Is time continuous or discrete?

[chaz wyman]

Time does not exist!
It is an illusion, created by our need to sequence (measure) movement, as such it is impossible to traverse.

I have a beautiful mechanical weighted German Black Forest Cuckoo Clock that I love to watch and listen to.

Cuckoo?? That tells us much more than you would like to reveal about yourself!

[zinnat13]

Hi SOB,

As far as I understand about the gravitational time dilation is that it is proved theoretically and physically too, though I am not agree too much with its theoretical explanation.

The basic principle behind this fact is that the light got affected by the gravity. Hence, it is argued that; the particles of light lose some of their momentum while reaching at high altitude than lower, thus, happening of events look slower near the gravity well.

There are some experiments are done in this regard and all of them confirmed this.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... im.html#c4

I also read in the ‘the history of time’ by Hawkins that in initial years, this concept was physically proved by placing two identical clocks at the bottom and top of watch towers.

Furthermore, the clocks of the satellites are regularly adjusted to nullify this effect; otherwise, the GPS system would fail.

Hence, SOB, I do not think that the authenticity of this principle should be challenged as it is a proven fact now. The days of being skeptic on the ground of calculation and measurement issues are over.

The only issue left of the debate is its explanation. Although, for science, even this is not an issue any more as it has almost accepted the explanation based on gravitational effect on photons.

But, for some unknown reasons, it does not seem logical to me. I strongly feel that it would be far better to hold time particle as a form of matter, to explain this event.

But, SOB, it is not my faith yet. It is just an assumption or belief. This notion would have to travel a long way to be considered as faith.

with love,
sanjay

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

As far as I understand about the gravitational time dilation is that it is proved theoretically and physically too, though I am not agree too much with its theoretical explanation.

The basic principle behind this fact is that the light got affected by the gravity. Hence, it is argued that; the particles of light lose some of their momentum while reaching at high altitude than lower, thus, happening of events look slower near the gravity well.

There are some experiments are done in this regard and all of them confirmed this.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... im.html#c4

I also read in the ‘the history of time’ by Hawkins that in initial years, this concept was physically proved by placing two identical clocks at the bottom and top of watch towers.

Furthermore, the clocks of the satellites are regularly adjusted to nullify this effect; otherwise, the GPS system would fail.

Hence, SOB, I do not think that the authenticity of this principle should be challenged as it is a proven fact now. The days of being skeptic on the ground of calculation and measurement issues are over.

The only issue left of the debate is its explanation. Although, for science, even this is not an issue any more as it has almost accepted the explanation based on gravitational effect on photons.

But, for some unknown reasons, it does not seem logical to me. I strongly feel that it would be far better to hold time particle as a form of matter, to explain this event.

But, SOB, it is not my faith yet. It is just an assumption or belief. This notion would have to travel a long way to be considered as faith.

with love,
sanjay

I want you to realize that I'm like you in that I'm not saying that my thoughts are necessarily true. I know that you and everyone else that reads this are probably going to be inclined to believe the "experts" over me. And that's fine, I'm just raising question, because I believe the logic could be flawed. I don't know the effectiveness of their method of countering those forces that may be attributed to the slowing of photons, or the extent of their consideration of all the potential forces that may slow photons, such that the results of their experiment can 'only' be attributed to time dilation and nothing else.

Is a force varying time thus being seen as a speed variance as they assert?
OR
Is a force varying speed directly, while time remains constant, and it's only true that they are attributing it to time, because of their theory.

Since you cannot measure time directly, how would you know for sure, which is correct? You can't. I see it as not verifiable, thus not knowledge, and purely speculation.

This along with the absurd notion of time travel leads me to believe in Kant's thoughts on time in that it does not exist and is merely our need to sequence events of motion/change.

Keep in mind that I came to this belief on my own, and thought I had an original idea, then subsequently I read Kant to find that he thought it prior to me, though his thoughts were more complete than mine were.

[Arising_uk]

...
Keep in mind that I came to this belief on my own, and thought I had an original idea, then subsequently I read Kant to find that he thought it prior to me, though his thoughts were more complete than mine were.

Philosophy is a bitch that way.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
Keep in mind that I came to this belief on my own, and thought I had an original idea, then subsequently I read Kant to find that he thought it prior to me, though his thoughts were more complete than mine were.

Philosophy is a bitch that way.

It really wasn't a bitch as far as I'm concerned. It just proves that great minds think alike.

[chaz wyman]

...
Keep in mind that I came to this belief on my own, and thought I had an original idea, then subsequently I read Kant to find that he thought it prior to me, though his thoughts were more complete than mine were.

Philosophy is a bitch that way.

It really wasn't a bitch as far as I'm concerned. It just proves that great minds think alike.

You are so far from Kant as it is possible to be.
You just don't get him.
Absolute truth? He is turning in his grave.

[zinnat13]

Hi SOB,

you said-

Keep in mind that I came to this belief on my own, and thought I had an original idea, then subsequently I read Kant to find that he thought it prior to me, though his thoughts were more complete than mine were.

My friend, if you said this in humor, then it is OK.

If you feel dishearten, then, you are mistaken. It does not matter at all, at the intellectual level, whether your findings are previously found or not.

Philosophy, in its true sense, also relies on subtle form of empiricism; and that is visualization, and thus, realization, and thus, the true understanding of the subject. Without going through this process, it is only information that; A said this and B said that etc. One may become a historian of philosophy in this way, but, not the philosopher.

