paul30

Dear Stickman:

Thank you for your wise words.

I said the Ether was an analogy; not a proof. An analogy is something to help us think.

I think Ether is a useful analogy because it was conceived of as being like a river; time is often though of as "flowing" in one direction at a certain rate.

Apathist is entirely correct. Time is simply a mental construct for explaining the perception of change and (apparent) recurrence.

To claim that time is real is similar to claiming that feet and yards and centimeters are real. No. They are mental constructs with a specific (but loose and fairly abstract) definition.

Nowhere357

Interesting! I would say that time still exists (because change still exists) but we would have a hard time measuring it. I suppose an argument could be made that without cyclic motion, the universe as we understand it could not exist.

I really want to hear more on this from you. I think the subject is not off-thread, given the general nature of the op. And this thread imo could use a shot in the arm. If you disagree, please start a new thread!

Btw I used to be comfortable claiming that time does not exist, but now I see that view actually inhibits communication. Time is measurement of change, and measurement of change exists. Anyway, I'm very interested in your views on time travel.

Torben

No. We use centimeters to measure distance, but few would claim that centimeters is distance. Analogously, we use seconds to measure time, seconds not being time itself. Your analogy fails.

Nowhere357

Centimeters are to distance as seconds are to time. I admit I don't see why the analogy fails.

paul30

Dear Nowhere:

Thanks.

I don't think my analogy fails, either.

Time is a way of measuring the PERCEIVED relation of events.

But the perception is itself an event, and the relations are always subject to doubt.

jfryejr

It seems there's a confusion between arguing the reality of something and the definition of something. Whether we call the distance between two points quidnods or happy or inches, there's still a measurable space between two objects. If my perception of distance is all that matters, then I should be able to alter my perceptions to shrink that distance (not through relativity).

That would seem to imply that someone on drugs (acids, mushrooms) whose perception is modified is actually modifying his/her subjective reality to create a new objective reality where they have to traverse less/more space (or time) to go from one point to another. His perception has no influence on reality. Someone who perceives the ability to defy gravity with thought while on dissociatives still cannot fly. Gravity exists and they fall. It is real to anyone who has fallen. [If your argument is that only subjective reality is relevant, then I have no argument for that.]

Whether through Brownian motion, quantum fluctuations, me typing, everything in the universe (that I know of, of course), moves. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed. When energy (in any form) moves through space, it does not recreate or destroy itself. Time is the marked passage of this energy (in any form) moving in space.

Mass, which bends space, determines how this time flows. This is where relativity enters the discussion. Once the speed of light was shown to be constant through various experiments, it gave a means to measure something against time. Using light to measure the passage of time, Einstein demonstrated how two observers in different inertial reference frames would interpret the passage of time differently...one on the ground and one in a train going near the speed of light.

To the observers both in and out of the train, their time was still passing at the same rate, their watches neither sped up nor slowed down, it was the time of the other person that sped up or slowed down.

I have no idea where I was going with this. I've been typing it intermittently throughout the day and have completely lost whatever point I was trying to make, but I've typed it and might as well submit it...although I know I've forgotten something...OH yes, the point of my argument, which by circular logic, is lost...

jfryejr

jfryejr: Sorry, I'm somewhat confusing general theory (which I don't understand) and special theory (which I understand most of), which doesn't deal with gravity (hence the phrase, inertial reference frame).

This doesn't negate the statement, although I'm not 100% sure of the accuracy of the first statement above, just to note that the special theory is what deals with time dilation due to velocity and general theory deals with time dilation due to gravity.

nebUlous

Well, I'm a complete newbie here, and I suppose I'll jump right in feet-first with a couple of thoughts about the subject of time and how "real" it is, without getting into any of the side debates here...

To respond to phil's above statement, and to raise a point that nobody seems to have yet mentioned but that phil touched on, one must take into consideration the principal of absolute zero (the temperature at which all motion stops).

