Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd say our grasp of it cannot, that still does not mean that time cannot.
Kelly

Then, in your opinion, how and which way time can be separated from matter?
😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it's an abstract concept. time is only meaningful if there are conscious entities measuring the rate of positional change between two or more particles.

the only thing time really requires is movement.

This is false; the abstract concept of time is meaningful whenever we have to monitor all kinds of changes the observers undergo, not solely movement😵

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not sure, but I think it does mean that, at least I believe it has been demonstrated that time is a function of the interaction between the "fabric" of space and mass - usually a lot of mass.

The further a clock is from a planet for example, the slower time travels for the clock. Similar to travelling fast ... I think.

If eternity is the absence of time, does it require the absence of mass?

We know energy and mass can be effected by gravity, but time the only things we
can do is look at the matter and energy around us and see what is going on. That
only means that energy and mass are being watched, we don't have a clue how
to look at time without those! So if time isn't effected how in the world would
we know? From a practical point it would seem that time is effected, but in reality
who knows.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
This is false; the abstract concept of time is meaningful whenever we have to monitor all kinds of changes the observers undergo, not solely movement😵

Yes. Interesting tho, that you specify 'changes the observers undergo.' This internalizes the change in the external thing they observe. Is this subtlety included to emphasize that all we really have to go on, are our internal experiences, wherin time is what separates them in our minds, or am I reading too much into it? Is time a concern only to, and in the presence of, an observer?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We know energy and mass can be effected by gravity, but time the only things we
can do is look at the matter and energy around us and see what is going on. That
only means that energy and mass are being watched, we don't have a clue how
to look at time without those! So if time isn't effected how in the world would
we know? From a practical point it would seem that time is effected, but in reality
who knows.
Kelly

I guess we have to compare the two clocks in the different frames of reference? Which means time is a measure of mechanical change in this instance (If it we, say, measured by the fading of a color it would be the observation of reflected light from molecules.)

Originally posted by JS357
I guess we have to compare the two clocks in the different frames of reference? Which means time is a measure of mechanical change in this instance (If it we, say, measured by the fading of a color it would be the observation of reflected light from molecules.)

So again, if matter and energy are both effected by gravity what would that
prove? We have nothing that touches time other than watching the affect upon
matter and energy, which is like saying the wind can only happen if the tree
branches move which we know isn't the case.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So again, if matter and energy are both effected by gravity what would that
prove? We have nothing that touches time other than watching the affect upon
matter and energy, which is like saying the wind can only happen if the tree
branches move which we know isn't the case.
Kelly

I have an aversion to the use of analogies especially when they don't support my position.

So it is like time can only happen if the tree branches move. I agree with that in one sense. Time can only be sensibly seen to transpire if things happen (change) but I disagree with that if time is supposed to be like the wind in causing the change.

Or maybe time, like the wind, IS the driving force of change, it pushes things through the change they are set up for! The universe proposes, but time disposes.

"For the resolutions of the just depend rather on the grace of God than on their own wisdom; and in Him they always put their trust, whatever they take in hand.
For man proposes, but God disposes; neither is the way of man in his own hands".
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/man_proposes_but_god_disposes.html

😲

Originally posted by JS357
I have an aversion to the use of analogies especially when they don't support my position.

So it is like time can only happen if the tree branches move. I agree with that in one sense. Time can only be sensibly seen to transpire if things happen (change) but I disagree with that if time is supposed to be like the wind in causing the change.

Or maybe time ...[text shortened]... .
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/man_proposes_but_god_disposes.html

😲

Bad example on my part sorry you got what I was trying to say, but my example
was bad....time doesn't change things, I was going for time can be seen in other
things not that time itself can be seen on its own.

I like your Thomas a Kempis quote first time I have seen it.

Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say.
Kelly

how does time exist then? what does time do, in your opinion?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how does time exist then? what does time do, in your opinion?

Time holds us in place, it is like the film of a movie where the movie is going on
but the film itself doesn't depend on there being a movie on the film.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
This is false; the abstract concept of time is meaningful whenever we have to monitor all kinds of changes the observers undergo, not solely movement😵

all changes are movement.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes. Interesting tho, that you specify 'changes the observers undergo.' This internalizes the change in the external thing they observe. Is this subtlety included to emphasize that all we really have to go on, are our internal experiences, wherin time is what separates them in our minds, or am I reading too much into it? Is time a concern only to, and in the presence of, an observer?

No.

As "observer" in this context (check "The epiontic principle, Time and the laws of Physics" by Acerbi, http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Acerbi_acerbiepionticprinci.pdf) I define a physical system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality ( an observer is made of elements of reality (an element of reality is any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information).
So, an observer could be everything -a person, a galaxy, an animal, a plant, the universe, a rock, an island etc. Each of these observers memorizes and process information in different ways, and each observer is a phenomenon in flux😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
all changes are movement.

No. Mount Everest does not envelop motion, however it will too dissolve into quantum uncertainty. Even if you argue that it moves because Earth moves, then motion is impossible without matter and therefore the sole thing time requires in order to exist is matter😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No. Mount Everest does not envelop motion, however it will too dissolve into quantum uncertainty. Even if you argue that it moves because Earth moves, then motion is impossible without matter and therefore the sole thing time requires in order to exist is matter😵

Looks like we have some wannabe Einsteins here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So if time isn't effected how in the world would we know? From a practical point it would seem that time is effected, but in reality who knows.

Time, as it is understood by science, is affected. You are talking about a concept of time that is of no practical use. Its like having a ruler that doesn't actually measure space - what use is it? All that really matters is 'from a practical point'. Hypothetical entities that have no effect on the universe are of little interest. The very laws of physics are dependent on time as understood in relativity. So the orbit of a planet for example has a time component and is thus dependent also on how much gravity is in the region. They do not have a 'constant time' component and thus your concept of 'constant time' is of no use practically.