Does time stop at the speed of light?

[CockRoach]

what is time?

is time the speed of light?

if you went the speed of light would time stop?

if you went faster then the speed of light would you enter the future?

can you go a negative speed?

if you went negative speed would you go backwards in time?

does anything exist in the future or the past?


just a little something to get everyone thinking... :borg:

[diluted]

read some of stephen hawking's books.

i think i could answer some but im not 100 percent so i wont.

[Navaron]

Einstein thought that all matter was light in different forms and stages. Time doesn't exist anyway, when you put people in all different enviroments, they age differently.

[�io]

I have trouble believing in time travel, if you believe you can travel to the future than you believe everything is pre destined and already done which means your life isn't yours it's the universes and you can't do anything about it.

[Mtx]

You could defy the clock but not time itself.

[MrVicchio]

Time travel is theoretically possible, but all the ways to do it require technology we don't have.

[Mauser101]

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." -Ford Prefect

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by CockRoach
what is time?

is time the speed of light?

if you went the speed of light would time stop?

if you went faster then the speed of light would you enter the future?

can you go a negative speed?

if you went negative speed would you go backwards in time?

does anything exist in the future or the past?


just a little something to get everyone thinking... :borg:

1) The first one is tough. Some see it merely as a marker to be used to plot points in the universe, others see it as a spacial dimension (similar to lenght width and height). The word time carries alot of weight with it. It is hard to define time in the same way it is hard to define love.

2) Time is not the speed of light.

3) You would be in an inertial reference frame. For you time would seem to progress normally. To others it would seem like time slowed down for you.

4) Yes, however it does not mean what you think. Right now you are traveling into the future. You are always travleling into the future. Traveling at high speeds or high gravity propel you into the future faster (however time seems to pass normally for you).

5) Negative indicates direction, not magnitude. Conventionally negative speed would indicate the direction an object was traveling in reference to some reference point. Now the concept of anti-speed is interesting although I have never head of it before. I am not sure what anti-speed would be. That seems to a concept that is worth thinking about.

6) Why not?

7) Who knows?

[Hamma]

My brain hurts.

[PR24]

If time is an illusion why do I have to remain at work for 8 hours then? :lol:

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Dio
I have trouble believing in time travel, if you believe you can travel to the future than you believe everything is pre destined and already done which means your life isn't yours it's the universes and you can't do anything about it.

Traveling into the future does not mean life is predestined.

Think of travel into the distant future as being put into hybernation and sleeping while the rest of the world goes on. You wake up and it feels like one day has passed for you but you are hundreds of years into the future.

It is traveling back in time that raises questions like is life predestined.

Time travel into the future exists right now.

Did you know that time moves slower for people at sea level than it does at high altitudes?

[mistled]

"the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent." - Einstein

Objective time only actually exist in your mind anyway, since all time is all actually now. It's only when your mind tries to make sense of it that the ideas of past and future come into play.

[Navaron]

Here's a little fact, when a human is put is a room with constant light, no clocks and no windows - essentially no way to tell the time, the human body sets itself on a 36 hour day. This is interesting for many ways, however, the body becomes more efficient and has shown the signs of slower aging. They of course can't do this on a long term test of years, but how cool would that be?

[CockRoach]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Here's a little fact, when a human is put is a room with constant light, no clocks and no windows - essentially no way to tell the time, the human body sets itself on a 36 hour day. This is interesting for many ways, however, the body becomes more efficient and has shown the signs of slower aging. They of course can't do this on a long term test of years, but how cool would that be?


YAY lets all live in a small box with no clocks for 200 years!!!
i could play planetside forever!!!

[Mauser101]

One thing that may be of intrest is the idea of the omniscience of God. Mostly because we think of God as a being that has a lot of time. When you theorize that God exists outside of our time domain things get really interesting.

Another cool theory I once read about (probably in popular science) was research into deminsiality. The article stated that researchers currently believe their may be as many as 10 dimensions. Four that are knowable (4th being time) and and 6 that are currently inperciveable except by how they effect the 4 we can percieve.

