4
   

Motion, is that what time is?

 
 
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:34 pm
in my mind, time is the following, feel free to argue.

Time does not exist. Time is simply the continued movement of particlei.

For instance in an Atom basically we have positive and negatively charged nuclei "orbiting" around each other as it were. if this continues undisturbed, this would be what we perceive as "normal time".

however on earth time goes a little bit slower than it does in orbit. Why is this? i have my answer.

The massive collection of matter here means alot of single attraction orbitations are interfering with each other. A metaphpr (weak) for this could be as follows.

A particle is next to another particle the positive and negative nuclei are now not just attracted to their single system but also the next one. The result of this is that the overall motion of the particlei is slowed down thusly in my mind slowing down our perception of time.

travelling at the speed of light has been proven to shoot you forward in time. I have my opposing einstenian answer to this.

If a particle is travelling at the speed of light, the motion within its attraction mechanisms are orbiting at the mass aquatance point ( will explain this in another article ). Since they are travelling at the speed of light, if they brush next to another particle, it speeds up the orbiting speed of the stationary particle. Meaning in my mind it gets shot forward in time.

in essence, time hasnt slowed down for the travellers within the particle, the motion of the particle has sped up the surrounding matters aquatance point meaning they get shot forward in time.

please do ask questions.

Gordon Abercrombie, 16.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 1,690 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:41 pm
@Ogitoc groe sum,
Quote:
Time does not exist.


You need to investigate the word "exist". (Ontology). Heidegger for example, delimited Existenz to humanity. Also, you might consider that both "time" and "existence" have no clearly defined concept boundaries and may be interpreted differentially according to context . (Wittgenstein - "meaning is use") .
Ogitoc groe sum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:43 pm
@fresco,
The reason i use the word exist is so that i can communicate the idea in an easy way. Existence is something i think extensively about so i do know, if i was writing this in an essay, id need to change what i was saying.
Ogitoc groe sum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:43 pm
@fresco,
I thank you for your reply though.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 09:51 pm


((did I mention in a previous life I was a physics teacher))
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:04 pm
@Ogitoc groe sum,
It may certainly be the case that "time" is a "psychological construct", but this might argued for particles, rocks or anything else for that matter. What matters in physics is when common-sense notions of time "don't work" or produce paradoxes, as in Einsteinian relativity. At that point we begin to question the functional boundaries of the concept.
Ogitoc groe sum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:07 pm
@fresco,
A fine statement.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:15 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
At that point we begin to question the functional boundaries of the concept.


Hogwash Fresco!

In science, Time is a well-defined measurable entity (the fact that it is dependent on the observer is irrelevant).

Time is at the center of "Einsteinian" relativity (and every other kind of relativity). In fact, time is a variable in many of the equations at the center of relativity.

In the last thread where we bumped heads-- you were arguing about the curvature in the "space/time continuum". Kind of ironic I think.

If you recall-- stupid misrepresentations of science really bother me.





Ogitoc groe sum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:20 pm
@ebrown p,
If einsteins right, in my mind that means time zones exist which means means destiny exists, which implies there is a god,

But there is no sign of a god is there. a Concept i believe is that god is dead
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:22 pm
@Ogitoc groe sum,
Quote:
Time does not exist. Time is simply the continued movement of particlei.


My understanding of the whole matter is that that which we call 'time' is simply a measurement of motion. It does not 'exist' any more than an inch or a mile or a kilometer exists. Yet those little buggers are handy concepts for measuring that which we call 'distance.' And it's difficult to argue that distance does not exist. Likewise, time exists as a measurement, nothing more. It measures motion, both duration and interval.

The holy trinity for me is time, space and motion. They are completely interdependent. There can be no motion without space in which to move. And there can be no time if there is no motion because then you have nothing to measure. And it is meaningless to speculate about space without motion. If a space exists, then something -- atoms, molecules, whatever -- exist in that space. And everything -- matter, energy, whatever -- is in constant motion.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:32 pm
Time is defined by Physics. As I said it is measurable and is a key to the equations that physicists use.

Of course, you can use the word "Time" to refer to anything you like; a philosophical concept, a religious idea or even an ingredient in spice cake-- but in that case you should stop pretending that you are discussing anything even related to science.

The scientific value called time is well-defined.

General relativity is based on differential equations which you will encounter after five or six years of college (if you pursue a scientific field of study). Any discussion of relativity without these differential equations is silly at best-- and usually simply wrong.

If you want to really understand Relativity later-- I suggest you take your math homework very seriously now.

I don't mind these philosophical ideas of time-- I am only saying you should make a clear distinction between philosophy and physics.

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:33 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown,

If we "bumped heads" I didn't notice. The interests of the questioner are obviously greater in scope than that answerable by physics alone. I suggest you have a look at "levels of measurement" starting with "nominal" , or Kuhn's paradigms (Structure of Scientific Revolutions) to see the potential range.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Motion, is that what time is?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 03:19:18