Time-measuring devices such as sundials, clocks, calendars and atomic clocks are useless to determine if time exists because they are only examples that purport to measure time. Without knowing whether time exists, the time-measuring devices and time-dependent and time-implicit equations don't have any backbone.
A closely related question to the topic title is whether abstract time is objective? Because if so, we may never know the true nature of time. Now I turn the floor over to you.
PhilX
Does (abstract) time exist?
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
You havn't even read about time, now go do it.
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
Times not objective it is relative, for once Hex is right go learn about what we know about time, don't post threads about what we don't it's a waste of time.
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
Newton's classical physics tells us that space is a backdrop or a stage upon which the events of physics are played out. Space just exists and plays no active part in any process. Time was considered to be of similar stuff. Time just ticks away at its own pace and is separate from space. Time is the same for every observer no matter where they are and how they are moving. In this sense we can say time was considered to be objective.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Time-measuring devices such as sundials, clocks, calendars and atomic clocks are useless to determine if time exists because they are only examples that purport to measure time. Without knowing whether time exists, the time-measuring devices and time-dependent and time-implicit equations don't have any backbone.
A closely related question to the topic title is whether abstract time is objective? Because if so, we may never know the true nature of time. Now I turn the floor over to you.
PhilX
This all changed with Einstein. Time and space were no long considered to be objective and separate from the physical process going on in the universe. The lack of a sharp distinction when it comes to time and space was only realized when Einstein himself came to the realization that the universe has a cosmic speed limit (speed of light). Now it is possible to show two observers witnessing a single event may not agree as to the timing of this event.
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
You can ask why the speed of light in a vacuum is c and you can ask why no mass object can reach c, what you can't do is ask why these values are what they are or any question that isn't framed in general or special relativistic terms without falling a foul of the experiments that show it is what it is regardless of the observer or relative concerns photons or packets of energy or if you like waves, always propogate at c. Asking why this is is like asking if God keeps things moving in a cosmic billiards game at x speed, ie pointless. Science can't do it, philosophy can barely comprehend it, and religion just makes it all up as it goes along.
Newton told us a way to measure speed at time t, and used integrals to derive from f= m x a and Fga=~9.8m/s^2 and s=ua1/2 at^2 which is a quadratic equation. Solving for Fg or force of gravity you end up with F_g=G_k (m1.m1/r^2) which works for any Earth frame of reference as gravity is relatively constant, although some small discrepencies do occur.
Einsteins genius was in saying well if the Michelso Morley experiments show light travels at c, what would happen if I were to accelerate a mass to c. Then the idea must have struck him that c must be the speed limit of the universe. Such as that energy always propogates at c and mass always less than, using the lorentz transforms he was able to model the behavior of electrons and photons which he published:
In 1905, Einstein proposed the existence of the photon, an elementary particle associated with electromagnetic radiation (light), which was the foundation of quantum theory.[2] In 1909, Einstein showed that the photon carries momentum as well as energy and that electromagnetic radiation must have both particle-like and wave-like properties if Planck's law holds; this was a forerunner of the principle of wave–particle duality.[3] He would go on to receive the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for this work.
Likewise in 1905, Einstein developed a theory of Brownian motion in terms of fluctuations in the number of molecular collisions with an object,[4] providing further evidence that matter was composed of atoms. A few weeks earlier, he had derived the Einstein relation for diffusion, which was the first example of the general fluctuation-dissipation theorem and allowed a good estimate of the Avogadro constant.[5]
Additionally In 1905, Einstein developed the theory of special relativity, which reconciled the relativity of motion with the observed constancy of the speed of light (a paradox of 19th-century physics).[6] Special relativity is now a core principle of physics. Its counterintuitive predictions that moving clocks run more slowly, that moving objects are shortened in their direction of motion, and that the order of events is not absolute have been confirmed experimentally.
Later he tried to model the general behaviour of mass objects and showed that light should in fact bend as it passes the sun if his theory of gravitation was correct and that although newtons equations were accurate if all things are equal no time dependent state is ever exactly the same if the two co-ordinates of the system differed by either acceleration or mass or distance. Which we know he derived from e=mc^2, which had actually been postulated by Newton in word form, and by others in symbolic form. In other words there is no preferred frame of reference or determinable center of the universe, everything is relative, absolute time as postulated by Galileo is in fact impossible.
