unless you have some scientific reason to think that a well-tested theory will break down on one of those cases, there's not much evidence to back you up.
Your argument works against planets or stars being flattened via the length contraction effect in any case. The physics behind all fully formed planets and stars being nearly spherical is well established. Yes, we can predict that planets we have not yet discovered will also be nearly spherical. None will be “pancaked.”

Quote
If you predict the earth won't length contract, then you have a serious problem: you have to explain why special relativity breaks down in that case when it doesn't in all the other cases where we've verified it.  Simply saying "I haven't seen evidence" isn't good enough in science.
No, you have to explain how a large solid planet, formed as spherical by the laws of physics like all other planets, can possibly “morph” into a pancaked shape. Yes, we know that light speed is constant. Granted. We do not know that that constant makes solid objects shrink when observed from relativistic speeds, even though they may **appear** to shrink. What each frame of reference *observes* is an image of an object carried by the medium of light. Length contraction on large scale confuses the image with the object. Earth stays about spherical no matter how various the observed image from extreme frames.
By what law of physics do very large solid (not malleable) objects *actually* get squeezed into pancaked form? They don't, and empirical science will never do an experiment confirming a pancaked Earth. Length contraction advocates will eventually have to "get over it."
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #31 on: 07/09/2012 18:17:04 »
There's no scientific evidence that gravity exists on planets we haven't yet discovered, but I'm betting it does.  The nice thing about the scientific method is that it allows you to predict things that you haven't yet experimentally observed.  You can always say that the theory could break down in some as-yet-untested scenario, but unless you have some scientific reason to think that a well-tested theory will break down on one of those cases, there's not much evidence to back you up.
Your argument works against planets or stars being flattened via the length contraction effect in any case. The physics behind all fully formed planets and stars being nearly spherical is well established. Yes, we can predict that planets we have not yet discovered will also be nearly spherical. None will be “pancaked.”

Actually, that's not true.  The laws of physics hold in all reference frames (that's the point of relativity), so in some frames, you'll see planets form "pancaked" because the laws of physics say they should. 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #32 on: 07/09/2012 18:31:07 »
It's tricky OG but what you need to consider is that we never, from birth to death, will observe this. And what we don't observe 'doesn't exist' so to speak. But it's actually a prediction that has to be true, or else relativity lie and 'gravitational time dilations' doesn't exist. But they do.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #33 on: 07/09/2012 18:32:38 »
Any moderators around? I request that posts 30 and 31 be moved to my "Length Contraction" thread.
Or... maybe its OK for me to cut and paste them to where they belong, so as not to derail the subject on the ontology of time. Here goes:
 

Offline GatoNegroPeludo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #34 on: 09/09/2012 06:50:01 »
Time does not exist....

 
  does the past exist ?
  does the future exist ?
 
  NO......

 the only thing that exists right now, "is now", so time "technically" can only exist in the here and now anyways...

 and it only exists to the observer, because it is just an observation of the present....

This is interesting but i think there is no "present" at all... so this mean (for me) time really doesnt exist...
I think, what is now, what is present, if we look really close, we can't have a specific "present" (as i said before) because you can always make the present smaller... so "present" or "now" means a millisecond, or maybe a nanosecond or femtosecond?... present is only an illusion...
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #35 on: 09/09/2012 07:43:51 »


  does the past exist ?
  does the future exist ?
 
  NO......

 the only thing that exists right now, "is now", so time "technically" can only exist in the here and now anyways...

Time interacted with energy.Time is interacting with energy.Time will interact with energy.Clocks don't show quantity of interacted time.Clocks show quantity of made motion.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2012 07:56:02 by simplified »
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #36 on: 10/09/2012 09:57:02 »
Time does not exist....

 
  does the past exist ?
  does the future exist ?
 
  NO......

 the only thing that exists right now, "is now", so time "technically" can only exist in the here and now anyways...

 and it only exists to the observer, because it is just an observation of the present....

This is interesting but i think there is no "present" at all... so this mean (for me) time really doesnt exist...
I think, what is now, what is present, if we look really close, we can't have a specific "present" (as i said before) because you can always make the present smaller... so "present" or "now" means a millisecond, or maybe a nanosecond or femtosecond?... present is only an illusion...


  Present is only an observation, based upon the observer.  It may only be a nanosecond, but it does exist....
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #37 on: 10/09/2012 10:00:29 »


  does the past exist ?
  does the future exist ?
 
  NO......

 the only thing that exists right now, "is now", so time "technically" can only exist in the here and now anyways...

Time interacted with energy.Time is interacting with energy.Time will interact with energy.Clocks don't show quantity of interacted time.Clocks show quantity of made motion.

