|
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
|
|
|
The grandfather theory proves time travel wrong. You could, however, get frozen in time while time keeps moving past you, therefore traveling to the future... but the past is impossible.
|
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote:
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
I don't think I understand most of what you're saying. I have no idea where you got that definition of "dimension" from. When scientists state that time is a dimension, what they are referring to is that time itself is affected by space and inherently intertwined with it in a space-time continuum. We've proven time and time (no pun intended) of this inherent relationship. Also, you're really confusing with what time is all about. It is not universally constant, but rather relative. If I stand next to a black hole you will see me freeze as if time has stopped, but to me time will not have stopped.
Also, time does not stop for something going at the speed of light. It may look like it has stopped to an observer, but for the object going at the speed of light it will not have stopped. Again, time is relative not universal. If it were universal as a whole, then we would not see the gravitational effect on time, which is the basis for the Theory of Relativity. Once you get that you'll see that no scientist is confusing time with aging (although they are related no doubt).
Lastly time travel is a whole new different ballgame. For it to be possible, we'd be talkin about multiple dimensions which are so far unproven yet. Mathematically, however, it seems that people have been finding ways to get time travel possible in the distant future, although I'm not too sure about this stuff.
|
On June 19 2008 14:48 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 14:13 Ozarugold wrote:
Isn't there some theory or something that says that it is impossible for an object to be in two different places at the same time? Wouldn't it cause them to cancel each other out, or cause the universe to implode or something?
No... you're probably thinking of the pauli exclusion principle which states (basically) that it's impossible to have two identically particles in the SAME place at the same time. Pretty common sense, really.
Ah yeah...that was it...I forgot what it was called so I tried to remember it as best I could but my memories a bit rusty. I remember talking about this while watching Back to the Future and I know the word 'implosion' came up alot yet I can't remember why...
|
On June 19 2008 16:03 imBLIND wrote:
The grandfather theory proves time travel wrong.
no
|
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
|
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote:
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense.
Just because we can't change the rate at which we travel in time doesn't mean it's not a dimension. I tried to think of a metaphor but I failed T_T
|
Funchucks' argument is exactly the point. Until you have reached a conclusion on this, any speculation about time travel makes no sense.
|
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote:
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
|
On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
|
On June 19 2008 13:32 berkguyyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 13:20 ._. wrote:On June 19 2008 13:01 RamenStyle wrote:On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote:
Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH? I hope you are being sarcastic. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-timeActually he might have a bit of a point there. I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage.
Entropy is the arrow which shows us the direction time is going in. If time were going backwards, entropy would point the other way. Entropy is an equation that has time as a variable, not just an abstract concept that says the universe must move towards disorder.
|
Also, space and time are both dimensions. Think about dimensions on a 2-coordinate, x/y graph. It goes on forever. It isn't necessarily filled by anything. The dimensions are simply there to allow stuff to happen within them. Space and Time work just like X and Y. You can pinpoint a molecule by denoting its location in 3-dimensions and the time it was there in the same way you can specify the x and y coordinates on a graph.
But that doesn't mean that space or time physically exist. They are abstract concepts which we have defined.
|
On June 19 2008 16:50 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote:
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present. What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists.
A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists.
|
It no longer is accessible. It surely still exists in that exact configuration, if only it were possible for time itself to move back to that point.
And it might be. Who is to say that because we are only capable of moving in one direction that something not bound by space or time cannot simply observe the moment from outside of the four dimensions we have found?
|
On June 19 2008 17:03 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science. Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept. The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings". Show nested quote +Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence. If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable? Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical. Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
|
On June 19 2008 17:32 5HITCOMBO wrote:
It no longer is accessible. It surely still exists in that exact configuration, if only it were possible for time itself to move back to that point.
And it might be. Who is to say that because we are only capable of moving in one direction that something not bound by space or time cannot simply observe the moment from outside of the four dimensions we have found?
This is the dilemma of this thread. Is time real, in the sense that we can have a "t"-coordinate, that we may have in ACTUAL existence a present, past and future which we may visit? Or is time un-real, always flowing and changing, and hence existing only in the present? This is the ancient greek debate between Heraclitus and Parminedes, which is extended to "eternalism" and "presentism".
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe
|
On June 19 2008 17:32 5HITCOMBO wrote:
It no longer is accessible. It surely still exists in that exact configuration, if only it were possible for time itself to move back to that point.
And it might be. Who is to say that because we are only capable of moving in one direction that something not bound by space or time cannot simply observe the moment from outside of the four dimensions we have found?
Occam's razor. There is no reason to suppose the continued existence of past moments, the advance existence of future moments, or beings that live outside of the universe.
If you mean to say, "You can't prove it!"... well, yeah. I can't prove that electrons don't have tiny little elves driving them, either. I can't prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed a computer-generated hallucination, either.+ Show Spoiler +You are, actually. But it is calculated with over twelve nines of surety that you will dismiss this revelation as a joke and continue to serve our purposes.
beep
Occam's razor, or the principle of least silliness (as I like to call it), guides me to scrub unnecessary details from the model. It's the full logical development of the same principle I use to dismiss the possibility of secret goblin parties in my fridge.
|
On June 19 2008 17:12 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 13:32 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 13:20 ._. wrote:On June 19 2008 13:01 RamenStyle wrote:On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote:
Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH? I hope you are being sarcastic. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-timeActually he might have a bit of a point there. I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage. Entropy is the arrow which shows us the direction time is going in. If time were going backwards, entropy would point the other way. Entropy is an equation that has time as a variable, not just an abstract concept that says the universe must move towards disorder.
I disagree. Entropy is a spontaneous flow of objects towards messiness. The reason why entropy is increasing is of course due to the flow of time. If that time were reversed, then entropy would start decreasing. Let's take my room for instance. At the beginning it was quite clean but now it is rather dirty. Okay, let's travel back in time and suddenly my room is cleaning itself up. In other words, entropy is spontaneouly decreasing without any change in condition (except for the flow of time) which would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
|
On June 19 2008 17:37 berkguyyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 17:03 mahnini wrote:On June 19 2008 16:27 berkguyyy wrote:On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote:
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists. Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time. I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science. Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept. The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings". Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence. If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable? Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical. Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically. I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real? I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you). Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world. I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
