# Time

## Recommended Posts

In my opinion, time is man's invention. Time did not start with the BB, is not an original component if the universe and is not a dimension. Man requires time to describe the events we predict or observe.

Take the equitation Distance = Speed x Time. This equation is helpful in order for us the understand the relationships and for us to make calculations. However, the universe does not care how fast anything is traveling. The universe is driven by events governed by the laws of physics and time is not a consideration. The universe has done very well before man invented time.

• Replies 99
• Created

#### Popular Days

The universe has done very well before man invented time.

The same could be said for all the other parameters. How come time dilation exists, which has to be compensated for in the GPS system, if time is just an invention? If time didn't exist there would be no motion because speed is d/t. If two cars drove into the exact same spatial co-ordinates at the same moment they would crash yet they can occupy the same spatial co-ordinates if they arrive at different times.

Edited by StringJunky
##### Share on other sites

A form of time dilation. A clock runs slower near a gravitational mass because the gravitational waves have an effect on the atoms. This has nothing to do with time.

Let me give an example. Two magnets exert more force on each other the closer they are to each other. Gravity works the same way.

Edited by quantum321
##### Share on other sites

how can you possibly dilate something that doesn't exist? Thats complete nonsense

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

What doesn't exist. Please explain. I am saying atomic processes slow down in a gravitational field. The frequency of light is affected by gravity and relative motion. So, I am saying even the most fundamental matter gets affected by gravity and motion

Edited by quantum321
##### Share on other sites

The universe has done very well before man invented time.

We didn't invent time, we simply found ways to measure it. We could not even exist if time wasn't a reality.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

What doesn't exist. Please explain. I am saying atomic processes slow down in a gravitational field.

Why do processes in your FOR slow down (from the perspective of my FOR if you are moving with respect to me) while simultaneously not slowing from the perspective of someone in your same FOR?

Edited by zapatos
##### Share on other sites

In my opinion, time is man's invention. Time did not start with the BB.

You cannot have a BB without time. It doesn't matter what our chosen units of measure is. We are measuring rate of change. Which is time. So to claim we invented time is inaccurate. We measure rate of change. That rate of change existed long before Man existed.

Just like objects on your table has a length, temperature etc. Time is simply a measurement of rate of change or duration on the same state.

Nothing more nothing less. Yes a second as a unit of time is man's invention but so is the unit metre. We still require something to measure.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

I am asking everone to put aside everything we have learned and open your mind to new possibilities. Why can't we have a BB without time? All the processes that make the BB are governed by the laws of physic irrespective of time. Those events transpired without the need for time.

Consider mass changes with gravity and motion. Don't consider time. The frequency of light is affected by gravity and relative motion. The strong and weak force in every atom radiates electromagnetic waves. I am proposing these electromagnetic waves are also effected by gravity. I know Einstein turned to time to explain the clocks different times but its not the only explanation.

##### Share on other sites

how are defining time. The definition is "rate of change or duration". What more do you need?

Its nothing more than a measurement of change. GR does not change the definition of time.

How can have A BB without change? It does not matter what math, units or tools we use. We are measuring change itself.

The only invention is tbe chosen system of measurement. Units etc.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

"The definition (of time) is "rate of change or duration" I agree and that's imperative information for man to know in order to understand and describe different processes. How does this help the universe? It doesn't care what the rate of change is. A hydrogen and helium atom fuse together based on the laws of physics however long it takes. The union is only based on the laws of physics not time.

##### Share on other sites

The universe doesn't care how we measure it. It will keep on changing. The system we use to measure that change doesn't make any difference to the universe.

In that you are correct. However to state the BB occurs without time is incorrect as it obviously did change.

I've often stated physics including GR is far easier to understand if they remember the basic physics definitions.

Time dilation and mass included. Too often people think GR states something beyond those definitions which isn't true.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

In my opinion, time is man's invention. Time did not start with the BB, is not an original component if the universe and is not a dimension. Man requires time to describe the events we predict or observe.

Take the equitation Distance = Speed x Time. This equation is helpful in order for us the understand the relationships and for us to make calculations. However, the universe does not care how fast anything is traveling. The universe is driven by events governed by the laws of physics and time is not a consideration. The universe has done very well before man invented time.

Well, I suppose you can consider time to be a human invention to describe the wy things work. The same is, of course, true of length, mass, temperature, colour and all the other concepts we use to describe things around us.

