24
   

Is time linear?

 
 
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:00 am
@neologist,
It varies on factors outside the universe as we know it.

Though within the universe time tapers... always and forever, sometime parallel to material aging and sometimes polar to it, though time being merely an observable variable, this appears to mean more than it does... Psychological grasp of the motion of time amounts to little more than a novelty, actual real world alterations in temporal shift, alter only the subject, not the entirety of the area around such a thing.

Reversing temporal fields amount to measurable factors across other dimensional qualities. Again, as with zero point, we can see it, protect against it, but not truly insert a probe to accurately produce usable results, only intriguing results.

We can use time without pondering that issue in all ways, we will in fact do so, though no real endeavor to toy with it will be needed.

Unless usable results to you are to reach your own grasp that this is true and have a few novel tools for localised alteration faster. Though it begs the question why send extremes, IE: a bomb or some fruit, forward in time?.. The field will be affected by altered environmental factors too... That we have too much fruit today and not enough tomorrow is best fixed using resources wisely, not emitting vasts amount of energy to achieve the same result.

To localise temporal alteration the other direction alters everything, even in the facility, unless off world.... Temporal linearity of harvesting is flawed unless some other you dies because of it in another dimension. And that is simply non-viable in any terms applied as paradox occurs, paradox at %>0 error margin in one form or another which would not be realised, thus some form of decay would occur, if universal linearity of physics is standard, the decay margin variances set in taper as they are, allowed for in equations.

Forever we expend vast amounts of effort in placing tomorrows harvest from area one in area two's box, when errors we cannot account for need only be patiently averted, with patience and planning..

To step into temporal sciences use of time itself, we would have to prove our worth to alien races who fear their destruction. In my opinion, for little more than a novelty of expedience, in a universe where eternal survival already exists.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:31 am
@neologist,
I'm not sure, but how is time affected when one flies in an airplane, and the rotation of the earth is the basis of time?
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:37 am
@nothingtodo,
Again one can see that 0 is not the opposite of 1.

This is a mistake I make and many do in discussion, polar variables are classed as the extreme one can easily witness.
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:38 am
@cicerone imposter,
My above post contains the entire explanation of that, it is the same for orbiting and field expanse crossing space vessels... Time is different inside the vehicle to the observer here, but not different at all, since the field is accounted for.

If your having some difficulty with 0-1 arguments pertaining to every form of polar reaction, off axis polarities are the answer, +/- (+%v+)/(-%v-)

It is difficult to calculate at subatomic level, finite particles appear infinitely diverse.
0 Replies
 
CMann92
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2014 11:11 pm
@Wilso,
Well based off of Einstein's special theory of relativity when you are moving at a speed close to the speed of light you perceive time differently from an observer onlooking. So when something amasses a speed close to the speed of light time dilates and you age slower than someone who is on earth (assuming you are traveling in space).
Think of it this way, if you travel to a planet that is 10 light years away and you return you would have aged much slower than everyone here on earth has. The faster you move the more time dilates. If we get in a car and travel we would still age slower than someone at rest but it is such a small number that it doesn't make a difference.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 09:18 am
To the first poster: The clock signals the motion of earth when rotating on its axis. The motion is taken using the Sun as the reference, the earth rotates and faces the Sun, and every time a fixed point faces straight the Sun, this rotation period is called a day. For more accurate purposes, the period of a day has been divided in parts (hours, minutes, seconds, nanoseconds)

Time is nothing but the comparison of motion between bodies. In this case, the motion of earth in comparison to the Sun gave us the day and year (rotation and orbit of the earth towards the Sun).

The same applies to the motion observed with the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium, which is used in the atomic clocks. The device counts 9'192,631,770 vibrations and whoa! you have a second.

So, you know now that time is nothing but a measurement, where without a fixed motion of a body you can't make a clock to base a data.

About our internal clock, we just fall in illusions all the time. You are bored and you will fill that "time passes by very slow", you are very busy and "time pass by very fast". Nothing but illusions, because you perceive motion and no motion around you will make you feel that time passes slow. This demonstrates as well that time is nothing but a measure based in motion.

The Relativity theory of Einstein is nothing but pure fantasies. It was validated by a fraud committed by Eddington, who made make ups to the plates of the expeditions to validate Relativity at all cost (read Einstein's Luck book). In reality time can't dilate, such is ridiculous as to say that you eat a lot and get fat and heavy and Einstein tells you that you are not the affected one but that "weight" (the measurement itself) is heavier because your diet... ha ha ha.

Well, such is what Relativity is, garbage to the square.

Time, in its best definition, is the data obtained by the comparison of motion of bodies. This includes decay, because decay is also motion of micro-particles or micro-organisms that will cause the losing of properties.

No big deal about what is time, unless you want to cross the border of science and get into the world of fantasies, where you can read about time dilatation, black holes, parallel universes and all those ridiculous ideas that run in science books.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 12:19 am
@Heliotrope,
Quote:
First off you have to understand that no one knows what Time may be.


I agree, you might even say ´time´ doesn´t exist.

