It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The concept of Time just Made UP?!?!?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:00 PM
Alright, I see where your going with this, but even in your explaination prooves there IS time. If a planet was stationary and it was point at the sun all you would see is the sun, but remember that light has a speed. If you have a speed then there HAS to be time. Time is just relative to the observer, and our relative time is how you know it today(24hrs in a day). There have been MANY experiments to proove that time does exist., but like I said our perception on time is all relative! That damn smart Einstien!

[edit on 6-7-2005 by TravisT]

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:24 PM
The whole point with regards to Einstein's theories is that the relative passage of time never changes no matter what speed you are travelling.

The fact is, what we deem as being 'still' is a purely relativisitc one. The solar system still moves through the galaxy, the galaxy is still moving through the universe.

Without including the forbidden 'ether' (another debate perhaps), then there is nothing in this universe, and can be nothing in this universe, to use as a frame of reference to say what speed we are actually moving.

I think I am gathering where you are going with this

If you are suggesting a similar question to the old motion "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound? " then I do not think I am the person to answer.
Perhaps time only started with the first human consiousness, perhaps it only started at yours or mine birth, but classical observations dictate that the passage of time has occurred well before we were here, and will continue to well after we are gone.

This thread could now evolve into anything from creationism to scifi....could be fun

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:32 PM
You're all talking about clocks

If clocks weren't invented, and there was no word for time. "Time" would still pass. It's not like you would just freeze because there was no word for it or anything to show it.

If you take clocks away, you're still moving forward into the future.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:38 PM
even though you say there would be no speed without time, we still break it down and work the 'speed' out using our concept of time, that we invented. this means the speed is measured by taking the distance traveled and how long it took to get from A to B using our method of seconds, minutes, hours etc.

with the exception of us, i don't think there is any concept of time. if the universe is infinite then there is no need to calculate how long it has been here, or how long it will be here etc because it would be impossible to calculate as the never was a start nor will there be any end. its an endless amount of expansions and crunches, yet time doesn't need to be a factor here. we only use time to understand the velocity of an object, to measure things and so on... outside of our tiny world, time has no relavence.

Originally posted by Ken_Allen
You're all talking about clocks

If clocks weren't invented, and there was no word for time. "Time" would still pass. It's not like you would just freeze because there was no word for it or anything to show it.

If you take clocks away, you're still moving forward into the future.

im not saying that without our concept of time we would simply stop. we have that concept of time because of our position in the solar system. if we didn't count how many times the sun rises and sets then we wouldn't stop existing. yet, there is only the concept of time, time passing, passed, present and future because we invented this concept of time where you're either in the passed, present or future. you say ''we're moving in to the future''...however, we are only ''moving in to the future'' because of our invented concept of time, which is dicated by our position in our solar system. if we weren't here, the universe would carry on what it's doing, yet i don't believe that 'seconds', 'minutes', or 'hours' would be passing by. time is only passing by for us. time is irrelavent elsewhere in the universe.

we estimate the universe is something like 14 billion years old, however we only do this by using our own dating method of time, or our own interpretation of this 'time' concept.

i think what everyone needs to do is forget about this invisible, on-going thing that we're passing through called time. the general thought is that 'time will still be going on, minutes and hours ticking by, even if we weren't here'. however, i don't believe that would be the case. time only passes by in our minds because we invented a way of keeping track of where we are in the solar system. we think that time 'has' to exist because we live for 70 years and then die, we're born and then die so there has to be some sort of lineage which we are on. however, again i believe this is wrong. just because we are born and die does not mean there has to be 'time'.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by shaunybaby]

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by shaunybaby
. time only passes by in our minds because we invented a way of keeping track of where we are in the solar system.

Completely wrong, my sense of time has nothing to do with the sun rising and falling.

Yes on a biological level my body is influenced by these things, but to suggest that without the orbit around the sun the human conciousness would not have evolved to the extent that it can account for a past present and future (hypothetically presuming that there was a way of sustaining life without the sun, and that the all external influences except the sight of the sun were the same), is just wrong imo.