We know this equates with experiment for two reasons, in an eclipse the light traveling around the sun is indeed bent by the suns mass, and gravitational discrepancies and speed does have to be taken into account as demonstrated when two planes carrying atomic clocks were sent off around the world at diffrent speeds and heights, and by placing very sensitive clocks on very tall buildings and in it's base and observing the effect the negligible difference in gravity and indeed speed as the Earth is a sphere made.
It was hence determined time was relative, and as a concept it was only related to distance and vise a versa and mass, which created space time 0 mass being a special case hence special relativity and general relativity which encompasses light and mass objects in an overall theory of gravity, time and space or spacetime.
"The secret of good science is learning how to hide your sources."
Albert Einstein.
Yes abstract time exists, which is a concept based on abstraction of acceleration and mass and all observable experimental evidence. No absolute time does not exist, and no this does not make time any less real or anything paradoxical as Intelligent Falling beleivers and IDiots propose.
FSM be praised, in the name of his most high prophet Ishwari Cullendar, PBUH.
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!"
Oscar Wilde
Newton told us a way to measure speed at time t, and used integrals to derive from f= m x a and Fga=~9.8m/s^2 and s=ua1/2 at^2 which is a quadratic equation. Solving for Fg or force of gravity you end up with F_g=G_k (m1.m1/r^2) which works for any Earth frame of reference as gravity is relatively constant, although some small discrepencies do occur.
Einsteins genius was in saying well if the Michelso Morley experiments show light travels at c, what would happen if I were to accelerate a mass to c. Then the idea must have struck him that c must be the speed limit of the universe. Such as that energy always propogates at c and mass always less than, using the lorentz transforms he was able to model the behavior of electrons and photons which he published:
In 1905, Einstein proposed the existence of the photon, an elementary particle associated with electromagnetic radiation (light), which was the foundation of quantum theory.[2] In 1909, Einstein showed that the photon carries momentum as well as energy and that electromagnetic radiation must have both particle-like and wave-like properties if Planck's law holds; this was a forerunner of the principle of wave–particle duality.[3] He would go on to receive the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for this work.
Likewise in 1905, Einstein developed a theory of Brownian motion in terms of fluctuations in the number of molecular collisions with an object,[4] providing further evidence that matter was composed of atoms. A few weeks earlier, he had derived the Einstein relation for diffusion, which was the first example of the general fluctuation-dissipation theorem and allowed a good estimate of the Avogadro constant.[5]
Additionally In 1905, Einstein developed the theory of special relativity, which reconciled the relativity of motion with the observed constancy of the speed of light (a paradox of 19th-century physics).[6] Special relativity is now a core principle of physics. Its counterintuitive predictions that moving clocks run more slowly, that moving objects are shortened in their direction of motion, and that the order of events is not absolute have been confirmed experimentally.
Later he tried to model the general behaviour of mass objects and showed that light should in fact bend as it passes the sun if his theory of gravitation was correct and that although newtons equations were accurate if all things are equal no time dependent state is ever exactly the same if the two co-ordinates of the system differed by either acceleration or mass or distance. Which we know he derived from e=mc^2, which had actually been postulated by Newton in word form, and by others in symbolic form. In other words there is no preferred frame of reference or determinable center of the universe, everything is relative, absolute time as postulated by Galileo is in fact impossible.
We know this equates with experiment for two reasons, in an eclipse the light traveling around the sun is indeed bent by the suns mass, and gravitational discrepancies and speed does have to be taken into account as demonstrated when two planes carrying atomic clocks were sent off around the world at diffrent speeds and heights, and by placing very sensitive clocks on very tall buildings and in it's base and observing the effect the negligible difference in gravity and indeed speed as the Earth is a sphere made.
It was hence determined time was relative, and as a concept it was only related to distance and vise a versa and mass, which created space time 0 mass being a special case hence special relativity and general relativity which encompasses light and mass objects in an overall theory of gravity, time and space or spacetime.