No, how the hell can those dumb physicists make absurd theories and what have you, in which they use ´time´, but in the meantime don´t know what ´time´ is, it really is ridiculous offcourse.
Hence the nonsense of ´relativity theory´, time dilation and all that nonsense.
{see the tread on debunkung relativity). How the hell can something that doesn´t exist dilate or watever? But whoooooee the whone who says so, blasphemie! right?
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 12:21 am
@carloslebaron,
Ohhhh how do I agree!!!! I hadn´t read your posting before I posted mine.

well, I go further then your statemenst and say ´all of "All of Modern physics" is very dumb and idiotic and haven't brought us anything at all!
0 Replies
 
hobbet360
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2014 04:53 am
Time is made up of circles, that's why clocks are round. Razz

But according to Batman; the past affects the future as well as the future affecting the present and everything else. Smile
0 Replies
 
Jack Yen
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2015 11:07 pm
@neologist,
Hi, I know you are probably expecting a sciency reply, as this is why you put the question here. Yet, I want to go philosophical. For example, in the religious sense, it seems like different religions have their own interpretations on time, and that's usually the main distinction of religions. Christianity believes that time is linear, and in Buddhism,cyclical.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:09 am
@Jack Yen,
Why would anyone thumb down your post?
I gave it a thumb up out of mercy, even though I did not quite understand it
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:19 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
Apparently, the faster you move, the slower time runs for you.


That depends on what is intended by the words "for you."

Your clock will slow down (compared to one motionless or moving slower). But you will not notice that when going about you business. Everything slows down, so you can't detect any difference.

Forgive me if this distinction has been made already. I haven't read the whole thread yet.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:26 am
@Chumly,
Quote:
a comprehensive explanation was given only in this century by Einstein, who declared, in effect, time is simply what a clock reads.


Heh, that is deemed to be a "comprehensive explanation" of what time is?

Who knew?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:32 am
@neologist,
Quote:
knowing a stationary observer is not possible.


1. Why would you say that a stationary observer is "not possible?"

2. On what grounds are you claiming to "know" that?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I once read many years ago that we go back in time when we cross the international dateline.


When Magellan first circumnavigated the globe he kept very detailed and precise logs. Every time the sun "went down" and then "rose again," a new day was recorded.

When he got back to Spain (or wherever he came from) it turned out that a day was missing from his logs.

According to him, it was, say, January 1, but according to Spanish calendars it was January 2. According to him 644 days had passed since he first left port, but according to the Spaniards, 645 days had passed (those figures are just arbitrary, for the sake of example).

How could this be? Because he himself (but not the Spaniards) actually went all the way around the globe, he saw one less "sunrise" and "sunset." Each day, inch by inch, mile by mile, he was very slowing moving away from the place he saw the sun rise on day 1 (Spain). Put another way, he experienced one less revolution of the earth than a stationary party would have.

He did not "go back in time." Nor did "less time" elapse for him and his crew. He simply came up with a different "measurement" of that time, due to his motion.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 12:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I'm not sure, but how is time affected when one flies in an airplane, and the rotation of the earth is the basis of time?


If you do that, you can use special relativity to predict the time difference that will accrue between two clocks. But, using SR, those predictions will be wrong.

The Hafele-Keating plane experiments showed that, compared to a stationary clock in Washington, D. C. a clock on a plane travelling west lost time (went slower), while a clock on a plane travelling east gained time (went faster).

On it's face, this appears to be contrary to what special relativity (but not some other theories of relative motion) would predict. In order to make accurate predictions (i.e.. one's that matched the actual, recorded empirical results), they could NOT use the Washington clock as a reference point. They had to use a hypothetical clock located at the non-rotating ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame of reference.

I am assuming that the Washington clock would comport with what you are positing as "rotation of the earth is the basis of time."

Maybe you meant something else.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 12:20 pm
@neologist,
Everyone please forgive this layman's ignorance, but aren't we talking about a specific definition of time? Aren't physicist talking about a different type of time when asking what is the time time of day? Isn't the time of day based on the Earth rotating on it's axis and the sphere's 360 degrees divided by 15 (per every thousand mile) giving us 24 hours?

That the time of year is based on the Earth's revolution orbiting the Sun?
So are we asking is time linear in accordance to the physicist definition of time or the time we use to record our time here on Earth?

We can mentally think beyond a linear frame work I believe... even multitask. But can we physically experience up and down, back and fort at the same time experiencing a non-linear existence? If were able to travel back in time would we be traversing still a linear path?

Which is different then moving faster then the speed of light and retarding our aging process.

Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from?
Perhaps independent definitions of the different Times are needed to lessen the confusion?

layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 12:40 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from?
Perhaps independent definitions of the different Times are needed to lessen the confusion?


It's actually just the other way around, Arg. Positing that simultaneity is "relative," as Einstein does in his theory of special relativity, simply leads to an infinite number of "standards" for ascertaining the time. All these "independent times" merely create confusion and generate so-called "paradoxes."

All that is easily avoided by simply positing that simultaneity is absolute (not relative) and developing your "theory of relative motion" from there. Such theories have been called AST (absolute simultaneity theories). When it come to making accurate predictions, they are every bit "as good as" (and in some cases better than) special relativity, so it's not like there is no choice, or that one has been empirically proven to be right, and the other wrong.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 06:26 pm
@layman,
Quote:
It's actually just the other way around, Arg. Positing that simultaneity is "relative," as Einstein does in his theory of special relativity, simply leads to an infinite number of "standards" for ascertaining the time. All these "independent times" merely create confusion and generate so-called "paradoxes."

All that is easily avoided by simply positing that simultaneity is absolute (not relative) and developing your "theory of relative motion" from there. Such theories have been called AST (absolute simultaneity theories). When it come to making accurate predictions, they are every bit "as good as" (and in some cases better than) special relativity, so it's not like there is no choice, or that one has been empirically proven to be right, and the other wrong.


So you are saying that both Times, daylight saving time,Greenwich time, Pacific time, eastern standard time etc, is the same as space time that Einstein was talking about in his theory of relativity?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 06:48 pm
@argome321,
No, I'm not saying that, Arg. I guess I wasn't really responding to your specific point. I was just responding in general by saying that multiple definitions generally confuse things when you're trying to talk about the same thing, e.g., time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is time linear?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 07:50:30