The measurements would have been different, but the speed that I think at would not have changed, the number of breaths I take for the half life of an particular isotope would not have changed.

I would still fundamentally perceive the passage of time.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:52 PM
Simply because we puny humans, with our compromised senses, perceive "The Passage of Time" is no reason to infer, little less conclude, that our concept of Time has in any way, shape, or form an influence upon Reality! The sheer Hubris of such an assumption is all but incomprhensible!

Show me a "particle" of Time, if you please! As things are made up of smaller things so too you would presuppose that Time is the composite of ....What? Eons? Years? Months? Weeks? Seconds? Shall we go smaller still?

Show me the vaunted "Chronon"; the supposed "smallest partition of Time itself".

And even if you could isolate the wee legendary beastie, you have to bring the Universe itself to a screeching, crashing, full dead stop, since as quantum theory points out; one can never know the both the position and the character of an elemental particle.

To examine a sigle "instant" of Time, one would have to be able to fully stop the "flow of Time", thus rendering one's examination impossible, since the Observer would of course be imobilized by the very stasis required for the Observation!

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:42 PM
Oh jeez, not this crap again! Can someone explain to Maiden Mayhem that time is not limited but does include the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis and] revolve around the earth. There are also time characteristics associated with the moon, waves, and light. Time is a measurement, it is not simply just the earth and the sun.

MM, you are exemplifying a common mistake. Time is a measurement of intervals. I clap my hand once, clap again. I measure the distance between the two with several other like experiments to confirm my results and say that is one clap. If I increase the speed at which my hand hits then hits again 2 fold, that is half a clap. An advanced alien race or god for that matter can not tell me I was inferrior in my measurement.

A great book to read on this subject is Space Time Physics by Wheeler and Taylor. Get it if you can.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:45 PM
Without losing thw whole point of the thread, would you all tend to agree that the populace of earth would be alot happier without time measurments, or clocks?

I mean, you wouldnt be stressed about getting to work, being on holidays would see longer, because you don't have to be anywhere until yuo get there

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:25 PM
hahah....i like the way disaster boy thinks haha what a stress free life that would be...and we would live longer without that added stress haha

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:46 AM
''time = measurement''

what exactly do we measure. its not physical. we can't see it. yet, we can measure it. its almost impossible to explain without using the word 'time'. i would say you are measuring the time between two different points. you could argue to a certain point that it is a measurement. but could you do it without using the word 'time'.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:47 AM
Time is not real.Most people consider time passing because of visual changes(or even mortality).Visual change does not prove time at all.Energy cannot be desroyed, only changed.Even if your body dies, the mass is still there(only change of form).Does that mean that mass and energy are somehow timeless in nature? You can not totaly destroy anything, just break it apart further.How can death(of a person or plant) or the decay of a star PROVE TIME.How does physical change denote a "passage" of time.Change is a far better term to use,time is only a measurement of that change.The past and future are now.Change is only activity(life) of an object/'s.The universe cannot prove time, things cannot appear from nothing, it means that it is has and always will be(timeless).

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:35 PM
Because this is a clear explanation, here is the definition of Time from Encarta:

Time, conscious experience of duration, the period during which an action or event occurs. Time is also a dimension representing a succession of such actions or events. Time is one of the fundamental quantities of the physical world, similar to length and mass in this respect. The concept that time is a fourth dimension—on a par with the three dimensions of space: length, width, and depth—is one of the foundations of modern physics. Time measurement involves the establishment of a time scale in order to refer to the occurrence of events.

Einstein’s first major contribution to the study of time occurred in 1905, when he introduced his special theory of relativity and showed how time changes with motion. The word relativity derives from the fact that the appearance of the world depends on the observer’s state of motion and is relative to the observer. Today scientists do not see problems of time or motion as absolute with single correct answers. Because time is relative to the speed an observer is traveling, there can never be a clock at the center of the universe to which everyone can set his or her watch. Einstein’s special theory of relativity tell us that an object traveling at high speeds ages more slowly than an object that is not traveling as fast.