However, in physics (where you posted this) time is another dimension like the 3 spatial ones. And it describes very accurately the way the universe has evolved from an early hot dense state.

(There is no reason to think that "time started with the big bang".)

Your question (is time real) belongs on the philosophy forum. There are already multiple threads on this. They have been going on for months, going round in circles. Feel free to join one.

What doesn't exist. Please explain. I am saying atomic processes slow down in a gravitational field. The frequency of light is affected by gravity and relative motion. So, I am saying even the most fundamental matter gets affected by gravity and motion

It is not (cannot be) an effect on matter.

If you have a scientific hypothesis along these lines (complete with evidence and testable mathematical predictions) then open a thread in the Speculations forum. The Physics forum is not the place for this.

##### Share on other sites

What doesn't exist. Please explain. I am saying atomic processes slow down in a gravitational field. The frequency of light is affected by gravity and relative motion. So, I am saying even the most fundamental matter gets affected by gravity and motion

Here you are saying that atomic "processes slow down" in a gravitational field. The label "time" happens to refer to just that: it's a comparison of the "speed" of physical processes. And many clocks use the frequency of a resonator as time base. All our words are human inventions, but they relate to observations of nature.

In other words, with this topic you fabricated an artificial contention.

##### Share on other sites

Here you are saying that atomic "processes slow down" in a gravitational field. The label "time" happens to refer to just that: it's a comparison of the "speed" of physical processes. And many clocks use the frequency of a resonator as time base. All our words are human inventions, but they relate to observations of nature.

In other words, with this topic you fabricated an artificial contention.

+1 for spotting the circular argument, Tim.

I agree +1

##### Share on other sites

When ever a new idea is presented especially against accepted dogma you will have those who resist or worse yet attack it. Much akin to Copernicus absurd proposal that the earth circled the sun. I was hoping for some discussion in my thread not ridicule. I invite open minded discussion of my ideas. Those who ridicule are not welcome to post in my thread. Please honor my wishes.

I propose atomic processes slow down in a gravitational field. You use time to explain that. I suggest there is an interaction between the strong and weak force in atoms which radiate electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are effected by gravity. This interaction somehow slows the processes. This isn't philosophy it's a possible undiscovered atomic process.

I think we all can agree that time has absolutely no primary physical existence. Time is an abstract idea. It does not exist in the physical world. Length. color, etc are physical quantities. I can measure the length of a physical quality like a football. How do I measure the time of a football?

Time is an abstract idea (concept) and does NOT exist in any particular time or place and does not exists outside the human consciousness. The same can be said for ideas,things we think, know or perceive. However, physical objects do exist outside our consciousness and can be measured. Draw a line. On the left side write down ideas,things we think, know or perceive by and time. On the right side of the line write all physical objects and processes. Why does anyone think time should be moved into the right side with the physical objects?
The definition of an abstract idea is something detached from physical, or concrete, reality. If you don't believe me look it up. Therefore, by definition time has no existence outside the human consciousness.

I contend time does not exist outside human consciousness. How do you prove that? You can't. No more than you can prove time is an original component of the BB. If you think it is tell me where do I go to measure it?

I am not the only one who thinks using time as a dimension is wrong. Please read the following proposal.
The proposal basically calls for a paradigm shift in this area of research. The studies argue experts should regard space time as having four dimensions of space. The main implication of this is that the Universe is truly timeless.

I invite constructive conversation.

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

##### Share on other sites

Can you measure how long the football lasts?

##### Share on other sites

You would not measure it. You would estimate its life with data obtained from hundreds of previous balls.

##### Share on other sites

When ever a new idea is presented especially against accepted dogma you will have those who resist or worse yet attack it. Much akin to Copernicus absurd proposal that the earth circled the sun. I was hoping for some discussion in my thread not ridicule. I invite open minded discussion of my ideas. Those who ridicule are not welcome to post in my thread. Please honor my wishes.

1. This argument is a ridiculous fallacy. Just because people are pointing out your errors, it does not make you correct. This is known as the Galileo Fallacy. But, as Sagan said: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

2. No one has ridiculed you or your idea. Just pointed out that it is wrong.

3. You don't get to choose who comments.

4. Don't be such a sensitive flower. If you want to propose a new idea, don't expect everyone to pat you on the head and say how clever you, be prepared to defend it.

