north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Time does not force movement but it does allow movement. how so ? how does time " allow " movement ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 how so ? how does time " allow " movement ? You have your question backwards. The real question is how does movement happen without time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Either time allows movement or movement creates time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Oooh... I know... Semantic Games!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Not only movement, but gravity has an influence on time. Is time needed for gravity to exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Oooh... I know... Semantic Games!! not at all if you disagree show semantics games are prevalent rather than reasoning Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNot only movement, but gravity has an influence on time. indirectly Is time needed for gravity to exist? absolutely not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 If you freeze time, movement will stop. If you stop movement, time will not freeze. I think time is independent of movement unless you can prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 If you freeze time, movement will stop. you got it backwards if you freeze movement , time will stop If you stop movement, time will not freeze. above I think time is independent of movement unless you can prove otherwise. if there is no movement what then is time based on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Wouldn't that be like saying your sight would quit working just because it was dark and there was nothing to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Wouldn't that be like saying your sight would quit working just because it was dark and there was nothing to see? NO why would think that ? and what is the connection with what you say and time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 There is no way to test your theory so I will go to bed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 There is no way to test your theory so I will go to bed now. actually what propose is not a theory but fact think about it in depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 actually what propose is not a theory but fact think about it , deeply And for those of us remaining awake, what pray-tell is the way you can test your assertions? Scratch that... 1) Using precise language, what is your claim? Then... 2) How can we run a test on that claim that has the chance of falsifying it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 And for those of us remaining awake, what pray-tell is the way you can test your assertions? Scratch that... 1) Using precise language, what is your claim? Then... 2) How can we run a test on that claim that has the chance of falsifying it? 1) that time is merely a consequence of the measurement of the movement of object(s) 2) apply time and time alone to any object(s) movement and see if that makes any difference to the object behaviour , physically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Either time allows movement or movement creates time. i think its neither time doesnt allow movement, energy allows movement, and movement doesnt create time, time measures movement. so theres no creating or allowing, its just measurment. time is man-made. i think that movement is indepedent of time and time is just the measurement of any moving bodys selected lifespan amount. like the measurment of a selected amount space is meters, feet, kilometers, time is just like that, and we use things like seconds, days, hours etc... to express it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 1) that time is merely a consequence of the measurement of the movement of object(s) 2) apply time and time alone to any object(s) movement and see if that makes any difference to the object behaviour , physically that is an argument for philosophy, does time pass unless a tree falls in the forest etc. how do you apply time alone to movement? where is it moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 i think its neither time doesnt allow movement, energy allows movement, and movement doesnt create time, time measures movement. so theres no creating or allowing, its just measurment. time is man-made. i think that movement is indepedent of time and time is just the measurement of any moving bodys selected lifespan amount. like the measurment of a selected amount space is meters, feet, kilometers, time is just like that, and we use things like seconds, days, hours etc... to express it. you got it ( slowly but surely the truth about time is sinking in , expanding into the general mind set ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 and so the virus spreads:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 and so the virus spreads:) meaning ? just to be clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 only joking. just the same thing as saying slowly but surely the truth about time is sinking in , expanding into the general mind set . not like its actually a virus, as in a bad thing, like its a way of understanding that, once in your head, is rather hard to get out. like a virus. its kind of an inside joke i guess. my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 only joking. just the same thing as saying . not like its actually a virus, as in a bad thing, like its a way of understanding that, once in your head, is rather hard to get out. like a virus. its kind of an inside joke i guess. my bad. gotcha you got me , for a moment:D Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOriginally Posted by north 1) that time is merely a consequence of the measurement of the movement of object(s) 2) apply time and time alone to any object(s) movement and see if that makes any difference to the object behaviour , physically that is an argument for philosophy, does time pass unless a tree falls in the forest etc. no how do you apply time alone to movement? you can't where is it moving? where is what moving ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 so just to be clear you believe time only passes if an observer is there to measure some difference? first you suggest i apply time alone to an objects motion, then you say it's impossible, which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Merged with previous thread on the same topic. For those new to the topic it's probably worth reading the previous posts. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, moved to p&s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 actually what propose is not a theory but fact think about it in depth If it's fact, then it must be observed to be true. Better still if it's predicted by existing theory. But since movement cannot be stopped, how could this ever be observed? If we do this abstractly, by transforming into a reference frame where there is no motion, we see that time runs at its fastest — that motion causes time to run slower. So how is it that you present this as fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now