[_ Old Earth _] What is TIME?

[Pizzaguy]

....

I was not trying to DEBATE you, I was having a conversation with you.

I can tell that you are offended by my response but don't know why, I was just agreeing with you.

If you don't believe you have the intellect to discuss the topic then why are you discussing the topic? You brought it up and thanked us in advance for "thoughtful responses", my response was thoughtful and engaging - but what I don't understand was: how was it offensive to you?

 

[stovebolts]

I could not disagree more. Time is NOT a measurement of the distance between two points - that would be DISTANCE.

Feel free to disagree, that's ok. I just believe that Time is a very interesting topic, one that I enjoy.

And how is a day a "distance between two points"????

What makes up a 24 hr period we call a day? Isn't it 1 complete revolution of the earth? Thus, to make up a full rotation of the earth, we have a "Start" point, and an "End Point". The distance between each point has been evenly divided into 24 hours. At any given hour, the earth is at a different physical location in relation to its rotational points. Step this out one step further, and one could say that the earth is one step further in the season, which is one step further in the year, which is one step further in the age.

And I totally disagree with your Einstein comparison. The Theory of Relativity asserts a relationship between time and speed, agreed, but I don't see how you make the stretch that this has to do with time being related to the distance between two objects.

As sparrow noted, time seems to "Slow down" as particles approaches the speed of light. From what I gather from Einstien, there is a direct relationship between the speed of light and gravity. In other words, gravity does not go faster than light. As a result, this relationship effects the fundemental way in which "time" is measured.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Feel free to disagree, that's ok. I just believe that Time is a very interesting topic, one that I enjoy.

Same here - but time TRAVEL is even more fun to discuss. (Like how time travel is, and always will be, impossible - boy, do I get my science-minded buddies upset with that one!)

What makes up a 24 hr period we call a day? Isn't it 1 complete revolution of the earth? Thus, to make up a full rotation of the earth, we have a "Start" point, and an "End Point". The distance between each point has been evenly divided into 24 hours. At any given hour, the earth is at a different physical location in relation to its rotational points. Step this out one step further, and one could say that the earth is one step further in the season, which is one step further in the year, which is one step further in the age.

I still reject the "distance between two objects" argument. For now, anyway. I think you are conceptualizing things you can't put into words here - that is fine, I am in the same boat as well.

As sparrow noted, time seems to "Slow down" as particles approaches the speed of light. From what I gather from Einstien, there is a direct relationship between the speed of light and gravity. In other words, gravity does not go faster than light. As a result, this relationship effects the fundamental way in which "time" is measured.

Well, obviously, I can't witness the slowing of time as speed increases myself. So, I let that one go, for now. But I DO intend to try to understand, someday. Maybe.

I get the same from Einstein as do you, but it IS way over my head.


Back to time travel (if I may) I used simple logic in a debate on thespaceport.us almost five years ago to win (judging by the votes after the debate) over my opponent. His position was that, someday, we might be able to travel back and forth in time, like in "Back to the Future". That was a fun debate, but I knocked his argument out of the park in two posts. I will probably never be able to do that to someone again, time travel is just too easy to defeat.

 

[Sparkey]

During the industrial revolution Tailorism and Fordism worked to put scientific thought to use. Business efficiency produced bottom-line profits and this came from the efforts of applying 'scientific' notions of work to manufacturing. Motion became a foundational part of time study and methods were compared to determine the economic benefits of effort or work performed. The success of Taylor's time studies, used to compare results and method and engineer performance, caused his concepts of the use of time to become almost universal. Time was a tool to measure and improve performance. Ford extended Tailorism to include the assembly line but both "movements" were forms of social engineering that had great influence on manufacturing and our everyday lives.

As the 19th century progressed "modern man" became more detatched from his biological connection to time. We eat lunch because the clock tells us it is noon and go to bed because it is "bedtime" (again, according to the clock). Prior to the industrial revolution time was measured in terms of discrete parts of the day.