Lexington_Steele: Concerning altitude/gravity and its effect on time. I heard that experiment was conducted by placing an atomic clock in an airplane and taking it into high sub orbit (like U2/SR71 altitudes) and then bringing the plane down and watching the readout adjust up and down as you ascend from and descend to the surface. Pretty cool. The idea would be that time can be effected by gravity. Thus, something with a great deal of gravity (like a black hole) can swallow time as well as light.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by CockRoach

what is time?

is time the speed of light?

if you went the speed of light would time stop?

if you went faster then the speed of light would you enter the future?

can you go a negative speed?

if you went negative speed would you go backwards in time?

does anything exist in the future or the past?


just a little something to get everyone thinking... :borg:

1) Time is a unit of measurement. It was based off the earth rotation around the sun, but now is based off the vibration of Hydrogen atoms.

2) No.

3-4) If you go the speed of light, Hydrogen atoms will still vibrate at the same speed, and the earth will still rotated at the same speed. If humans could travel the speed of light, they would age the same way other human bodies capable of travel the speed of light would.

5) A negative speed I guess could just mean going backwards. If so, see above for answer.

6) Not that any science has ever proven.

Lastly, we have made a matrix that can make photons go 300 times the speed of light.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele

Did you know that time moves slower for people at sea level than it does at high altitudes?

What they mean by that is if time is measured in the earths' rotation, then someone closer to the core would be spinning slower, than someone futher away from the core. It still takes 24 hours for a full rotation, just one person has a longer "circle" to travel than the other.

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele

Traveling into the future does not mean life is predestined.

Think of travel into the distant future as being put into hybernation and sleeping while the rest of the world goes on. You wake up and it feels like one day has passed for you but you are hundreds of years into the future.

It is traveling back in time that raises questions like is life predestined.

Time travel into the future exists right now.

Did you know that time moves slower for people at sea level than it does at high altitudes?

Correct, that is time travel. But I was thinking of accelerated time travel.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Toimu
What they mean by that is if time is measured in the earths' rotation, then someone closer to the core would be spinning slower, than someone futher away from the core. It still takes 24 hours for a full rotation, just one person has a longer "circle" to travel than the other.

Nope, this is time dilation due to slightly different amount of gravity at each place.

This is not due to the rotation of the earth.

If you set two atomic clocks to the same exact time, and check on them in a year, you will see that the atomic clock that is at a higher altitude will be ahead of the one at sea level.

[Mauser101]

As I understand it, the march of time on an atomic clock is measured by the breakdown of a particular element. Is that so?

Any idea which element?

[Arshune]

The problem here is that people are thinking of time as an actual physical force that affects things, but it's not. Time is a frame of reference created by humans to give context and organization to an otherwise chaotic world. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, there is no such thing as simultaneity, so therefore time can't exist the same way for two different things.

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Here's a little fact, when a human is put is a room with constant light, no clocks and no windows - essentially no way to tell the time, the human body sets itself on a 36 hour day. This is interesting for many ways, however, the body becomes more efficient and has shown the signs of slower aging. They of course can't do this on a long term test of years, but how cool would that be?

this might be a kind of creepy connection to all those crazy cults that say were originally from mars but uuuhhh how long is a day on mars?

[Bighoss]

wait wait never mind a day on mars is 24 hours and 40 minutes. THE CULTS LOOSE AGAIN YAY:D

[Mauser101]

Originally posted by Arshune
The problem here is that people are thinking of time as an actual physical force that affects things, but it's not.

According to relativity (which, keep in mind, is still only a theory) intense gravity distorts space-time. So, if time is effected by a physical force (gravity)...can it be assumed that time can be acted upon and reacted to?

That's the wacky kindof stuff that used to keep me up late at night. Then I found alchohol.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele

Nope, this is time dilation due to slightly different amount of gravity at each place.

This is not due to the rotation of the earth.

If you set two atomic clocks to the same exact time, and check on them in a year, you will see that the atomic clock that is at a higher altitude will be ahead of the one at sea level.

Ok, I see what you mean now. But time doesn't move slower for either person. A day still takes 24 hours. Just each person has to set their adjust their clocks more often.

Originally posted by Mauser101

As I understand it, the march of time on an atomic clock is measured by the breakdown of a particular element. Is that so?

Any idea which element?

The steady pulse of atomic vibrations can keep time far more accurately than any other sort of clock. Cesium is the element used in atomic clocks.

http://www.earthsky.com/2000/es000106.html

Doh, I thought it was Hydrogen.

[Confectrix]

Interesting discussion, no politics for once. Here's my take on it from a philosophical perspective:

"The problem of time is one of the most difficult and most keenly debated in the field of natural philosophy. To arrive at a satisfactory orientation in regard to this discussion, it is important to distinguish two questions:

(1) What are the notes, or elements, contained in our subjective representation of time?

(2) To what external reality does this representation correspond?

As to the first question, philosophers and scientists in general agree in this: that the notion, or concept, of time contains three distinct ideas fused into one indivisible whole.

-First there is the idea of succession. Every mind distinguishes in time the past, the present, and the future, that is parts which essentially exclude simultaneity and can be realized only one after the other.

-Again, time implies continuity. Speaking of events here below, in our own life, we cannot conceive the possibility of an interval of duration, however short, in which we should cease to grow older, or in which moment should cease to follow moment. The march of time knows neither pause nor interruption.

-Lastly, a continuous succession cannot be a continuous succession of nothing. Therefore the concept of time represents to us a reality the parts of which succeed each other in a continuous manner. It matters little here whether this reality is purely ideal, or is realized outside of us, for we are dealing only with the concept of time.

Such are the three essential elements of the subjective representation. From these considerations it appears that the question of time belongs to the domain of cosmology. By reason of its character as continuous, successive, divisible, and measureable, time belongs to the category of quantity, which is a general attribute of bodies, and cosmology has for its object the essence and general attributes of matter.

The second question, relating to the objectivity of the concept of time, is one upon which philosophers, as well as scientists, are divided: no fewer than fifteen different opinions may be enumerated; these, however, may be grouped in three classes. One class embraces the subjectivist opinions, of which Kant is the chief representative; these regard time as completely a creation of the knowing subject. To Kant and his followers time is an a priori form, a natural disposition by virtue of which the inner sense clothes the acts of the external senses, and consequently the phenomena which these acts represent, with the distinctive characteristics of time. Through this form internal and external phenomena are apprehended by us as simultaneous or successive, anterior or posterior, to one another, and are submitted to necessary and universal time-judgements. To this class, also, belong a group of opinions which, without being so thoroughly subjective, attribute to time only a conceptual existence. To Leibniz and others time is "the order of successions", or a relation between things that follow one another; but if these things are real, the mind perceives them under the form of instants between which it establishes a relation that is purely mental. According to Balmes, time is a relation between being and non-being; subjective time is the perception of this relation; objective time is the relation itself in things. Though the two ideas of being and non-being are found in every succession, the relation between these two ideas cannot represent to us real continuousness, and therefore it remains in the ideal order. Locke considers time as a part of infinite duration, expressed by periodic measures such as the revolution of the earth around the sun. According to Spencer, a particular time is the relation between two in the series of states of consciousness. The abstract notion of a relation of aggregated positions between the states of consciousness constitutes the notion of time in general. To this relation Spencer attaches an essentially relative character, and attributes relative objectivity to psychological time alone. For Bergson homogeneous time is neither a property of things nor an essential condition of our cognitive faculty; it is an abstract schema of succession in general, a pure fiction, which nevertheless makes it possible for us to act upon matter. But besides this homogeneous time, Bergson recognizes a real duration, or rather, a multiplicity of durations of unequal elasticities which belong to the acts of our consciousness as well as to our external things. The systems of Descartes and of Baumann must also be classified as idealistic.

In opposition to this class of opinions which represent the existence of time as purely conceptual, a second class represent it as something which has complete reality outside of our minds. These opinions may fairly be described as ultra-realist. Certain philosophers, notably Gassendi and the ancient Greek Materialists, regard time as a being sui generis, independent of all created things and capable of surviving the destruction of them all. Infinite in its extension, it is the receptacle in which all the events of this world are enclosed. Always identical with itself, it permeates all things, regulating their course and preserving in the uninterrupted flow of its parts an absolutely regular mode of succession. Other philosophers, e.g. Clarke and Newton, identify time with the eternity of God or regard it as an immediate and necessary result of God's existence, so that, even were there no created beings, the continuation of the Divine existence would involve as its consequence, duration, or time. These ultra-realist philosophers substantialize time; others again make it a complete being, but of the accidental order. For de San time is an accident sui generis, distinct from all ordinary accidents; it is constituted as the local movement of parts which succeed each other in a continuous manner, but with perfect uniformity; by this accident, which is always inherent in substance, being and the accidents of being continue their existence enveloped in a succession which is everywhere and always uniform. Lastly, according to Dr. Hallez, the substantial existence of beings itself increases intrinsically without cessation, and this regular and continuous increase is by no means occasional or transitory, but always remains a veritable acquisition to the being which is its subject. Of this quantitative increment time is the representation. To sum up, all systems of this second class have as their distinctive characteristic the assertion of an external concrete reality--whether substantial or accidental--which adequately corresponds to the abstract concept of time, so that our representation of time is only a copy of that reality.

Between these two extreme classes of opinions is the system proposed by the majority of the Scholastics, ancient and modern. For them the concept of time is partly subjective, partly objective. It becomes concrete in continuous, notably in local, movement; but movement becomes time only with the intervention of our intelligence. Time is defined as the measure of movement according to an order of anteriority and posteriority (numerous motus secundum prius et posterius). Once local movement is divided into parts by thought, all the elements of the concept of time are found in it. Motion, being objectively distinct from rest, is something real; it is endowed with true continuity; nevertheless, in so far as it is divided by the intelligence, it contains successive parts actually distinct among themselves--some anterior, some posterior--between which we place a fleeting present. In the elaboration of the idea of time, therefore, movement furnishes the intelligence with a successive, continuous reality which is to be the real object of the concept, while the intelligence conceives it in that which it has in common with all movement--that is without its specific and individual notes--and makes it, formally, time, by dividing the continuity of the movement, making actual that distinction of parts which the movement possesses only potentially. In fact, say the Scholastics, we never perceive time apart from movement, and all our measures of our temporal duration are borrowed from local movement, particularly the apparent movement of the heavens.

Whatever be its objectivity, time possesses three inalienable properties. First, it is irreversible; the linking of its parts, or the order of their succession, cannot be changed; past time does not come back. According to Kant, the reason of this property is found in the application to time of the principle of causality. As the parts of time, he says, are to each other in the relation of cause to effect, and as the cause is essentially antecedent to its effect, it is impossible to reverse this relation. According to the Scholastics, this immutability is based upon the very nature of concrete movement, of which one part is essentially anterior to another. Secondly, time is the measure of events in this world. This raises a knotty problem, which has so far not been theoretically solved. Time can be a permanent measure only if it is concretized in a uniform movement. Now, to know the uniformity of a movement, we must know not only the space traversed, but the velocity of the transit, that is the time. Here there is unquestionably a vicious circle. Lastly, for those who concretize time in movement, a much debated question is, whether time or movement can be infinite, that is without beginning. St. Thomas and some of the Scholastics see no absolute impossibility in this, but many modern thinkers take a different view." - D. NYS [Transcribed by Jamin Sauls and Patrick Swain]

[xuur]

the concept of 'time' was invented by man to measure his own pathetic existance in comparison to other things in his perceived universe.

there is no time, there is only now.

thank you for your time.
*snickers and toddles off*

x

[Toimu]

Damn philosophers making stuff all complex. We just needed a way to record when events happened, and a way to plan events to happen. Thus we came up with ways to measure time.

[CockRoach]

incase anyone didnt get what i meant by negative speed...
your always moving in a positive speed, what ever direction your going its a positive speed, if your going away from something your going a positive speed in the opposite direction, not negative speed. I was thinking what if we could go negative speed? would time progress backwards, into the past?
its like for every action theres a equal and opposite reaction, if we're going a positive speed what is negative speed?

[Mauser101]

Confetrix-

Thanks for posting that. It really brought to light the differances of opinion on the matter:p

Anybody else actually read the who thing?

Thanks in part to Star Trek I probably fall into the third example. Time IS, but it is not a constant.

[Bighoss]

the real question we should be asking ourselves is how can we all become demi gods:confused:

[tmax]

too much thought interventiong....urrgh...need...simpsons

[mistled]

Originally posted by Toimu
If humans could travel the speed of light, they would age the same way other human bodies capable of travel the speed of light would. So humans would react the same as human bodies?? I'm sorry, but you lost me completely with the sentence above.


But time doesn't move slower for either person. A day still takes 24 hours.Actually, it does move slower. To take this example to it's extreme, if you were ever to visit a black hole, time would basically stop for you. (this, of course, assumes that you somehow were surviving the pressures involved) A "day" would never pass for you. Now, if you were ever brought out of that black hole, you may find that a thousand years has passed for Earth, but to you, it is the same day that you entered the black hole.

So, if time is effected by a physical force (gravity)...can it be assumed that time can be acted upon and reacted to?My question is that since we know time can be affected by gravity, does that mean that time can be controlled somehow?? (it's already been proven that space can be warped and items teleported, so I guess time is the next big task ;))

Time is a frame of reference created by humans For everyone who said something like the above, you're missing something very key. Humans can't create time. We did create a way to measure it, and we did name the concept, but we didn't create time.


btw... I think I'm more with Kant's group than the other two.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled

So humans would react the same as human bodies?? I'm sorry, but you lost me completely with the sentence above.

I was saying humans cannot travel the speed of light, we couldn't handle the force. If we made a human that could, then it wouldn't be the same as a normal human, and may age differently no matter were they are and how fast they are moving.

Actually, it does move slower. To take this example to it's extreme, if you were ever to visit a black hole, time would basically stop for you. (this, of course, assumes that you somehow were surviving the pressures involved) A "day" would never pass for you. Now, if you were ever brought out of that black hole, you may find that a thousand years has passed for Earth, but to you, it is the same day that you entered the black hole.

Just because someone cannot measure time, doesn't mean time doesn't pass. If you in a coma for 1 year, it may seem like only a second passed. But that doesn't mean time stoped, even if you didn't age one year, time still didn't stop.

My question is that since we know time can be affected by gravity, does that mean that time can be controlled somehow?? (it's already been proven that space can be warped and items teleported, so I guess time is the next big task ;))

Time isn't effected by gravity, only the devices we have that measure time.

For everyone who said something like the above, you're missing something very key. Humans can't create time. We did create a way to measure it, and we did name the concept, but we didn't create time.

The only thing I agree with you on, because it's true.

It doesn't matter if you change all the standards we have to measure time with, time still passes at the same speed.

P.S. Spend some time in Physics class, you learn all kinds of facts. Instead of making stuff up like "when you go into a black hole...".

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Toimu
Time isn't effected by gravity, only the devices we have that measure time.

First off time is effected by gravity. It effects time the same way moving does.

Being in extremely high gravity has the same relativistic effects on time that traveling at near light speeds does.

Do you remember the example I gave (with the high and low altitude clocks)? After a year, the people living at sea level would be a fraction of a second younger than the people living at the high altituder.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele

First off time is effected by gravity. It effects time the same way moving does.

Being in extremely high gravity has the same relativistic effects on time that traveling at near light speeds does.

Do you remember the example I gave (with the high and low altitude clocks)? After a year, the people living at sea level would be a fraction of a second younger than the people living at the high altituder.

Ok, I understand your definition of time now. You define time by how well something measures time. How is different gravity effecting the ability of clocks keeping track of time different from someone changing the time on a clock with their hand?

Just because two people age differently, doesn't mean time goes slower for one person, than the other. Each person is still the same age as they have always been. Living longer at low gravity compaired to high gravity has nothing to do with time. It's just like saying eating health slows down the speed of time.

Time is a way to keep track of events, and plan events. It is not a force, you cannot slow down time, you can only slow down ways we have to measure time.

Again, P.S. Take some Physics classes before you start talking about stuff you learned from Sci-Fi.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Toimu
[B]Time is a way to keep track of events, and plan events. It is not a force, you cannot slow down time, you can only slow down ways we have to measure time. Time is not a way to keep track of events. Measuring time is a way to keep track of events.

So, by your definition, there is no scientific way to ever make any test upon time. Since you say that nothing we use to measure time actually measures time (this is what you're saying, whether you mean to or not), you have invalidated every science experiment into time that ever existed. After all, if all the the instruments to measure time can't do it correctly, all of our information on time that isn't philosophical is bunk.


... your comment about humans can't travel the speed of light....
You do realize that this entire conversation is theoretical, don't you?? I've been under the assumtion that all of these things were assuming that a human could survive the process.

