A Thought on Time and its characteristics

Originally posted by Saurus
In physics, motion is usually defined as a continuous change in the position of a body relative to a reference point, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference.

It mentions nothing of time. (Perhaps the word "continuous" might suggest 'time', but I don't feel that it is necessarily so...)

I Don't want to say this naive and that im the only one right here, maybe i got it wrong but listen to this: Every moving object has its own speed, and to calculate the speed you need bothe an object and time (taken at its base). So my point is; how could you calculate speed (movement) without having time ?

The answer is: you wouldn't have speed (movement), therefor it won't move.

And by the way: yes, every movement has its own speed and time elaps.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by userfame]

I think I would have to agree that motion=time seeing as that the motion of objects and light can change, affect, and stop time

Stopping time is like saying: im going to slice the cake so many times in half till there is no more cake left. There will always be time if there is movement (my weird theory just made up at 00:25am)

Freeze up the whole universe and tell me what you froze: the movement or time ? *probably bothe because one cant work without the other*

anyways, im going to sleep and stop annoying you ppl

cheers

Originally posted by userfame
So my point is; how could you calculate speed (movement) without having time ?

The answer is: you wouldn't have speed (movement), therefor it won't move.

And by the way: yes, every movement has its own speed and time elaps.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by userfame]

Or you could stop labelling everything for a second and look at what is really there - that movement in itself is abhorrent to the physical reality that is perceived and labelled by so called 'science'.

In a dimensionary context, you aren't moving at all, merely stretching your atoms.

If you wish to argue with me over whether or not there is more than one dimension, please do - i would enjoy facing down your mono-dimensionary science with my multi-dimensionary.

J/K.

When people talk about movement are they talking about an object like a bowl or a cup, or... are they talking about atoms.

the whole movement thing is becoming unclear to me. When atoms move around it isnt considered to be movement.

But when a human definable object is moved around then it is movement. In reality isnt it just a bunch of reactions between the atoms ?

And if this is true, there is no movement, just interactions between individual atoms. Or is a group of atoms that "generally" go from point a to point b considered movement ?

My definition of movement is based on observation from a HUMAN, not really what goes on at the quantum scale.

for one.. anything that changes position in space shoudl be considered movement. an atom.. or even just its electrons..

and to the post before.. streatching your atoms.. atoms change shape.. i'd say thats a form of motion in the first place, and in the second place, if something isnt labeled then how does one talk about some unlabeled thing.
if your saying "time" is just a word to describe some particular concept of human reality.. then your talking linguistics.
you also say movement is, basically, illogical in refference to physical reality, and that science is not science at all.

i dont understand your post at all.

especially since you add a "J/k" at the end..


-G

I Don't want to say this naive and that im the only one right here, maybe i got it wrong but listen to this: Every moving object has its own speed, and to calculate the speed you need bothe an object and time (taken at its base). So my point is; how could you calculate speed (movement) without having time ?

The answer is: you wouldn't have speed (movement), therefor it won't move.

And by the way: yes, every movement has its own speed and time elaps.

speed = distance/time

Humans have defined speed this way in order to give us certain information that we need. The fact that we have defined speed this way does not mean that time behaves according to our formula.

Otherwise I could say:

Let: Time = ice cream. And it would be so, because I have defined it that way. I feel the logic of your argument is flawed.

Zeno's paradox only works if there is no fundamental unit of time or space, ie, a unit so small that anything smaller is nothing. And since time is basically continuous, that means there has to be a fundamental unit of length. And since it can't be divided, the arrow crosses that distance in however much time is remaining, and you just got shot. Sorry to burst the logic field protecting you. Have a nice day.
Back on topic. Since if there was no time, everything in the universe would happen all at once and therefore we wouldn't be here having a massive existential crisis. So, I believe it's safe to say that there is, indeed, time. With that out of the way, I will continue to postulate on time until I run out of ideas or characters, whichever comes first. Since as velocity increases, local time slows in perception to someone who is outside of that frame of reference, it can be assumed that time and velocity are related in some way shape or form. Furthermore, if your velocity is equal to c, the speed of light in a vacuum, then to an observer time has stopped for you. So, the inverse of this would be that at 0 velocity, time has a normal value. Herein lies the question. What, exactly, is the normal value of time? Is it 1? Is it infinity? According to relativity, EVERYTHING is relative. Speed, time, position, are all measured on a relative scale. And I'm tired and going to bed, and if this makes sense to me tomorrow I'll try and finish it. If it doesn't I'll try and figure out wtf I was talking about and explain it better.

reply to post by GlahES


Wait, you think i was serious about the multi-dimensional science part?