 
       Clocks show us a 24 hour day, that only the people on this planet understand......

  they show us, what we "program" / "set" / "gear"  them to tell us.
  clocks are only good at telling us how fast we are spinning and rotating around the Sun......

   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-time-division-days-hours-minutes

Thanks to the ancient civilizations that defined and preserved the divisions of time, modern society still conceives of a day of 24 hours, an hour of 60 minutes and a minute of 60 seconds. Advances in the science of timekeeping, however, have changed how these units are defined. Seconds were once derived by dividing astronomical events into smaller parts, with the International System of Units (SI) at one time defining the second as a fraction of the mean solar day and later relating it to the tropical year. This changed in 1967, when the second was redefined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 energy transitions of the cesium atom. This recharacterization ushered in the era of atomic timekeeping and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

Interestingly, in order to keep atomic time in agreement with astronomical time, leap seconds occasionally must be added to UTC. Thus, not all minutes contain 60 seconds. A few rare minutes, occurring at a rate of about eight per decade, actually contain 61.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2012 10:05:34 by Emc2 »
 

Offline Fluid_thinker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #38 on: 10/09/2012 15:07:14 »
Does Frame Dragging distort time, if time is only now?
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #39 on: 10/09/2012 15:22:23 »
Does Frame Dragging distort time, if time is only now?
Frame dragging reduces quantity of interacting time.
 

Offline stu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #40 on: 11/09/2012 00:38:01 »
If we think about speed as time x distance travelled (relating to the earth moving around the sun) the the man at the ocean travels slower than the man at everest.

But that just relating to the earth spin not the relationship between sun an earth or does it

if this is the case then does time reduce in magnatude when operating at altitude.

the atomic degredation would remain the same of the atomic clock if it were both locations would it not?

Please explain the error or the function that creates this disparity.


Allbeit miniscule
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #41 on: 11/09/2012 04:04:24 »
If we think about speed as time x distance travelled (relating to the earth moving around the sun) the the man at the ocean travels slower than the man at everest.

But that just relating to the earth spin not the relationship between sun an earth or does it

if this is the case then does time reduce in magnatude when operating at altitude.

the atomic degredation would remain the same of the atomic clock if it were both locations would it not?

Please explain the error or the function that creates this disparity.


Allbeit miniscule

Kinematic slowing of time yes.But gravitational slowing of time here is stronger. :P
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #42 on: 11/09/2012 07:26:36 »
Time is relative to the observer, relative to observers mass/momentum in relation to the speed of light

   T = C

  The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time dilation you get,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of spacetime itself.

   A case of time dilation in action is that astronauts return from missions on the International Space Station (ISS) having aged less than the mission control crew that remained on Earth. Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity—each of which affects time in different ways.[
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #43 on: 11/09/2012 12:47:45 »
EMC2 - please put quotes around material that you bring in from other sites even if you think it is clear.  Thanks.

 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #44 on: 11/09/2012 13:43:24 »
Time is relative to the observer, relative to observers mass/momentum in relation to the speed of light

   T = C

  The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time dilation you get,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of spacetime itself.

   A case of time dilation in action is that astronauts return from missions on the International Space Station (ISS) having aged less than the mission control crew that remained on Earth. Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity—each of which affects time in different ways.[
No relative time in Stu's case.
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #45 on: 12/09/2012 06:20:20 »
Stu's case ?  has that been scientifically tested ? has it been observed ?

  If so, please provide documentation..
 

Offline waytogo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #46 on: 13/09/2012 14:29:44 »
My point: No, the time does not exist as we actually know it.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #47 on: 13/09/2012 15:08:49 »
Stu's case ?  has that been scientifically tested ? has it been observed ?

  If so, please provide documentation..



In Stu's case  two factors of slowing of time are.Do you think that gravitationally slowed time is relative?
« Last Edit: 13/09/2012 15:11:38 by simplified »
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #48 on: 14/09/2012 06:04:51 »
Stu's case ?  has that been scientifically tested ? has it been observed ?

  If so, please provide documentation..



In Stu's case  two factors of slowing of time are.Do you think that gravitationally slowed time is relative?

  Again I ask, show me a link that corroborates this...
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #49 on: 15/09/2012 17:14:56 »
Stu's case ?  has that been scientifically tested ? has it been observed ?

  If so, please provide documentation..



In Stu's case  two factors of slowing of time are.Do you think that gravitationally slowed time is relative?

  Again I ask, show me a link that corroborates this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Does time really exist?
« Reply #49 on: 15/09/2012 17:14:56 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums