north

Either time allows movement or movement creates time.

movement creates time

if time allows movement , then what is it about time that can block any physical movement by any physical object of any kind ?

Time does not force movement but it does allow movement.

how so ?

how does time " allow " movement ?

Don't quantum folks have an extremely different view of time?

It seems

a hop , skip and a jump

but the basis of time never changes

that is that time is based on the movement of objects , in this case electrons

Merged post follows:

I think time is something made up my humanity to have something to measure by. Like the standard and metric systems - the universe doesn't care about kilometers or years, just movement

exactly

just movement , just movement

nothing more , nothing less

North - Haven't you started this conversation like six times already here at SFN? What's new about this thread that will prevent it from getting locked?

because it seems that the pervasive thinking is that time is some sort of physical entity in and of its self that has some influence on the behaviour of things . time doesn't

but some people seem to think so

why not discuss this subject in depth to clarify this attitude about time once and for all

almost the same as the essence of up.

well thats informative:confused:

care to clearify:D

Space and time are linked by the speed of light.

abstractly , mathematically

only

what if time ran at a different rate? or backwards? wouldn't that have an effect on entropy?

NO

what is the essence of time to you ?

Well, if you took time out of the universe you wouldn't have a meaningful way to define entropy.

and thats my point

time helps us to understand the Universe

but in no way does time influence entropy , in and of its self

I'll take a chance and say that quantum gravity is about gluons

if it is true that the further away quarks get from another the stronger the attraction between them is , then why are not gluons considered the essence of quantum gravity ?

Merged post follows:

I'll take a chance and say that quantum gravity is about gluons

 

if it is true that the further away quarks get from another the stronger the attraction between them is , then why are not gluons considered the essence of quantum gravity ?

well why not people ?

time is the measurement( mathematical ) of the movement of an object(s) , nothing more

time has No intrinstic physical properties associated to it and/or unto its self , and never will

therefore , time in and of its self , cannot speed up or slow down any interaction(s) between objects and within any object

Merged post follows:

can anyone argue that time is beyond a mathematical concept , in the sense that time actually has any physical influence on any physical object ?

Merged post follows:

convince me , I'm open to any theory that can prove me wrong

space and time are always somhow linked but what links them and how are they linked

both space and time are linked because we are after the understanding of the movement of things

yet at the sametime neither has any influence on the outcome of the movement of things

I watched the video

he talks about filaments

sounds like Cosmic Plasmas

Merged post follows:

when you watch this video you can the thousands upon thousands of filaments and their interactions with each other , Cosmic Plasmas in action

Cosmic Plasmas has been proven

which is the basis of Hannes Alfven theory

Merged post follows:

wow

this video should change some minds and thinking upon the Universe for good

Mathematicians don't need mass/energy to study geometry, and geometry has properties independent of any matter/points/whatever in it.

 

really how so ?

 

take away any matter/points/ whatever in it ?

 

what then is geometry based on ?

 

nothing but theory

 

The force of gravity that keeps your ass on your chair is a property of bent spacetime (according to general relativity). Does that count as influencing time/matter?

 

yet gravity is yet to be defined

 

and yet neither space or time has any proven properties associated with them , do they ?

 

they don't

 

 

How about the quantum effects of confining a particle?

 

and how is this confinement achieved ?

posted by airbrush

Space-time cannot exist without matter. Matter did not exist until the big bang, unless the big bang happened within an already existing universe, in which case the big bang erased a previous universe and introduced another.

unfortunately that is just blather

what do you mean space-time cant exist without matter?

 

well lets try to define both

 

space=room

 

time= the measurement of movement of any kind . time is not a property of energy/matter but consequence of movement

 

nothing more nothing less

 

 

 

why not?.

 

why not indeed

 

that might be so with energy{ if that} but i see no reason for space-time not to exist without matter.

 

if space has no matter in it what then is time based on though ?

 

 

it just wouldnt be curved much. and, ya, i know, matter is alot of energy compressed into itself, but, they still are two different things, just different "versions". matter is a result of energy compression.

or you can look at matter being at a lower energy state than energy its self

Merged post follows:

Originally Posted by north

neither space nor time created matter

 

but space allows matter ( or really energy ) to manifest ( time is irrelevent )

Prove it, or stop making posts about it anywhere outside of the Speculations forum.

does space have any , unto its self , any fundamental properties associated to space ? that can influence any energy/matter object ?

no

does time unto its self have any properties that can influence energy/matter ?

no

does the introduction of time , unto its self change the speed of an object in either a positive or negative direction ?

no

well, i dont know about time or space, but it did create matter. or so we think.

neither space nor time created matter

but space allows matter ( or really energy ) to manifest ( time is irrelevent )

pretty dumb question but what exactly is the quantum theory

fundamentally

it is the understanding of the micro

[Originally Posted by north]

movement is the basis of the law not time

Your conjecture. How can you falsify it?

you can't

imagine no objects at all in space

where then in the absence of any objects in space does the measurement of time come from ?

