At 10/31/11 01:39 AM, chiefindomer wrote:

At 10/31/11 01:28 AM, RobJohnson wrote: wrong.
time is a measurement system used to sequence events.

Time is what allows a sequence of events to take place. A sequence of events is a physical representation of time.

You're wrong.

Time itself doesn't do anything.

I invite you to look up time in any dictionary, or even Wikipedia

At 10/31/11 01:46 AM, RobJohnson wrote: You're wrong.

Nope.

Time itself doesn't do anything.

If that were true, how would a sequence of events even be possible.

I invite you to look up time in any dictionary, or even Wikipedia

I have and it doesn't contradict anything I've stated, it merely states that some may not agree with my viewpoint.

From your source- "One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence."

From what I've read about physics, this is the most logical view to have and just about every physicist I've heard talking about time has this view. You're either completely misunderstanding my posts/that article or you haven't even read the article that you linked to, or both.

At 10/31/11 02:16 AM, chiefindomer wrote: I'm wrong but I refuse to accept it

okay.

I guess time would depend on what you are occupying yourself with.
Say a person in solitary confinement thinks an hour is a whole day, as they have nothing to do and their mind is completely unoccupied.
While a person playing a video game is preoccupied with several aspects in the game and doesn't care for the time.

It can be slowed down, but only by natural human instinct. Even then, though, does it rarely happen.

go watch the episode of "Through the Wormhole" titled "Does Time Exist?"

IT'S FUCKING FASCINATING!

At 10/31/11 02:19 AM, RobJohnson wrote: okay.

I like how you don't even attempt to address my points and instead use the old "I'm right, you're wrong, nah nah boo boo". Your childishness is amusing though.

At 10/31/11 02:32 AM, chiefindomer wrote:

At 10/31/11 02:19 AM, RobJohnson wrote: okay.

I like how you don't even attempt to address my points and instead use the old "I'm right, you're wrong, nah nah boo boo". Your childishness is amusing though.

that's pretty much what you did and that's why I gave up.... because I'd be here all day arguing with you, since its about as productive as arguing my point with my cat.... he will still say meow regardless of what i say or do?

But why not? I'm bored.

First we have your original post

time itself is a naturally occurring phenomenon

At 10/31/11 02:16 AM, chiefindomer wrote: From your source- "One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence."

Here is the full quote

One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[4]

Newtonian time copied from the wikipedia article:

According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent aspects of objective reality.[1]

Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ...

( duration - The measure of continuance of any object or event within Time)

According to Newton, Absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. unlike relative time, Newton believed Absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the moon or sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.

So from that we gather you are definitely NOT referring to relative time... and instead are completely referring to Newtonian time or absolute time.

These notions imply that absolute space and time do not depend upon physical events, but are a backdrop or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur. Thus, every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.

But Einstein proved through

relativity of simultaneity thatthrough an observer's frame of reference whether two events occur at the same time-is not absolute, and that Newton's concepts of absolute time and space were flawed, since it is entirely based on observation.

At 10/30/11 10:49 PM, TrantaLocked wrote: Physicists throw around the term time as if it were some thing changeable, let alone even a a thing itself.

Time is a constant measurement. A second is a second, and always will be. I don't get how in some situations time can "slow down."

No, what they mean is it takes less time to get somewhere basically, the faster you go. They just put it into the term you described above for the layman.

Like, I could walk to your house, or I could drive. Driving takes less time, even though it's the same distance. The earth, people, etc. move at the same pace, but you're moving faster. It all appears normal until you approach light speed, then it gets weird.

Now, remember I said everything around you moves at the same pace, except you, because you're moving faster? Well, if you go fast enough, near light speed, and everything around you moves at it's normal pace, it's almost like they're standing still. They move so much slower than you do, in relation to your speed, that time appears to slow down, or stop altogether.

If you could go the speed of light, for an hour, you could theoretically go into the future, due to what I explained above. You'll be moving ridiculously fast. Faster than the hand on a clock moves, faster than the blink of an eye.

The sattelites that gives us the internet that you're on, or that track gps signals do this. In order to accurately tell you where to go next, they have to track your signal, gather information, and send info back to tell you where to turn next. And they have to do this way before you even approach where you need to turn, so it seems instantaneous.

They are actually moving faster than you are on the ground, sending information faster, and processing it faster, at lightning speed. So on the ground, it feels instantaneous, but actually, what's happening already happened way before you receive the information.

There are more examples of this, and I'm no expert, but this has been scientifically proven, it's backed up by Einstein's equations, and it proves how time travel could be possible.(well, at least forward time travel. Backwards time travel is still unlikely)

It's not like time is linear by any means, or that time exists, but that the faster you move compared to your environment, the slower everything will move around you, only because you are moving a million times faster. It's like showing a fbf animation at 24 frames per second with only 5 frames of animation. The frames move so much faster than your eyes can read them, that the animation appears only a second long. If you lower the fps than it will appear longer.