I suggest there is an interaction between the strong and weak force in atoms which radiate electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are effected by gravity. This interaction somehow slows the processes. This isn't philosophy it's a possible undiscovered atomic process.

Then show us the model (i.e. the mechanism and the mathematical description that makes the hypothesis testable). What experiments could be done to confirm or show your hypothesis to be wrong?

I think we all can agree that time has absolutely no primary physical existence. Time is an abstract idea. It does not exist in the physical world. Length. color, etc are physical quantities. I can measure the length of a physical quality like a football. How do I measure the time of a football?

Only if you also agree that length has no "primary physical existence" and is an abstract idea.

You measure the size, colour and time of a ball with the appropriate instruments: ruler, spectrometer, clock, etc.

Time is an abstract idea (concept) and does NOT exist in any particular time or place and does not exists outside the human consciousness.

So the universe was static and unchanging until humans came into existence? How did they come into existence with no time?

I contend time does not exist outside human consciousness. How do you prove that? You can't.

Then this has nothing to do with science.

You would not measure it. You would estimate its life with data obtained from hundreds of previous balls.

Whether you measure how long a particular ball lasts, or estimate based on measurements of previous balls, you have still measured the lifetime of a ball at some point.

##### Share on other sites

Hello LMGTFY I am glad you posted.

"1. This argument is a ridiculous fallacy. Just because people are pointing out your errors, it does not make you correct.

The statement is true and you choice of words is poor. I don't expect anyone to applaud my idea, Its simply a proposal.

"Then show us the model (i.e. the mechanism and the mathematical description that makes the hypothesis testable). What experiments could be done to confirm or show your hypothesis to be wrong?"

This is not a scientific paper, this is a science forum. I am proposing a mechanism that has not been discovered yet. It doesn't mean it does not exist. If it had been previously been detected a scientific paper would have been published. This is sometimes how science works.

Only if you also agree that length has no "primary physical existence" and is an abstract idea.

While physical object may have length the concept of length resides only in the mind. Primary physical existence is a physical object not a concept.

An physical object.

So the universe was static and unchanging until humans came into existence? How did they come into existence with no time?

Why do you think the universe would be static without time? I surly would not. Physical processes have taken place since the BB without time. Events unfold based on the laws of physics throught out the universe. Time is just a measurement man has invented to measure these events. These processes do not require time.

I contend time does not exist outside human consciousness. How do you prove that? You can't.

Then this has nothing to do with science.

Exactly! Time has nothing to do with science. It resides only in the mind.

Whether you measure how long a particular ball lasts, or estimate based on measurements of previous balls, you have still measured the lifetime of a ball at some point.

I am not sure I agree. I don't see predicting the age of something as being a measurement. Its an estimation at best.

Now I would like you to answer a few questions I have.

1. Prove that time began with the BB. Its an accepted theory so it must have been proven at some point.

2. Prove time is a flowing from beginning to now without man.

3. How would one go about proving time exists?

Edited by Quantum321
##### Share on other sites

I am proposing a mechanism that has not been discovered yet. It doesn't mean it does not exist.

As there is no evidence and no theoretical basis for it, why would we consider it?

This is sometimes how science works.

By people making wild unsupported guesses? I don't think so.

##### Share on other sites

Resistance to New Ideas

Resistance to new ideas seems to be an enduring human characteristic, and scientists –despite extolling the virtues of objectivity-- have often proved themselves very human in this respect. Many of the great breakthroughs of modern science were initially rejected or ignored, sometimes for decades, and mainly because of bias. It is instructive to consider a few examples of scientific advances that were originally rejected.

The atom

Exoplanets

The big bang

Evolution

I could name many more. This forum should encourage new ideas. Not approach them as not acceptable because they don't agree with the current scientific theories.

##### Share on other sites

The Galileo Gambit won't wash. You ignore, for example, the vastly larger numbers of hypotheses that are rejected and are never heard of again. It also ignores the fact that you do not have a scientific idea.

Your vague guesses are not being rejected because they are new or don't agree with current theory. I am all for new ideas, as are most scientists. It is what makes science exciting.

However, vague baseless guesses with no evidence and no theoretical basis are not scientific and are not interesting.

##### Share on other sites

Ah. Lets take J.J. Thompson for example. Before he discovered the electron in 1897 and before his paper was published, what did he do. He collaborated with colleagues about his ideas. That's where I am.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×