30 Dec '09 03:05>
And what does time have to do with the speed of light?
Originally posted by EmLaskeri've asked myself this many times and think it's a really interesting question! i hope more people get involved in the discussion, but will put in my two cents now to maybe get the ball rolling?...
And what does time have to do with the speed of light?
Originally posted by AetheraelI too ( if I understood correctly ) think it is a man made system devised for measurment. It would seem most likley to me that time first posits itself in the human psyche in the heartbeat of a mother. So I guess I veiw time as a rhythm that can become as complex as desired. Are there distinctions between types of time? Maybe this is the communication breakdown. Time in nature seems to be cyclic (with seasons and rotations), while man made time could be the cycles of a clock creating a directionless continuum. Maybe time is memory, for without memory the notion of time would be useless. time is now shown to be intimatley woven into space? So many definitions so little time....Here are just some thoughts.
i've asked myself this many times and think it's a really interesting question! i hope more people get involved in the discussion, but will put in my two cents now to maybe get the ball rolling?...
i think time is merely a metric by which we measure "change." the most obvious type of change would be the change in relative position of massive bodies in ...[text shortened]... itself contradictory?
what are your thoughts? cheers, and happy new year! 🙂
Originally posted by divegeesterI would say it doesn't matter that our perception of time is flawed, time is relative. we could just as easily apply the "perception argument" to anything in existance, this is why standard measurements are important.
I like that Palynka as it provides a construct for explaining our perception of time, but it doesn't explain the substance of it. How time affects matter is of interest to me, but I'm not a scientist so have to speak in lay terms. It interests me because as far as I understand it time is a product of mass, gravity and the movement of mass through the ...[text shortened]... when we are using our 'perception' of time and potentially a flawed measure of it anyway?
Originally posted by divegeesterI think it can also say something about the substance of it. According to some string theorists our universe could have 11 dimensions. In my example, the substance of up/time is identical to the other two cartesian dimensions. It's the 2 dimensional being's perception that subordinates the first 2D to up/time.
I like that Palynka as it provides a construct for explaining our perception of time, but it doesn't explain the substance of it. How time affects matter is of interest to me, but I'm not a scientist so have to speak in lay terms. It interests me because as far as I understand it time is a product of mass, gravity and the movement of mass through the ...[text shortened]... when we are using our 'perception' of time and potentially a flawed measure of it anyway?
Originally posted by PalynkaHow can something move in space without moving in time? Movement in space is defined as distance/time.
This thought just occurred to me:
Imagine a being which is not moving in time, but in one of the three cartesian dimensions. Let's call it up. He only has perception of two dimensions.
As he moves along one dimension, he sees how things in his two dimensional world changes. If we imagine that the world is a compact subspace, then he would see a continu ...[text shortened]... in his perception of other two dimensions would seem irrevocably "subordinated" to up/time.
Originally posted by divegeesterWe don't "know" how old the universe is strictly speaking. We reason, based on numberous axiomatic assumptions (general relativity is a correct model, Laws of Thermodynamics, etc). If the axioms are flawed then the conclusion is wrong.
I like that Palynka as it provides a construct for explaining our perception of time, but it doesn't explain the substance of it. How time affects matter is of interest to me, but I'm not a scientist so have to speak in lay terms. It interests me because as far as I understand it time is a product of mass, gravity and the movement of mass through the ...[text shortened]... when we are using our 'perception' of time and potentially a flawed measure of it anyway?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf time is just a measure of entropy, then entropy would exist without time? Mmm... Something doesn't add up. I've heard that entropy implies a direction of time, but time cannot simply be a measure.
As I already answered,
Time is a measure of how much entropy the universe has gained since the Bang.