A human couldn't survive being pulled into a black hole, nor could they ever escape if they did, but with the known traits that black holes have, my comments were correct.
If you didn't age any and nothing changed for you, time did stop. If you somehow lived a thousand years, time stopped. It didn't stop elsewhere, but for all practical purposes, time stopped for you.

btw, you can't prove that time isn't affected by gravity because you've already stated that we can't measure time correctly because our measuring tools are faulty.

or yes... and what exactly is it about an atomic clock that changes if you take it up on a mountain??

[Mauser101]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled

or yes... and what exactly is it about an atomic clock that changes if you take it up on a mountain??

Apparently from the previously posted atomic clock article, it would be the vibration of atoms that changes along with gravity.

My real question here would be, does this point to time itself warping or to atoms warping? (warping is used here loosely ie. not in the Star Trek sense)

It seems to me that it is the atoms.

This wouldn't be a problem if our plain wasn't at a supposed right angle to time. That's it, I'm going to lay down and reorient myself with the space-time continueum. :)

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Toimu
Ok, I understand your definition of time now. You define time by how well something measures time. How is different gravity effecting the ability of clocks keeping track of time different from someone changing the time on a clock with their hand?

Just because two people age differently, doesn't mean time goes slower for one person, than the other. Each person is still the same age as they have always been. Living longer at low gravity compaired to high gravity has nothing to do with time. It's just like saying eating health slows down the speed of time.[/color] [/B]
First off I have probably had more physics than you, so cut your cheesy insults regarding sci-fi.

Lets say someone was born in an extremely high gravity environment at the same time someone was born on earth.

If these two people met after say 24 earth years. The child from earth will will be fully grown and the child who has been living in the high gravity environment could still be merely an infant.

They were born at the exact same moment. One is a full grown adult, one is an infant. I would say time passed differently for each of them.

Mr. Physicist, please try not to confuse this with the apparent passage of time in an inertial reference frame.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
or yes... and what exactly is it about an atomic clock that changes if you take it up on a mountain??

The amount of gravity. The closer you are to the Earths center of mass, the higher the gravity.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele

Lets say someone was born in an extremely high gravity environment at the same time someone was born on earth.

If these two people met after say 24 earth years. The child from earth will will be fully grown and the child who has been living in the high gravity environment could still be merely an infant.

They were born at the exact same moment. One is a full grown adult, one is an infant. I would say time passed differently for each of them.Either way, 24 earth years passed, your opinion is that because the environment effected the 2 people differently, time passed at different speeds for each. Like if one person is mentally retarded, and one isn't. Your opinion of the definition of time is how something is effected over a period of time compared to the same object in a different environment. The definition of time is:

n.
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.
a. An interval, especially a span of years, marked by similar events, conditions, or phenomena; an era. Often used in the plural: hard times; a time of troubles.
b. times The present with respect to prevailing conditions and trends: You must change with the times.
1. A suitable or opportune moment or season: a time for taking stock of one's life.
a. Periods or a period designated for a given activity: harvest time; time for bed.
b. Periods or a period necessary or available for a given activity: I have no time for golf.
c. A period at one's disposal: Do you have time for a chat?
2. An appointed or fated moment, especially of death or giving birth: He died before his time. Her time is near.
a. One of several instances: knocked three times; addressed Congress for the last time before retirement.
b. times Used to indicate the number of instances by which something is multiplied or divided: This tree is three times taller than that one. My library is many times smaller than hers.
a. One's lifetime.
b. One's period of greatest activity or engagement.
c. A person's experience during a specific period or on a certain occasion: had a good time at the party.
a. A period of military service.
b. A period of apprenticeship.
c. Informal A prison sentence.
a. The customary period of work: hired for full time.
b. The period spent working.
c. The hourly pay rate: earned double time on Sundays.
3. The period during which a radio or television program or commercial is broadcast: "There's television time to buy" (Brad Goldstein).
4. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time.
5. Music
a. The meter of a musical pattern: three-quarter time.
b. The rate of speed at which a piece of music is played; the tempo.
6. Chiefly British The hour at which a pub closes.
7. Sports A time-out.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or measuring time.
2. Constructed so as to operate at a particular moment: a time release.
3. Payable on a future date or dates.
4. Of or relating to installment buying: time payments.
tr.v. timed, tim�ing, times
1. To set the time for (an event or occasion).
2. To adjust to keep accurate time.
3. To adjust so that a force is applied or an action occurs at the desired time: timed his swing so as to hit the ball squarely.
4. To record the speed or duration of: time a runner.
5. To set or maintain the tempo, speed, or duration of: time a manufacturing process.