Furthermore, Kant is perhaps the greatest which philosophy has ever produced. Thus, there should be no shame falling second to that genius.

with love,
sanjay

[Greylorn Ell]

I have been pondering this question lately after considering how we perceive time, and how the smaller you divide time into the less you can fit into it.

This lead me to wonder if time actually is divided into discrete moments, similar to a planck length but for time, or if it is indivisible and continuous, and you could slow time down as much as you wanted and couldn't see the "frames".

After considering it for a short time I thought that there probably isn't discrete moments, because if there were, there would probably be some kind of universal minimum speed limit for all matter. If a particle is moving at say, 1 planck length per "planck moment" this would restrict it to such a minimum speed, which seems slightly absurd. This is my reasoning for rejecting the possibility of the discreteness of time.

I would be interested in other peoples opinions on this topic,

Thanks
Dimebag.

Dime,

Constructive pondering.

You're going in a useful general direction, for one who has adopted the conventional opinion that "time" actually exists, except as a useful mathematical construct used by Galileo to evaluate his experiments into gravity, then by Newton who incorporated time formally into the mathematical structure of differential calculus, using Descartes' newly invented analytic geometry to (mistakenly) treat time as a dimension in its own right.

You'll get a better handle on time if you assume that it does not actually exist, that the universe is an asynchronous state machine. wherein events occur only when the conditions for their occurrence are synchronized. ("Digital Universe -- Analog Soul," Chapter XVII which explains why Quantum Mechanics is effectively an observational artifact of Differential Calculus.)

Keep thinking. We need more of it.

Greylorn

[petm1]

Mass is the past holding us relative in the present.
Space is the present moment we share as observers.
Gravity is our outward dilation into the future.

The illusion of time is thinking that our memories are the past and that they extend into the future when in fact we only have the dilating present.

[Greylorn Ell]

Mass is the past holding us relative in the present.
Space is the present moment we share as observers.
Gravity is our outward dilation into the future.

The illusion of time is thinking that our memories are the past and that they extend into the future when in fact we only have the dilating present.

Mystical bunk. Have you ever passed a high school physics course?

[petm1]

Mystical bunk. Have you ever passed a high school physics course?

Subjective reality from my one second frame of reference, not taught in high school.

[petm1]

Time is just as real as space after all they are both the same thing just opposites, the mystical bunk is thinking time is not real.

Time is the largest through smallest common denominator of our present moment when expressed within mathematics using space/time as a coordinate system from one point. One clock to rule them all.

[Greylorn Ell]

Time is just as real as space after all they are both the same thing just opposites, the mystical bunk is thinking time is not real.

Time is the largest through smallest common denominator of our present moment when expressed within mathematics using space/time as a coordinate system from one point. One clock to rule them all.

I was right. You've not passed a high school physics course, and seem not to have scored three digits on an IQ test either. You should not be speaking out in public on even the smallest aspect of physics.

[petm1]

I was right. You've not passed a high school physics course, and seem not to have scored three digits on an IQ test either. You should not be speaking out in public on even the smallest aspect of physics.

Everything about you is a measure of duration, even the duration of the photons are how we measure the distance to another part of space/time. If emission only happens in the present then as receivers we only see the past, as a processor our consciousness may be co-moving with the photons but it is our mass that is always relative in the past. Please be nice I had high school physics in the 60's and there is no need to remind me that I have forgotten more than I can remember.

[Greylorn Ell]

I was right. You've not passed a high school physics course, and seem not to have scored three digits on an IQ test either. You should not be speaking out in public on even the smallest aspect of physics.

Everything about you is a measure of duration, even the duration of the photons are how we measure the distance to another part of space/time. If emission only happens in the present then as receivers we only see the past, as a processor our consciousness may be co-moving with the photons but it is our mass that is always relative in the past. Please be nice I had high school physics in the 60's and there is no need to remind me that I have forgotten more than I can remember.

I'd have been nicer earlier had you mentioned that you were not coming from absolute ignorance.

I recall my high school physics class from 1959-60. It set me on a path I might not have chosen otherwise, that of getting a serious physics education, because I realized that HS physics was complete bullshit. But I figured that it actually represented real physics, and knew that I could correct the errors after obtaining suitable credentials.

In Physics 301a I realized that HS physics was indeed bullshit, because it was taught only to give kids with rudimentary math skills a rudimentary understanding of a few basic principles. So I settled in to learn "real" physics, and enjoyed the subject until my QM course, where I once again realized that physicists had, IMO, made a different but more serious error than I'd previously figured.

It took me many years to devise a solution to the problem, which revolves around how "time" is handled in differential calculus. I explain both the problem and my solution in the later chapters of "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul." The book includes some fundamental physics, simplified of course because the book was written for non-scientists. One of the later chapters offers an entirely different view of time than that which you and I were both taught.

You might find those and other ideas interesting, or not. If you care to examine them, or to pursue any of the other time-concepts being kicked around (e.g: Julian Barbour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour) I'd be able to have a coherent conversation on the subject with you.

However your current approach has been to state beliefs, bare boned. This suggests that you've not pursued alternative ideas like Barbour's or mine. No basis for discussion with you until you take the trouble to establish such a base. I'd have better luck trying to explain why the sky is blue to a child who's not studied the physics of light.

If you are interested in the subject of time, and have a curious mind, it's time for you to engage that mind with a subject of interest. If you do, you will be rewarded with new insights. Otherwise, you'll be no fun. Perhaps you'll come back after at least six months of research? (If you don't want to read my ideas on the subject, study state machines. In such machines, time is arbitrary, and logically meaningless. The computer you are using to read this is a mostly synchronous state-machine.)

Greylorn