0
   

is time important to the object its self ?

 
 
north
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 04:17 pm
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
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 736 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:22 am
@north,
north;132981 wrote:
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

For me anyway, an independent object "being" is an illusion. It is "becoming" or process (change and flux) which are primary reality. No process, no change, no time, no reality. Reality and time are inseparable. The entire notion of changless perfection, of indepndent being, of the ability to separate time and reality is flawed. Process is primary reality and time is perception of process.
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 01:55 pm
@north,
I think the question is inherently unanswerable. If we talk about objects in and of themselves, e.g. their dynamics without any human involvement, we are still humans trying to understand objects.

Bones
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 02:25 pm
@north,
north;132981 wrote:
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


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.

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.
Scottydamion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 04:59 pm
@north,
north;132981 wrote:
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


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.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:42 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
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 http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
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 ?
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:32 pm
@north,
north;132981 wrote:
inotherwords is time more important to us because we are trying to understand objects

but to the objects themselves , time is meaningless

Only objects give time its existence, except these objects are concepts. Hegel brilliantly figured this out.

Time is the memory of the past and the project for the future that we compose out of this memory. Progress is possibility because we can synthesize new concepts from the collision of old. This is the Hegelian Dialectic, and this is what my triangle avatar is all about.

Objects only exists because there is a force of pure negativity that cuts up the continuous spatial present into objects, and also remembers these objects as concepts. Number is just abstract object.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 10:35 PM ----------

north;135042 wrote:

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


Time is created by memory and desire. Science comes long after humans experience time and science is a development of human concepts within this human time. Desire is an essential element of time. Essential!

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 10:36 PM ----------

Scottydamion;134216 wrote:

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


Time is actually created by "meaning"(purpose or desire). We want the future to be different from the present. This future doesn't exist in the spatial present. It exists only in our minds as concept. So we act on the present to make it resemble an imagined future. And this includes fear, also, because we sometimes act to prevent certain futures..

human time is prior to physics time which is an invention of human time. physics time is a tool in the service of human desire....
0 Replies
 
Scottydamion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:42 pm
@north,
north;135042 wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:48 pm
@north,
north;135042 wrote:
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.

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.

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.

north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:46 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
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




Krumple;135119 wrote:
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
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:13 am
@north,
Imo time in itself doesn't excist, time hasn't definitivly been proved. Einstein tryed to explain it, never proved it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » is time important to the object its self ?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2020 at 09:38:59