is time important to the object its self ?

inotherwords is time more important to us because we are trying to understand objects
but to the objects themselves , time is meaninglessto put it anotherway , can time and time alone move any object ?
if not , then it is the energy within the object(s) which creates time
which then causes movement , which gives time existence

inotherwords is time more important to us because we are trying to understand objects

but to the objects themselves , time is meaningless

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

to put it anotherway , can time and time alone move any object ?

if not , then it is the energy within the object(s) which creates time

which then causes movement , which gives time existence

inotherwords is time more important to us because we are trying to understand objects

but to the objects themselves , time is meaningless

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

to put it anotherway , can time and time alone move any object ?

if not , then it is the energy within the object(s) which creates time

which then causes movement , which gives time existence

Krumple;134182 wrote:

I personally feel that time is completely divorced from objects and energy. You might not like that conclusion but here is a flaw in your theory. If energy within an object creates the time, then by all means wouldn't the energy affect how much time was or was not present? Or does the amount of energy not determine how much time would be present? If the energy doesn't affect the amount of time then all the energy would do is be an on and off switch for time. But this makes it a little absurd.

true

Quote:

That would mean any object without any energy (which by the way there are no such objects), would have no time, but an object right next to it, that had energy would have time? You would have objects that are completely out of sink and on completely different time scales. Physics would completely break down, chemistry would be useless and E=mc2 would have to be altered. You would have to add in the energy of the mass into this equation.

hence the speed of light as of which time is based , but behind the speed of light is the action and interactions of energy and mass

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 09:49 PM ----------

Originally Posted by north
inotherwords is time more important to us because we are trying to understand objects

but to the objects themselves , time is meaningless

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

to put it anotherway , can time and time alone move any object ?

if not , then it is the energy within the object(s) which creates time

which then causes movement , which gives time existence

Scottydamion;134216 wrote:

In some way you've described difficulties in understanding the Big Bang theory. Some postulate that time and space did not exist before the big bang. This theory is in part because Einstein showed that space and time were dependent on the existence of objects, there is no separate existence for them. He also showed that time is entangled with space and thus is relative to the observer's frame of reference.

To say "time is meaningless" seems somewhat of a personification of objects. I have no doubt that objects don't "care" about time, but there is certainly something that we call time to which they hold a 'tempo'. If you define time as a change in the entropy of a system, then time is dependent on energy, but only by the chosen definition.

but without energy and/or mass how would one develope the concept of time though ?

inotherwords is time more important to us because we are trying to understand objects

but to the objects themselves , time is meaningless

but without energy and/or mass how would one develope the concept of time though ?

To say "time is meaningless" seems somewhat of a personification of objects.

Quote:

but without energy and/or mass how would one develope the concept of time though ?

I have no idea, lol. That is a good point, but it does not necessarily follow that time and energy have always been around.

hence the speed of light as of which time is based , but behind the speed of light is the action and interactions of energy and mass

Yes but his claim is that objects that have energy creates time. Well the speed of light couldn't be used as time signature then if his theory were true. Because photons would have to be objects, with energy before they could have associated time. We know photons are not objects and we can't determine the energy of photons. They seem to almost instantaneously accelerate to the speed of light while in a vacuum. They don't even seem to shed any energy as if energy is not required for their velocity. Yet a photon traveling at the speed of light is instantly stopped even hitting the softest of materials.

Quote:

yet different wave lengths of light have different amount of energy associated with these wave lengths

light bulb as compared to UV

Quote:

How can you take something with so much "energy" and stop it so easily? You could call in inertia equations dealing with the lack of mass of the photon and that is why it is so easily halted. Sure the object absorbs some of the impact energy of the photon as heat. But the heat is so little it is almost non existent. You have to leave an object bombarded by billions of photons before it even begins to heat up to a point you can measure the heat generated.

Quote:

If energy determines time then you can't use mass times the speed of light squared to determine energy. It doesn't make any sense. In other words you would be saying energy determines energy.

what I'm saying is that behind the release of light is a consequence of objects interacting with each other and their inherent properties

spin , magnetic fields , pressure