Quoting TimePhysics.com: "There is dawn, sunrise, early morning, morning, mid morning, noon, afternoon, late afternoon, evening, sunset, dusk, night and mid night. Then there are years, months, weeks, based on earth’s yearly orbit around the sun and the changing seasons. The use of units like seconds and minutes which are radial angle measurements in geometry points toward the original connection of time measurements to radial motion of astronomical objects across the sky.​

Time is connected to motion. Corporations have had a profound effect on how we think about time but they have had no effect on what time itself is. I'd like to challenge others here to disassociate the clock from our thinking about what time is. Only then can we acknowledge that the flow of time is altered, not only by gravitational fields (proved by Einstein) but also by our sense of immersion in the task we are performing. We've all had the experience of time standing still or slowing. For me, it happened when I was involved in a car accident. After my car was struck by another car and I was propelled toward a telephone pole, time slowed down. My perceptions and awareness of my surroundings became, to a degree, timeless. I can still remember looking at my passenger as we approached the telephone pole, passenger side first, when an almost camera like stop action sequence played out before me. When we hit the pole and the car turned upside down my mind recorded individual scenes that we packed into the moment but experienced individually. I watched as his glasses left his head, can recall the tiny moments that it took for me to try to protect my friend. We both survived and merely walked home, leaving the scene. Police spent hours looking for our bodies believing that nobody could have survived and that we must have been thrown from the car. I was fine, walked away and my passenger was only scratched.

What had happened? Can anyone explain to me that time flows at the same rate for all people at all times? Is time universal? Perhaps, after a manner of thinking it is. We are conditioned to view an outside source (clocks) when we measure time. But does that define it? Out thoughts about time have been strongly influenced by merchandising and economic social reform. Who can escape that?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Time is connected to motion.

In your examples above, you have shown how the MEASUREMENT of time is connected to motion.

However, Einstein asserted that time IS connected to motion, but it is said (notice that I'm not saying this, yet) that gravity enters into it as well. Clocks on the space shuttle are slowed down very slightly by the speed of the shuttle, but then, they are said to be sped up slightly by the reduced gravity. I have read sources that insist the the reduced gravity speeds the clocks up more than the speed slows them down - but I have also read sources disputing this.

It's hard to tell what is the truth, when dealing with microseconds over days.

 

[Sparkey]

In your examples above, you have shown how the MEASUREMENT of time is connected to motion.

However, Einstein asserted that time IS connected to motion, but it is said (notice that I'm not saying this, yet) that gravity enters into it as well. Clocks on the space shuttle are slowed down very slightly by the speed of the shuttle, but then, they are said to be sped up slightly by the reduced gravity. I have read sources that insist the the reduced gravity speeds the clocks up more than the speed slows them down - but I have also read sources disputing this.

It's hard to tell what is the truth, when dealing with microseconds over days.

Study of the GPS (Global Positioning Systems) and why they need to adjust their clock speeds to sync with "surface time" because the clocks in orbit are further distance from our nearest gravitational source, the earth, proves what you are pondering. Check for yourself. It is a common misconception that clocks are only slowed by speed. Consider geosynchronous orbits where the satellite speed is exactly matched to the rotation of the earth and only the distance from the gravitational source differs.

In practice what happens is that the clocks on the satelites are adjusted to change the number of atomic transitions that define a second while they are on the ground to conform to the predictions of GR (General Relativity), that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field as well as the predictions of SR (Special Relativity), that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. The clocks are then sent into orbit and can be observed as running at their offset rates before launch and in agreement with surface clocks after achieving orbit.

I've looked at this before so it didn't take long to Google the facts from my bookmarks. Hope it helps.

 

[Sparkey]

ClockTime
So far, we have been involved in discussing time as it is counted by various types of clocks. Atomic clocks and sun-dials have been mentioned as devices that can determine fractions of time as it passes. When we consider time the discussion necessarily focuses on duration or period and how we count their passing. In thread so far, there has been a general agreement that Time is a measurement of rate and motion. Precise Time is a measurement of the flow and cycle of electrons - the word "atom" was first used to define a small quantity of time and didn't refer to what we know as an "atom" today. Somewhere around 2,500 years ago Democritus was sitting around just thinking. He was thinking about cutting stuff up and came up with the idea that there must be a point where you could no longer cut something any smaller. He named this concept based on the Greek word, "atomos", which means that which can't be split

CalendarTime
Our measurement of time does include clocks but it would be remiss to leave out the larger scales that time is measured upon. Intervals less than a day are typically measured by the clock but for periods greater than a day we use various calendars. This is what Steve was bringing to the conversation - that calendars are mathematical abstractions of the earth's position relative to the sun. Since the earth travels in an eliptical orbit and there are more "days" than there would be in an evenly divided 360 degree circle, so our concept of years must include an offset quantity for precise measurement of the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. Other calendar measurements of time are based on the orbits of other heavenly bodies, the moon for instance.

