How do you define Time?

theantibuddha, Read my tag line.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

theantibuddha, Read my tag line.

I read it but it didn't answer my questions. Who were you talking to? what is this "that" of which you speak?

0 Replies

I'm not in a position to answer questions about my own grammatical errors, and that's the reason I've asked people to forgive my poor English grammar. I'm being serious.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
I have a personal theory that matter is nothing more than condensed spacetime, meaning everything can be broken down into different densities of the same material.

Wow, that's the same as my personal theory... at least on the nature of matter.

Quote:
Of course, I have no evidence for that...

Me either, aside from a few small pieces that seem to neatly fit with that, regarding wave/particle duality.

I haven't seen any serious scientific theory proposing this, have you?

Maybe we should send it in New Scientist ?

(Throw in some big words and string theory rubbish as background and be careful to hide the actual theory in the second last paragraph so they take it seriously)

0 Replies

Eorl.

Re your comment,
"I haven't seen any serious scientific theory proposing this, have you?"

Not since Einstein' little comment as to the interchangebility of energy and matter. Smile

He called it "E=Mc squared".

Seems to work! At least my electricity is still on, and I am not typing in Japanese. That may be a poor proof but I would call it a pretty good indication that Einstein was onto something.

0 Replies

I agree Mech, i actually posted E=mc^2 as evidence of my theory elsewhere on A2K

0 Replies

I believe Einstein implied that gravitation is in fact warped space...meaning... as you travel close to an object, say a planet, you are not really being drawn towards it by its gravity, but rather that you are following the curved space toward its center - what we perceive as matter (the planet). This explanation neatly shows why all object, no matter how massivel, "fall" at the same rate towards the center of Earth. They are simply following the curved space that is in front of them.
If the above is correct then I agree with some of you guys that matter is space.

Please correct me, if I misunderstand Einstein...

0 Replies

Hey Bach,

He not only implied it he also claimed that orbital objects are following a straight (Newtonian Mechanics ;inertia) path in curved space. It would also have something to do with the "space" between an electron and its nucleus. This, in turn, would have something to do with "Time" as per a couple of experiments that I have previously alluded to on this thread.

I digress. If an electron is following a straight path through curved space and if space is curved by mass (of the nucleus) and an object is accelerated by gravity (or mass) then this could account for the differing speeds of time that has been shown to exist. This is because our view of time is based on the various orbital motions of planets or electrons as the case may be, whatever it is Confused

Just for grins Smile

I have another question. Exactly why is the progression of the perihelion and presumeably the apehelion of Mercury considered "proof" of Einsteins view of space

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is simply a result of the varying speeds of time in differing gravitational fields. (But I damn sure don't know it). Do you Question

0 Replies

Eorl,

Where abouts on A2K. I'd probably like to read it Exclamation

0 Replies

Think of time/space as a giant table cloth with creases and several to many level folds. We, that is earth, is travelling in an expansive outward realization of the potential capacity of time ... fluctuations or deviations occurring with passage through a fold or close proximity to a many layer fold. There are areas of time where the density of time is such that globules of time are formed, attracting other more dense materials .... we call these areas .. planets.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Eorl.

Re your comment,
"I haven't seen any serious scientific theory proposing this, have you?"

Not since Einstein' little comment as to the interchangebility of energy and matter.

Or DeBroglie for that matter...

0 Replies

hmmm looked up DeBroglie...interesting.

0 Replies

....
Now I'm gonna have to re-read my Stephen Hawking.

In fact, I suggest A Brief History of Time to everyone who posted in this thread. It's got layman's (relatively speaking) explanations to a number of "great puzzles".

What is time?
What's a black hole?
What's the nature of the universe?
General Relativity - How the rules of physics operate on the incredibly large scale?
Quantum Mechanics - How to the rules of physics operate on the incredibly small scale?