That's the basic concept, tho I'm no quantum physicist, so I can't really elaborate much further, but that's basically how I understand it. Could be missing something, but yea.

Time goes by, so slowly..

am i the only one who wants to rip all the arguments present here to shreds, and suddenly realised it would be too tedious to do? my IQ dropped slightly even after reading a couple of posts here.

long story short, google lorentz transformation and minkowski diagram for a simpllied version of the theory of relativity.

Also, a lot of physicists view time as a separate dimension. Gravity, light, etc. all warp what's referred to as space-time, a flexible fabric of reality. It's actually pretty fascinating stuff, that I don't full understand, but it's interesting to learn about/talk about.

Also, someone posted Newton in here, and it should be noted that:

most of what newton theorized about space and time has been thrown out the window by physicists today. You can thank Einstein's theory of relativity for that. In fact, a great many theories that are around today, completely reject and usurp older Newtonian ideas. But again, I'm no expert, so if you don't believe me, just look it up.

At 10/31/11 03:46 AM, WallofYawn wrote: most of what newton theorized about space and time has been thrown out the window by physicists today. You can thank Einstein's theory of relativity for that. In fact, a great many theories that are around today, completely reject and usurp older Newtonian ideas. But again, I'm no expert, so if you don't believe me, just look it up.

(puts a bullet through my head)
newtonian mechanics is the limiting case, where speed of light apporaches infinity. the general theory of relativity must satisfy this proerty. new theories and models are merely a 'correction' for newtonian mechanics. if you jave some knowledge of four vectors, you'll see the definition of force is also the time derviative of four momentum.

guys

time only slows down when your in teh void

At 10/30/11 11:28 PM, TrantaLocked wrote: A clock will always tick at the same rate, no matter where it is, or what speed it is going at (as long as outside factors don't disturb it's inner electronics/mechanics). That is the idea I am talking about, if that helps.

But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

Spacetime mother fucker.

Learn it.

At 10/31/11 03:00 AM, RobJohnson wrote: that's pretty much what you did and that's why I gave up....

Maybe you should reread the thread, I was actually giving an explanation, whereas you just said I was wrong and refused to accept it, without explaining why.

First we have your original post

time itself is a naturally occurring phenomenon

copy pasta
So from that we gather you are definitely NOT referring to relative time... and instead are completely referring to Newtonian time or absolute time.

What I was getting at is time is not just a man made concept, hence it is naturally occurring, and that it is an observable occurrence, as in experiencing a sequence of events. These things are not contradicted by Newtonian or Relative time and both, in fact, would agree on this.

relativity of simultaneity thatthrough an observer's frame of reference whether two events occur at the same time-is not absolute, and that Newton's concepts of absolute time and space were flawed, since it is entirely based on observation.

Well, I guess it's a good thing I never claimed things like time dilation or simultaneity do not occur.

Rather than watching you post more copy pasta, in hopes that something you post will contradict something I've said, why don't you just explain how time does not naturally occur and how it isn't an observable occurrence?

At 10/31/11 08:50 AM, chiefindomer wrote:

At 10/31/11 03:00 AM, RobJohnson wrote: that's pretty much what you did and that's why I gave up....

Maybe you should reread the thread, I was actually giving an explanation, whereas you just said I was wrong and refused to accept it, without explaining why.

First we have your original post

time itself is a naturally occurring phenomenon

copy pasta
So from that we gather you are definitely NOT referring to relative time... and instead are completely referring to Newtonian time or absolute time.

What I was getting at is time is not just a man made concept, hence it is naturally occurring, and that it is an observable occurrence, as in experiencing a sequence of events. These things are not contradicted by Newtonian or Relative time and both, in fact, would agree on this.

relativity of simultaneity thatthrough an observer's frame of reference whether two events occur at the same time-is not absolute, and that Newton's concepts of absolute time and space were flawed, since it is entirely based on observation.

Well, I guess it's a good thing I never claimed things like time dilation or simultaneity do not occur.

Rather than watching you post more copy pasta,

So you ask me to provide you sources because you say I am the one with the "nah nah i cant hear you" attitude..... and then when I do so, you don't even respond to my points and just say "blah blah copypasta" and then go off topic and attack the portions of quoted text that were obviously not contextually related to the argument whatsoever.

The underlined bits are obviously what I wanted you to read and comprehend.

in hopes that something you post will contradict something I've said, why don't you just explain how time does not naturally occur and how it isn't an observable occurrence?

first of all, time, whether relative (linear) or absolute (spacial) are ways of observing time.

One is conceived as a timeline with points, while the other a grid with coordinates.

Neither a timeline nor a grid are natural occurrences... as they are ways of organizing data.

At 10/30/11 10:56 PM, Painbringer wrote: Time is constant, but the way we perceive it can vary depending on our neural activity.

short sweet and true

At 10/31/11 09:35 AM, RobJohnson wrote: So you ask me to provide you sources because you say I am the one with the "nah nah i cant hear you" attitude..... and then when I do so, you don't even respond to my points and just say "blah blah copypasta" and then go off topic and attack the portions of quoted text that were obviously not contextually related to the argument whatsoever.