If there was no such thing as motion, in theory, time would stop. However, it must stated that unlike the approach to LS's slowing down of time, an approach to absolute zero has a linear, or constant rate of time; in other words, at 1 degree Kelvin, 1 second is still equal to 1 second at 115 degrees F. However, at absolute zero, all motion stops, and so one could argue that time has stopped. All existence has ceased, whether it be liquid, solid, or gas. Up to you if you think this is the halting of time. If somebody had a watch, and could look into this environment from the exterior, would time still exist?

This brings into play the question of what, and more importantly, where time stops. If the entire planet Earth were to reach absolute zero, one could argue that time has stopped. But if the rest of the universe is still above AZ, motion (and therefore) time continues. If the entire universe, however, reached AZ, then the universe stops, and then the question of existence enters the equation. Is the lack of motion and a completely linear temperature a case for non-existence? Another question for another day.

I should point out, phil, that you got it right (or closer to right) the second time around
And one last point: To those who were arguing that time is simply a measurent, but a conceptual one, and not a material measurement ie measuring the size of a table in centimeters or inches:

If, even now, a case for the material existence of time has not yet been made, a conceptual measurement may be just as valid as a more physical one, such as width, weight, height, etc. These types of "ruler" measurements are not any more or less conceptual than the measurement of time. They are measured in units that are a product of human conciousness, just as were seconds, minutes, and hours.

peace,
n.

Quantum Ninja

Picture a one-dimensional space (AKA a line). Your physical body is represented as a point on this line. Suppose you throw a ball, represented by another point, to your left. At t=0, both points (you and the ball) are at the same location. As t increases, the ball moves further to your left, while you stay stationary. We can draw a two-dimensional diagram to illustrate this event, where position (P) is represented on the horizontal axis, and time (t) is represented on the vertical axis:

Ball ......You .../\
...\.........|...... l t= 10
....\........|...... l
.....\.......|...... l
......\......|...... l
.......\.....|...... l
........\....|...... t
.........\...|...... l
..........\..|...... l
...........\.|...... l
............\|...... l t=0
<----- P ---->

In this diagram, your position as a function of time is represented by the straight line, and the ball's position as a function of time is represented by the slanted line. As you can see, as t increases, the distance between you and the ball increases. If you draw a cross-section, a horizontal line, at any point in the diagram, the points where your line and the ball's line intersect the cross-section will represent both of your relative positions at the corresponding time.

So, for instance, a cross-section at t=0 would look like this (your positions are represented by the comma):
...........,........


At t=10, the cross-section would look something like the following (you're on the right, the ball is on the left):
...,.......,.........

Each of those two cross-sections are representations of what the universe looked like to you at t=0 and t=10. But suppose for a minute (abstract thinking here) that both your body and the ball are not really 0-dimensional objects (points) but are in fact lines in a two-dimensional space. And suppose that time is really just another spatial dimension. Just look at the diagram as if it were a 2-D space; your body isn't really a point on that line at a given time, your body is that line. The universe justs looks 1-dimensional to you because your consciousness is only capable of perceiving one dimension. As your consciousness slides along your body's "worldline" in 2-dimensional space, it gives the illusion of time. In reality, time is just another spatial dimension that your consciousness can't perceive.

Now try thinking about this in terms of our own world. Maybe the universe is really spatially 4-dimensional, but your consciousness can only perceive three of the dimensions. Your body already exists all along in the direction of the fourth axis, but your mind isn't aware of this. Instead, your mind crawls along your body's worldine in the direction of this fourth axis, giving the illusion of time.

Did that make any bit of sense?

nebUlous

I think it makes sense just fine. You're dealing with a point of perspective; I would only differ with you when it is translated into a 4 dimensional context.

The bigger issue in my mind is that humanity in general still has failed to grasp the true facts about time's relation to speed, mass, temperature, material, and distance, and until we find out more about time's relationship to material in particular, it will remain a mystery. Personally, I believe that time is necessarily connected physically to states of matter, temperature and speed...Too bad we just don't know how yet.

Our feeble minds still fail to grasp the concept of time itself.