Excerpts from This Site:

"The theory of relativity does, however, force us to change fundamentally our ideas of space and time. We must accept that time if not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined with it to form an object called space-time"

"The mass of the sun curves space-time in such a way that although the earth follows a straight path in four-dimensional space-time, it appears to us to move along a circular orbit in three-dimensional space"

0 Replies

But I thought thoe question was 'how do you define time not 'how does Hawking, Einstein or DeBroglie define time'........

0 Replies

bach_vu wrote:

twyvel :

Quote:

Assuming the above was correct, then what is consciousness? Why and how is it self-originating? ...Seems to me you are referring to something noone can prove nor disprove.... Could you elaborate on the nature of consciousness? Thanks....

I don't think anyone can say what consciousness is, as it doesn't appear to be anything, even though conversely I think all there is is consciousness. Though that can neither be proved or disproved, but I think it can be known.

If consciousness cannot be observed then there is nothing (observable) observing these words, and we as awareness/consciousness are That.

0 Replies

Good point Gelisgesti

0 Replies

It sounds awfully close to "it depends on what the meaning of is, is." LOL * Sorry, couldn't resist.

0 Replies

I note that the question is "How do you define time". I prefer to chase the question a little further. Ie. what is time? In other words, a definition that we all can live with. (define live)

Hawkings et al have come up with a definition of time that makes certain assumptions. If a Bibical chaos ever existed I suspect that there would still have been some chronological events.

In a "Brief history of time" Hawkings !assumes! a beginning (end of chos). He cannot show this nor can anyone else unfortunetly Exclamation

He also !assumes!, with good reason I am sure, that time cannot exist without change.

That is where we part company. Merely because change gives us humans a way to document time then time, by that definition, is merely a way to document change. A rather circular arguement. For another one read St.Thomas Aquinas who used the evidence that we exist to show that a God must also exist. Simply because we have the facility of imagination. This also a Buddist tenet. (This is but an illusion, reality consists of what we imagine)

But yet it is probable that time exists. The principle of causuality, the evidence of gamma particles whilst traversing space-time, and my being late for supper all are strong indications that time really does exist, probably on a universal scale if not a cosmic one.

The definition called spacetime which uses the speed of light (c) to calculate both speed and distance is similarly lacking. Or circular as a matter of opinion Very Happy

OK-- Thius learned company has held out on me long enough. What is IT Question

0 Replies

...

Gelisgesti wrote:

But I thought thoe question was 'how do you define time not 'how does Hawking, Einstein or DeBroglie define time'........

Hmm. It says, "How do you define time" which has a double meaning.

It could mean, "How do YOU define time", which matters about as much as, "What's your favorite color?".

The other way to read it is, "How does one define time". That meaning is often conveyed with the use of the collective YOU.

If this is the question, then it has considerably more merit. Rather than asking everyone to guess and go with their gut feeling, we are asking them to weigh in with relevant evidence to help our dialectic progress toward truth.

Furthermore, my understanding of time is largely based in our physical understanding of the universe. As that understanding changes, so does my opinion regarding time. Let me quote Hawking one more time:

Quote:

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory... Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

So, if you have a pet theory, and if you are trying to further that pet theory... ask yourself why you have emotionally attached yourself to it. Are you seeking the truth? Are you merely trying to make the truth fit into your current worldview?

0 Replies

Whether the universe was created or created itself I seriously doubt the use of even a formulae as simple as 2 + 3, yet everything fits together with precision.
I have megar education that does not include physics or anything higher than basic math so I don't feel comfortable in a discussion filled with or based on algorithms. I can accept that 5 can exist without the formulae 2+3.
The problem I see that most hinders the search for the 'great secrets' lies in building a box, then trying to design the contents. In nature the content (capacity) designs the box ..... resulting in a much better fit with zero wastage lending new meaning to 'think outside the box'.
Time is more
Than the grandfather clock in the hall
Counting erased seconds as they fall
Granting respite to none at all

Sorry, I see a poem I can't resist Wink

0 Replies

How do you define Time?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know