[Toimu]

1st this thread was about the laws of Physics, which I like. Then it went philosophical, wich is ok untill philosophy starts contradicting the laws of Physics. Now it's gone to us correcting each others grammer...

[Toimu]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled

Time is not a way to keep track of events. Measuring time is a way to keep track of events.

Thank you for correcting my grammer. I really mean that, I hate using incorrect grammer.

So, by your definition, there is no scientific way to ever make any test upon time. Since you say that nothing we use to measure time actually measures time (this is what you're saying, whether you mean to or not), you have invalidated every science experiment into time that ever existed. After all, if all the the instruments to measure time can't do it correctly, all of our information on time that isn't philosophical is bunk.

I said, (or ment for it to mean) if you have two clock, and change the environment so over a period of time the clocks read different times, then the clocks need to be corrected so the correct time is kept.

... your comment about humans can't travel the speed of light....
You do realize that this entire conversation is theoretical, don't you?? I've been under the assumtion that all of these things were assuming that a human could survive the process.

Yes, I was trying to lighten this thread up a little.

A human couldn't survive being pulled into a black hole, nor could they ever escape if they did, but with the known traits that black holes have, my comments were correct.
If you didn't age any and nothing changed for you, time did stop. If you somehow lived a thousand years, time stopped. It didn't stop elsewhere, but for all practical purposes, time stopped for you.

Your opinion of time isn't correct. Time can never stop. For all practical purposes I see it as you just lived a thousand years without aging.

btw, you can't prove that time isn't affected by gravity because you've already stated that we can't measure time correctly because our measuring tools are faulty.

All you all are saying is the devices we have that measure time are affected by gravity.

It doesn't matter how you change the environment to change a device that measures time, time still passes at the same speed.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Toimu
Thank you for correcting my grammer. I really mean that, I hate using incorrect grammer. I wasn't trying to correct your grammer. I was simply challenging your definition of what time is.


Originally posted by Toimu
I said, (or ment for it to mean) if you have two clock, and change the environment so over a period of time the clocks read different times, then the clocks need to be corrected so the correct time is kept.As Lex said, don't "confuse this with the apparent passage of time in an inertial reference frame." (I was going to reword it, but what's the point??) For the people involved, time behaves differently. I'm making reference from the individuals point of view, not from a universal perspective.


Originally posted by Toimu
Your opinion of time isn't correct. Time can never stop. For all practical purposes I see it as you just lived a thousand years without aging.

All you all are saying is the devices we have that measure time are affected by gravity.

It doesn't matter how you change the environment to change a device that measures time, time still passes at the same speed. All I was saying was that if we can't do tests on time, then we actually can't prove anythng about it.

btw, how do we know that time passes at the same speed?? We actually have no way to prove that it does because you must assume that anytime that time ever changed speed, it would affect your experiment's constants, thus nullifying the entire experiment. The Catch-22 to this entire conversation is that the only way to truly do experiments on time involve our being outside of it. But, of course, if we were able to go outside of time, we would already understand it, wouldn't we?? Just a thought.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
The amount of gravity. The closer you are to the Earths center of mass, the higher the gravity. But what is it that the gravity is changing?? My point is that we can't know if gravity is affecting the atoms themselves, and thus making time appear slower..... or if the gravity is affecting time itself and thus the atoms are moving slower. Since we are 'in' time, we have no certain way to perform reliably accurate experiments on it.

(I'm not saying that we shouldn't do experiments with time, but we should keep perspective by realizing that all of them could be compromised from the beginning. The experiments are still valid though because they still provide accurate comparison points between the experiments, even if all of the results are skewed by some degree.)

[Toimu]

I' not posting because I'm drunk, and all of what you all have posted make sense to me.

[mistled]

:lol:

[Bighoss]

you know chances are we have no clue what were talking about and our race is too stupid to understand stuff this complicated.