Well, on a serious note i believe it's probable that at some dimensionary level every position in the universe contains an atomic (smaller possibly) level position - as in, there are geographical co-ordinates for every atom in the universe.

As such, Atoms would be stretching from one tiny co-ordinate to the other.

It's just a theory i cooked up without any real reasoning behind it.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Throbber]

So how do you prove that time is motion?

reply to post by Throbber


I thought u were serious untill I read the "J/K" at the end.. and i wasnt sure if u meant your whole post or just the last part..
All good.

Originally posted by Johnmike
So how do you prove that time is motion?

That was my exact second thought, Johnmike. Which is why I modified my opinion of a deffinition of time.


-G

Dont think that anyone can prove anything. But its worth a try to figure out what and how.

So atoms change their x,y,z in space/time and is considered movement.

Anyone have a clue about why their is a speed limit in the universe ie C ?

reply to post by R3KR


no idea why there is a speed limit.. especially set at the speed of light.. except we see at the speed of light.. light enters and we see it.. we can not percieve sppeds faster than light.. therefore we cannot concieve of them.. utterly flawed statement because we can, of cource, concieve of them.. just not percieve.

however ill mention setting the speed of light as C...
C.. a non number-descript.. eh.. letter.. heh..

id say there is no speed limit.. its like saying theres a limit on numerals.
theresa speed limit that the human body can withstand.. or more a acceleration limit..

you can be in a ship, sapce or sea-bearing, if you will, going a billion miles per second.. but relative to the objects around you.. how fast are you going?


-G

in addition to that.. how fast are you Truely going? its a relative term.. as is time in most senses.. especially to the senses of people that say time does not exist, id say..
yet we are digressing.. i am included in the we.
oh well.. digressions isnt always bad ^_^

-G

Originally posted by lonemaverick
Zeno's paradox only works if there is no fundamental unit of time or space, ie, a unit so small that anything smaller is nothing. And since time is basically continuous, that means there has to be a fundamental unit of length. And since it can't be divided, the arrow crosses that distance in however much time is remaining, and you just got shot. Sorry to burst the logic field protecting you. Have a nice day

This has been my point all along!!!

Space and time is finite and bounded on the infinitessimal end...

no responce to my words? or.. more of, no direct responce to my latest words in this thread.. heh.. can noone dispute my ranting? dont swell my ego, people!

^_^

-G

oh i looked back a post at a responce which held a quote and at the end.. it made me post again..

. Burst my logidc field! please! do it!..

burst it! come ooonnnn.. do it!

im just bored now.. sorry. had to.. bored.. u know how it is..

-G

The speed of light as a limit is only relevant in Einstein's model. It does not apply to any other model of the universe.

Any many are now doubting Einstein's model...

a good point, Saurus. Thank you for that.

-G

Interesting, Saurus. I was looking for a bit of info on traveling faster than light and came upon this article, www.newscientist.com.... It says that the speed of light was less than it is now about 2 billion years ago. It's quite interesting, and also brings up questions about the variability of time, since it passes more slowly if you are moving.

How about this...

There is no time.
Time is a man-made instrument.
A tool to measure motion.
Without time there is still motion.
Motion of the universe, the galaxy, the sun, the earth, everything.
Time measures the motion of such things.

Cycles are change.
Time also measures cycles.
Without time though, there are still cycles.
Life is a cycle, measured in time.
'Time' is a vortex.
And we exist as a cycle within a giant vortex.