What support do you have for it?

reason

Merged post follows:

For me time is an aspect of motion like space is an aspect of motion.

For me all that exist is motion and motion is made of space and time

I disagree

motion or movement ,as I perfer , is expressed in space and time

but the essence of the motion or movement is always about the object(s) involved

always

Originally Posted by north

is not actually prove the opposite ?

 

is it not then that the object controls time ?

 

rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ?

 

it seems that it is the object that controls time

 

How do you distinguish that from "some physical laws dictate both time and movement?"

 

movement is the basis of the law not time

 

if time happens to be, the basis of the law then this law is based on an observer

 

 

Correlation is not proof of causality.

 

meaning ?

Originally Posted by north

not really

 

refer to post # 53

Right, because "nothing in the fridge" really explains what nothing is.

Mr Skeptic

I noticed that the rest of post # 53 was not included

how convenient

Well, that would depend on whether or not I'm inherently crazy or seriously misguided in someway, wouldn't it? The difference between me and a bunch of religious nuts is that their craziness and misguidance may be amplified via the massive number of followers. The world is safe, at least from me.

yes thank-goodness

(geeze guy you me worried there for a time)

I believe in science. But I also believe in some essence of a god. Not the kind of god that charges monthly payments for miracles, has a beer belly, a beard, or named Tom Cruise.

But the kind of god whose image can change under different circumstances convenient for my worldly view.

so this god is fleeting...

that is down right dangerous for us all

Ah, but then you have a circular definition, which is meaningless.

not really

refer to post # 53

If nothing is not something, then what is something?

the complete and absolute opposite of nothing

I'm curious about what people involved in science believe regarding God.

 

Do you believe in God?

 

absolutely NOT

 

Use any common definition you like.

 

god(s) the division of Humanity into seperate groups

 

and therefore the ultimate down fall of Humanity

 

for within each group they think they are closer to god than any other group and will kill in the end another Human being because of this

[Originally Posted by north

me myself and I

You should, by now, know better than that.

 

If you are ASSUMING or INTERPRETING or sharing your OWN PERSONAL VIEW of anything, specifically one that is unlike what general science views, you should either support it on logic and substantiation (hence - EXPLAIN why you think what you think, and how it may be supported by what we know) or write "in my opinion".

 

Otherwise the discussion is quite moot. I have nothing to debate over your subjective definitions, other than claiming they don't fit what the general definition (in the dictionaries) states.

 

actually your wrong

 

from my dictionary

 

nothing > 1) NOT anything ; not something ; naught

 

2) NO part, piece , or element

 

from Funk & Wagnalls standard College Dictionary

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My experience is that Deist folks are the ones who push "nothing" into the conversation. They use the word over and over until you begin to believe there is a real thing it refers to. And then they say modern science shows that the universe sprang from nothing! Oh ho. Bingo. Gotcha. Nothing is GOD and God created the universe!

 

Normal people are not ordinarily concerned to talk about nothing.

 

North's bogus definition #2 is the giveaway:

Moo you are quite right if you smell something fishy.

North's definition #1 is OK, but #2 is something he contracted from Deist internet folks, I expect.

 

It basically describes an idea of God: "that which" has no width breadth dimension space movement physicality.

If North were a secret Deist propagandist he would talk a lot about "that which" has no material properties until you begin to believe in same as a kind of agency (not just an idea in your own mind)

and then he would start saying that Big Bang theory tells us that existence arose from that kind of "that which".

 

Incidentally not true. Big Bang does not say that universe arose from

nothing.

 

Southern Cross who used to be here used to talk a lot about Nothing. He was very poetical about. Tried to entice people into metaphysical conversation about Nothing. But he also talked about Christ bleeding on the cross and stuff. He didn't hold back. He wasn't sneaky. He outed himself as a mystic.

 

Anyway talking about "Nothing" is not science. I'm not sure it has a place at Scienceforums, even as Pseudoscience. We allow talk about Aliens in Pseudo, but metaphysics verging on religion is not your usual Flying Saucer story.

 

Martin

 

you may not like the discussion of nothing personaly

 

but to bad because it comes up all the time

 

so we must deal with it , like it or not

 

north