The underlined bits are obviously what I wanted you to read and comprehend.

And they are completely irrelevant to what I had stated to begin with. That time is not just a man made concept and that it is observable. Nothing you copy/pasted contradicted that.

first of all, time, whether relative (linear) or absolute (spacial) are ways of observing time.

One is conceived as a timeline with points, while the other a grid with coordinates.

Neither a timeline nor a grid are natural occurrences... as they are ways of organizing data.

A timeline or a grid would just be representations of the way time occurs, not time itself. Time is observable in the sense that it is possible to experience a sequence of events and we can clearly see that there is such a thing as a past, present, and future.

At 10/31/11 09:50 AM, chiefindomer wrote:

At 10/31/11 09:35 AM, RobJohnson wrote: So you ask me to provide you sources because you say I am the one with the "nah nah i cant hear you" attitude..... and then when I do so, you don't even respond to my points and just say "blah blah copypasta" and then go off topic and attack the portions of quoted text that were obviously not contextually related to the argument whatsoever.

The underlined bits are obviously what I wanted you to read and comprehend.

And they are completely irrelevant to what I had stated to begin with. That time is not just a man made concept and that it is observable. Nothing you copy/pasted contradicted that.

first of all, time, whether relative (linear) or absolute (spacial) are ways of observing time.

One is conceived as a timeline with points, while the other a grid with coordinates.

Neither a timeline nor a grid are natural occurrences... as they are ways of organizing data.

A timeline or a grid would just be representations of the way time occurs, not time itself.

Obviously they are merely representations of time, and not time itself... but it is the observation of the data where the entire concept of time comes about.

Time is observable in the sense that it is possible to experience a sequence of events and we can clearly see that there is such a thing as a past, present, and future.

...and it is the observation of the events that gives the observer the sense of time.

Without the observer relative time is just a list of events, and absolute time is a list of locations and events (durations) represented as mathematical data.

At 10/31/11 10:10 AM, RobJohnson wrote: Obviously they are merely representations of time, and not time itself... but it is the observation of the data where the entire concept of time comes about.

...and it is the observation of the events that gives the observer the sense of time.

Yes, our concept of time comes from our ability to observe the effects of time itself. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say time is observable.

Without the observer relative time is just a list of events, and absolute time is a list of locations and events (durations) represented as mathematical data.

Without an observer, time itself wouldn't just cease to function, it would just mean that our concept of time would no longer exist. Time existed well before humans did, we weren't there to observe it from the start, but we know that it still functioned billions of years before we were around to observe it.

I think the only case I heard of time slowing down is when you are going really, really fast like over the speed of light. I'm not sure what other kinds of time slowing down there is, but I have heard that there was this one guy in space who was actually able to travel back in time by like ten seconds because he was going so fast, but as far as I know, that has never been surpassed. Read some books by Stephen Hawking to further educate yourself.

I don't care.

I'm sorry, I just don't do.

I love the majority of 20 something year old liberal hipsters who haven't studied physics that give their deluded opinions on a subject they know nothing about.

Time is not a constant, pick up a physics textbook.

At 10/31/11 10:41 AM, chiefindomer wrote: Without an observer, time itself wouldn't just cease to function, it would just mean that our concept of time would no longer exist. Time existed well before humans did, we weren't there to observe it from the start, but we know that it still functioned billions of years before we were around to observe it.

I disagree, but there is no way for me to prove you wrong or vice versa.
You may remember these words from the article you quoted earlier:

Two distinct viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[4] An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events.

it seems we will have to agree to disagree

At 10/31/11 03:00 AM, RobJohnson wrote:

At 10/31/11 02:32 AM, chiefindomer wrote:

At 10/31/11 02:19 AM, RobJohnson wrote: okay.

According to Newton, Absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. unlike relative time, Newton believed Absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the moon or sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.

However, according to many experiments I found I am still amazed that even relative time can slightly differ based on location and speed in space and gravity.

Honestly, I could write paragraphs about why you're wrong, but here's an easier proof.

GPS satellites that don't take relativity into account don't work. Over time they begin to give the wrong position. Once you factor in the fact that because they're going pretty fast in orbit, and that time will be going fractionally faster for them, causing them to lose sync with their "targets" on Earth, you can correct for it, and then they work.

At 11/1/11 05:37 AM, TheMaster wrote: and that time will be going fractionally faster for them

From our reference frame. We appear to be going slower from the frame of the satellite. Not sure if how I worded that made that clear.

At 11/1/11 05:38 AM, TheMaster wrote:

At 11/1/11 05:37 AM, TheMaster wrote: and that time will be going fractionally faster for them

From our reference frame. We appear to be going slower from the frame of the satellite. Not sure if how I worded that made that clear.

Wait, no, other way around. Fuck off, I just got out of bed.