"The secret of good science is learning how to hide your sources."
Albert Einstein.
Yes abstract time exists, which is a concept based on abstraction of acceleration and mass and all observable experimental evidence. No absolute time does not exist, and no this does not make time any less real or anything paradoxical as Intelligent Falling beleivers and IDiots propose.
FSM be praised, in the name of his most high prophet Ishwari Cullendar, PBUH.
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!"
Oscar Wilde
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
time is the unmoving measurer of an action event.and so only the mover knows what time is.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
Not purport, they do measure out time. Not sure about the physicists but the philosophers appear to have time as the subjective experience or construct of regular change in phenomena.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Time-measuring devices such as sundials, clocks, calendars and atomic clocks are useless to determine if time exists because they are only examples that purport to measure time. ...
Apart from telling us the time and allowing us to calculate present and future time that is.Without knowing whether time exists, the time-measuring devices and time-dependent and time-implicit equations don't have any backbone.
How can an abstract be objective? What do you mean by "objective"? Or "abstract" for that matter.A closely related question to the topic title is whether abstract time is objective? Because if so, we may never know the true nature of time. ...
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
That's just a cop out.jackles wrote:time is the unmoving measurer of an action event.and so only the mover knows what time is.
The magical man in the sky knows but you can't, don't look behind the curtain, religion it's like a crazy sleigh ride down the rabbit hole into Wonderland.
Religious apologetics is a cop out. yeah the mover knows who the fuck cares, if nothing can be known except that it's all fucking magic, why should anyone bother with anything. That's free will is it, being played by The Wizard of Oz, like we are chumps. Fuck me what a sad sad world we live in.
No offence Jackles, but if you are just going to say it's all magical, you have just given up the one faculty your supposed god gave you to make sense of anything, and that is reason.
"I refuse to accept that God gave us the faculty of reason, only to forgo its use."
Voltaire.
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
I think he means it in the Newtonian way. Time, like space is just a "thing" that sits there. All the laws of physics are played against this background of time and space. Time and space are not active participants in the process.Arising_uk wrote:How can an abstract be objective? What do you mean by "objective"? Or "abstract" for that matter.
As I pointed out in my post, all of this changed when Einstein came onto the scene.
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
blags you have got to get away from this god in the sky thing.god is the event free bit of your self beond time and space.ive seen it in your ways blags .your writing on stuffs good with an open attiude but your like some puppy dog with it.ive seen the god in there though.the nonlocal bit.ha
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
I haven't got to do anything Jackles, I do what I do with reason and logic, science and experiment, you take your magic and your magic man in the sky and forgo it, each to his own.jackles wrote:blags you have got to get away from this god in the sky thing.god is the event free bit of your self beond time and space.ive seen it in your ways blags .your writing on stuffs good with an open attiude but your like some puppy dog with it.ive seen the god in there though.the nonlocal bit.ha
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
How?jackles wrote:... ive seen the god in there though.the nonlocal bit.ha
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
dont worry arising.ive seen the same bit of indistinguishable nonlocality in you to .logiic with nievity .
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
I'm not worried and this is not what I asked you. I asked you how you've seen this, "... the god in there though.the nonlocal bit.ha". What did you see? How did you see it?jackles wrote:dont worry arising.ive seen the same bit of indistinguishable nonlocality in you to .logiic with nievity .
Re: Does (abstract) time exist?
virtue arising old chap.virtue is what i see.what sees the virtue in others is the virtue in ya self.it all virtue is nonlocal to the event and indinguishable from the mover of the event.which is relativity or its equivelent .nonlocality..virtue is nonlocal to the event as blags saw dipicted in the film with henery fonder.the 12angry men..it was blags nonlocal virtue that saw the virtue in henry fonders character.he saw it the exact same indistinguishable way as my nonlocal virtue saw it.there is only one nonlocal virtue.the virtue that is stationary to the event when measuring c the speed of light by an observer.its the relativity in the event.relativity is nonlocality.one consciousness is sourced by all brains.