Example: When do "we" celebrate Easter
Our observations of the solar and lunar "cycles" form the basis of our concepts about greater-than-one-day time. Other observers consider duration or cycles of heavenly bodies to include astrology and the signs of the zodiac. There was great debate in the first few hundred years after the resurrection of Jesus when different observers tried to establish a fixed day for when Christians would celebrate the holiday of "Easter". The bishop of Alexandria (then) said, "the men of the present day now celebrate [Passover] before the [spring] equinox...through negligence and error."* My interpretation: Church leaders wanted to harmonize Jewish and worldly calendars.

Abstract: We are Changable Because of Time.My thought here is that society has influenced our thoughts about time, how it passes, how it can be measured and that influence has an effect on our thinking, how we think about time changes who we are. That's not such a strange thought although I would readily admit that you don't hear such a thing every day. There are ample studies that compare surfing on the internet and reading textbooks for instance that show that how we read changes the way we think. Along the same lines I would like to suggest that how we think about time influences our perceptions, not only when we consider physics (and all it implies) but also our perceptions of ourselves. Another way of trying to think about this could include shuffling off our mortal coil, dying, leaving our bodies but continuing to exist. What "then" is time. Notice that even as I try to consider it, the "then" persists. Must I think timebound always?

What is time outside of our frame? I'm not trying to debate here but instead trying to introduce an attempt to think outside the box to our discussion. Attempts to define time in a non-controversial (useful) manner that finds use in different fields of study has eluded the greatest minds. Please continue to pardon my rambling, thoughts come faster than I can capture and express sometimes.
________________________________________
Footnote:
* Peter of Alexandria, quoted in the preface to the Chronicon Paschale, Migne, PG 18, 512

 

[jasoncran]

lol, its not steve but STOVEbolts.

 

[Sparkey]

lol, its not steve but STOVEbolts.

Ahhh, thanks JC.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Study of the GPS (Global Positioning Systems) and why they need to adjust their clock speeds to sync with "surface time" because the clocks in orbit are further distance from our nearest gravitational source, the earth, proves what you are pondering....

I found that here: What the Global Positioning System Tells Us About Relativity

What really surprised me was this: General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth.

I had been wondering about that - odd how the effects happen to cancel, right where man lives out his life: at the surface of the earth.

 

[Sparkey]

During break between classes at school today another student commented (Yes, I talk about this stuff too much) ... but the comment was, "Time is an invention of carbon-based lifeforms used to measure decay."

Pretty sure my friend was quoting something, right? Cone-heads maybe?

 

[Deavonreye]

Equipment to test for time is a human invention, sure. Obviously [and completely unnecessary to state this as it is painfully obvious], time would still be what it is without us, or any other lifeform that experiences it.

Time is equally relevant to the wind.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Equipment to test for time is a human invention, sure. Obviously [and completely unnecessary to state this as it is painfully obvious], time would still be what it is without us, or any other lifeform that experiences it.

Time is equally relevant to the wind.

I love your posts... if you were a Christian, you'd be perfect!

 

[darrell]

OK. I’m jumping in to this discussion late, so bear with me as I catch up.

As far as flexible time, I thought of fiberglass tent poles, the kind used on dome tents. If we lay the pole flat, then bend the pole into a “U†shape, the distance between any two points on the pole becomes shorter. Perhaps the space-time continuum is like this? Forgive me if this is a simplistic analogy, but it’s what came to mind.

As for our experience of time in the afterlife… We humans spend the first nine months (more or less) of our existence in this world within our mother’s uterus. Our experience of this world, once our senses have developed, is limited to the physical stimulus within the uterus – the physical sensations within the womb and any light or sound that may filter through our mother’s flesh. I don’t know if a pre-birth baby has the capacity for imagination – I personally don’t remember – but after birth the infant begins to experience things beyond probably what it could have imagined. The human capacity to experience expands and grows after birth. I imagine that after death our capacity to experience will be different as well.

As for whether or not God is constrained by time, this relates to another discussion on the supernatural:
IF by definition the supernatural is above or beyond the natural,
AND time is part of the natural physical universe,
THEN the supernatural is not bound or limited by natural physical laws.
Therefore, since God is a supernatural God, He exists outside of time. God is not bound by time, nor is He limited by time. Would not the supernatural God who created the natural physical universe be outside the universe He created?

Additionally, thanks to Tailgunner, we can take Einstein’s definition – Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once – and we can say that God happens all at once. Or to put it differently, we could say that God exists throughout and beyond all of time all at once. And I really can’t get my little brain around that one.

Deavonreye, I agree with you that the big bang theory would require a catalyst had to start off the process. This actually supports there being a Creator of the universe.

OK. I’ve got smoke coming out of my ears now.