Interestingly enough, it goes on to talk about time dilation.

Time dilation effects due to motion were experimentally observed in the early 1970s. Researchers placed atomic clocks on commercial airliners and observed the expected changes in time as measured by those clocks relative to similar clocks on the ground. In particular, when the planes traveled east, in the direction of Earth’s rotation, the clocks on the airliners were 59 nanoseconds (59 billionths of a second) slow relative to the atomic clocks on the ground. When the airplanes traveled west, the clocks were 273 nanoseconds fast. This discrepancy is caused by the rotation of Earth, which causes an additional time dilation. If the effect of Earth's rotation is removed, the time dilation produced by the motion of the airliners confirms Einstein's theory of how time changes with motion, as the dilation is in agreement with predictions made by the theory.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:45 PM
Time is real! The reason I kept using death in my explanations is because I meant death as a result of old age. The reason that happens is because over time your body deteriorates or whatever it does. The point is basically anything happening is proof of time, simply because it happened. Me typing this has taken time. The dinosaurs are no longer around because over time they became extinct. If time didn't exist things wouldn't happen because there would be no change. I think change and time go hand in hand because any change in anything shows a movement in time. I wouldn't think there was time if everything was frozen in one place.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:57 PM
but see your saying a "change" over "time" as if time existed...if earth wasnt around...then this occurance would just be a "change" and not over any time period because time couldn't exist. If you had said "the body starts to rot as a change in physical attributes" this would be a true statement any where in the universe...but only on earth could there be the statement "the body starts to rot as a change in physical attributes over a distance in time". i still have not been convince that time really exists outside of earth's atmosphere.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:59 PM
You people are crazy. I can teach time to a five year old by drawing a line on a chalk board from when a drop of water leaves a hole in a cup till it hits the ground.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Maiden Mayhem
but see your saying a "change" over "time" as if time existed...if earth wasnt around...then this occurance would just be a "change" and not over any time period because time couldn't exist.

Oh snap. That sentence cleared things up. I see what you are saying now. Say I was floating in the middle of outer space and I blink... It happened but there is nothing to measure it against and nothing to put it into context so basically thats all I can say about it.. "It happened" but it did not happen in the grasp of any type of time. Basically saying that there is nothing to put what has happened into context with time helps me understand it the most.


I give you my vote for WATS mainly because you are the first person to actually change my views on something. Haha now I see things differently.


Yes, this battle is over but the war is not.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:10 PM
Hahaha thanks alot BlackOctober.

Originally posted by Frosty
You people are crazy. I can teach time to a five year old by drawing a line on a chalk board from when a drop of water leaves a hole in a cup till it hits the ground.

As for frosty's statement. you could only teach this kid what you want him to know because he is a kid and absorbs anything you throw at him as also think Santa Clause is real because we tell them he is as adults, but that damn well doesn't mean it is me...i looked from him haha...

Now you try taking this concept of time and teaching it to an alien race with no planet rotation or gravitation pull to get that drop of water to can't be done...because time only exists on Earth.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:17 PM
I want to try and explain the concept to Frosty.

Ahem, ok when you are on Earth we have all of these measurements of time. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc... So when a change happens, say you throw a ball, you can say, "Ok, it took 3 seconds for the ball to hit the ground."

Now, it might be hard but, hypothetically say you can survive in outer space. Alright so say you are born in the middle of outer space by yourself and you have never heard of any of these measurements of time. All you know is you are there. Now say in that situation you throw a ball. All you could really do is say, "I threw the ball and it hit the ground." Things would just happen, not in any amount of time.

It is hard to explain, you kind of have to get it yourself and when you do it will click and see what MaidenMayhem is talking about. You have to look at the way you see time from a different point of view.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:19 PM
do i get a wats vote for coming up with the idea?

pretty please...

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:23 PM
Ya Shaunybaby, Im actually going to vote on you right now...its was originally your views that make me start to believe in the first place...which is why i had to give you credit in the beginning of the post

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in