glycolysis

I dont believe its a valid concept...it doesnt exist. IMO, from observation, it is relative to periodic divisions constructed by the mind. For example If I am intensely focused on a physical activity, time seems infinitely divisible by my perception and seconds are percieved nearer to the typical perception of minutes. Paradoxically, when focused on studies time seems shorter; hours pass as though it has only been minutes.

Space, length, height and width are certainly easier to understand. they are physical constants with physical markers, and it seems that time is defined in relation to them. I just cant get time into the equation.

If someone could enlighten me as to what time is...

Thanks.

spacer1

Time is a measure of motion or change.

stretch

Wanna read some fun stuff on time? Try Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman.

It's a novel, but it goes into some interesting possibilities regarding the 'behaviour' of time.

Soma

Time is causality in action, or, more precisely, the witnessing of causality in action.

Which begs the question, if no one is there to witness causality in action, does time really exist?

xoc

Time and space are both measurable in terms of length.(or width, height, breadth, which are of the same meaning but refer to the different dimensions)
Einstein used the variables x,y,z,t for the 4 dimensions in some parts, and also x1,x2,x3,x4. This is part of a successful physics that treats events as "space-time" points, each one having a specific value for x1,x2,x3,x4 in relation to any other event. Space and time both are relative in this sense, or "relational." However viewing time as just another "spatial" dimension does not equate to our experience of it as unfolding, and the laws of thermodynamics give time a singular direction, to the future. I am going to guess that this might have a lot to do with why our consciousness works the way, although I don't know what that's really saying.

length of space or time is not "constant", Special Relativity showed that a ruler of length 1 will appear to "decrease" in size the closer the object on which it rested(ie a cosmic train) approached the speed of light. The true constant was not space or time but the speed of light.

What I don't get is how this could be if scientists have actually been able to get particles to travel at far greater than light speeds. Where then is the ultimate validity of "c" if light can actually travel faster and slower than that in certain situations?

JERDOG

xoc I would post a link for you but I'm having truobe finding it. But the particls you speak of have not realy traveled fater than light and did not violate the theory of relativity.

sophie

Soma remarked that Time is causality in action, or, more precisely, the witnessing of causality in action. This is not applicable to the subjective experience of consciousness. This is more applicable to the subjective absorption of objective reality. It may be easier to defend Time as causality in action.

Soma was then begging the question, if no one is there to witness causality in action, does time really exist?

I do believe this is a class of questioning, which is often considered philosophically absurd. Camus was the genius on absurdity.

Instantiate.
Instantiate(Observe).
Instantiate(Uninstantiate)

Instantiate (Universe).
Instantiate (Me).
Instantiate(MeObserve).

MeObserve(Universe).
MeObserve(Me).
MeObserve(effects of Universe).
Uninstantiate(Me).

Given the chain of events, did the uninstantiation of me imply an uninstantiation of everything else.

jpbrooks

If "space" and "time" can only be defined strictly in terms of change, motion, and distances between physical objects, would that mean that no time at all would pass in an eternally quiescent "universe"? If no time can pass in such a situation, what could it mean to say that such a "universe" is eternal?
And as far as "space" is concerned, how, given the definition of "space" as the "interval" between physical things, can any sense be made of questions like, "if the number of objects (or physical things) in the universe is finite, does "space" extend infinitely in any or all directions?

IOW, perhaps there is more than one way to view "space" and "time", and conundrums are likely to arise when the different senses of those terms are confused.

mimi

I'm with glycolysis (nice name) - I simply refuse to believe that this supposed fourth dimension exists with the other three that are clearly identifiable and observable. Are far as I know, time is our way of organisation - a construct based on the cycles created by the movements of our solar system.

Is there any way of explaining this simply to a young, naive, stubborn mind?

thestickman

<sarcasm>Stubborn minds, not many of those around here...:-)</sarcasm>

How is time not observable? You can feel, and see, its effects everywhere, in everything. Time is an organisational thing in the way colour is. Colour is really only kinetic energy, the movements of electrons. We say this energy is that colour like we say one second is one second. One second is defined by some number of emissions of an excited caesium atom by the way.

Time really is a realation of cause and effect. Cause must come some point before effect. It is the succession of objects in 3dimensions such that each object is related to the one previous. At least that is my understanding of it.

I think the most interesting part is that time is effected by mass, the more mass, the slower time. Without mass, time doesn't exist, at least according to Mr Hawking it wouldn't. Ask him why not.

Use a stopwatch when you study and when you do something boring and, though they appear different lengths of time to you the objective clock says otherwise. Time is inherent in matter. You notice that time appears subjective, but so do physical things. People percieve colour in different ways and you only need to think of optical illusions to see the mind can be equally tricked about physical things as it can be by passing time.

-tsm