 

[Pizzaguy]

The human capacity to experience expands and grows after birth. I imagine that after death our capacity to experience will be different as well.

As for whether or not God is constrained by time, this relates to another discussion on the supernatural:
IF by definition the supernatural is above or beyond the natural,
AND time is part of the natural physical universe,
THEN the supernatural is not bound or limited by natural physical laws.
Therefore, since God is a supernatural God, He exists outside of time. God is not bound by time, nor is He limited by time. Would not the supernatural God who created the natural physical universe be outside the universe He created?

Totally agreed on all counts.

Additionally, thanks to Tailgunner, we can take Einstein’s definition –

Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once – and we can say that God happens all at once. Or to put it differently, we could say that God exists throughout and beyond all of time all at once. And I really can’t get my little brain around that one.

I keep trying to find the paper/video by ah physicist who talks about "if we could step outside of time and space, we'd see......" but I can't.

The point is, when I heard him speak, I imagined what he was saying.... and it seemed like he was (unknowingly) describing how God exists. If I can find it, I'll post it.

Just seems to me that a SPIRIT being, a being without a body or mass, COULD possibly exist outside of space and time. That is, if ANYONE/THING could, it could.

Deavonreye, I agree with you that the big bang theory would require

a catalyst had to start off the process. This actually supports there being a Creator of the universe.

Again, I remember reading either Hawkings, or Bethe or one of the big-time astronomers as he spoke about the Big Bang. And as he described what happened in the instant of the bang and the seconds after - it sounded like early Genesis to me.

I think that, when they look back in time at the big bang, they are looking back at the instant God created the universe.

I consider myself to be a "fence sitter" on this one. That is, I am in the camp of the theologians and I am also in the camp of the scientists - as I am a believer but also a BIG fan of science and math. I like to watch each side talk past one another - because sometimes, it sounds like they are both describing the same things, events, etc. But they can't conceive of what I am seeing: they fight over what appears to be the same events, interpreted differently.



OK. I’ve got smoke coming out of my ears now. [/QUOTE]

 

[darrell]

I am in the camp of the theologians and I am also in the camp of the scientists - as I am a believer but also a BIG fan of science and math.

Me too. Whenever I find what appears to be a contradition between faith and science, I know that either our understanding of science is incorrect or our understanding of God is incorrect, or both.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Me too. Whenever I find what appears to be a contradiction between faith and science, I know that either our understanding of science is incorrect (or incomplete) or our understanding of God is incorrect (or incomplete), or both.

That sound ok to you? ;)


It's almost fun to listen to theologians and scientists sit and talk past one another at times.

 

[Deavonreye]

I believe that most people don't have a grasp of what is actually happening. I also believe that leaders who believe incorrectly can cause harm to those who believe them. Having said that, I believe that placing such "certainties" upon people, at the fear of reprisal, when they have yet to comprehend fully.

As for "supernatural", . . . I think that things we are assured of as "natural" may be more than that. I believe that even spirit beings, without mass, would be bound to working in the confines of time. Could they visit different times? Maybe. I don't know how, nor would I stand firm that they couldn't. But we have no way of knowing this. With this in mind, I would like to hear how you would see how a spirit being COULD go back in time, or forward [as it hasn't happened yet].

 

[darrell]

I believe that most people don't have a grasp of what is actually happening. I also believe that leaders who believe incorrectly can cause harm to those who believe them. Having said that, I believe that placing such "certainties" upon people, at the fear of reprisal, when they have yet to comprehend fully.

As for "supernatural", . . . I think that things we are assured of as "natural" may be more than that. I believe that even spirit beings, without mass, would be bound to working in the confines of time. Could they visit different times? Maybe. I don't know how, nor would I stand firm that they couldn't. But we have no way of knowing this. With this in mind, I would like to hear how you would see how a spirit being COULD go back in time, or forward [as it hasn't happened yet].

Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol is fiction yes, however I think his imagination probably is close to the spiritual truth.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I believe that even spirit beings, without mass, would be bound to working in the confines of time. Could they visit different times? Maybe. I don't know how, nor would I stand firm that they couldn't. But we have no way of knowing this. With this in mind, I would like to hear how you would see how a spirit being COULD go back in time, or forward [as it hasn't happened yet].

We don't know what spirit being can or cannot do. We DO know that mankind will never achieve time travel.

For me to back up my assertions of spirit being time travel, I'll need to do a LOT of reading... in fact, it's probably fruitless to even try.

Just saying what I THINK is true. Really can't support it, certainly not scientifically!