[CockRoach]

this is probably all bs made up by a couple scientists who got stoned outa there minds and looked at the stars...


any who... its nice to see people thinking and not running on about how war is right or wrong

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
But what is it that the gravity is changing?? My point is that we can't know if gravity is affecting the atoms themselves, and thus making time appear slower..... or if the gravity is affecting time itself and thus the atoms are moving slower. Since we are 'in' time, we have no certain way to perform reliably accurate experiments on it.

Gravity's effects on time are similar to the effects of traveling at near light speeds.

Ask yourself what traveling at light speed changing? Gravity changes the same thing.

If you are in the high gravity you don't notice the fact that time is passing differently. You are in an inertial reference frame and time appears to pass the same way it passes for anytone else.

However if you campare any kind of clock (not just an atomic clock) from two radically different amounts of gravity you will see that time has been has been passing at different speed for each area.

If you spent one second in a black hole, it would seem like a normal second to you. However when you emerged from the black hole (one second later), millions of years could have passed for people on earth. This is due to a black hole's gravity's effects on time dilation.

[Doobz]

the baby born at the same time thing is a good example, but it makes you think....

your assuming that there is a relative point in time that these babies could be compared at, but since both exist in seperate time continuums, it is actually impossible to compare them after a certain amount of time, because you have to find a shared point between them, and when you think about that, there can only be a single instant in all of forever that these two time continuums share. a single instant, and that might not even be usable since time is always in motion at a set speed according to where it is in the universe, if you take 2 points and compare their time continuums, which are moving at different rates, and you look at this one point where they might be comparitive, since their rates are different, it makes the point completely non comparative. The only way for this point to be truly shared is if at this point, time in both locations completely stopped, or if it somehow readjusted to be equal rates at both locations.

Now, if you think about what i said above, you will realize that according to that, the universe exists in a different a different time at every location in the universe, because the number of factors affecting time in that location are infinite, leading to a different speed of time in every known point in the universe. Now, if a given point exists in a different time, it is in theory completely removed from the universe of all points not coinciding with the speed and location of the first point's time continuum.

Now, what i just said right there, is that every point in the universe is an independent plane of existence, a seperate universe, making the universe as we realize it, infinitely young and old at the same time, and is not in fact a single universe, but an infinite number of existences.

weird, huh?

(i have never read a book on quantam physics, nor taken a class of it. it was all based on my own theories without a formal education in the area. what i said above could be completely off) with all known theories)

[Lexington_Steele]

How about if I have the two babies born at the same hospital, in the same room (maybe even twins). I would say they have the same inertial reference frame. And this hospital will serve as our reference point in comparrison of the two chilren,

Next you take one baby to an extremely high gravity field to live.

Then you have both twins return to the same hospital.

One is 24 and the other is still an infant.

However you are right. Unless you are comparing events occuring at the same inertial reference point it is hard to guage time comparisons and catalogue the occurance of events.

Doobz, you seem to be doing very good thinking. :D

[Doobz]

yeah, my head felt funny after tht one :)

[Sputty]

You do realise Einstein was joking? It was a practical joke. BTW, all the "nuclear" weapons you see are just photoshopped in. Sorry to burst your bubble. Also, "space" is actually a thin layer of pudding. This was found out when the first satellites were launched. Also, the US is actually ran by kittens.

[Toimu]

Lexington_Steele,

I spoke to a chemist I work with that has a Ph.D. in Physics. He said most Physicians agree with your definition of time, while I agree with a Newtonian definition. We also got into a similar debate; I still prefer Newton�s definition.

Sorry if I offended you, without doing more research on the topic, I assumed you were talking from a Sci-Fi education. But I still don�t like that definition of time.

[Lexington_Steele]

It's all good, I'l forgive you this time. ;)

BTW, what are you doing posting here. Episode 2 had begun!!!!!

Your supposed to be capturing sector for your squad.

See you in space.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele

BTW, what are you doing posting here. Episode 2 had begun!!!!!

Your supposed to be capturing sector for your squad.

See you in space.

Dude thanks, I didn't know. I just took down 50 C1's in off-line sim at once!

[dukeacem]

Do some web research you can find all the current scientific thought there is and then disagree with it :D

[Toimu]

If decreasing gravity decreases the rate at which an atom vibrates, and in turn, makes a clock read time slower, doesn�t decrease the speed of time in IMO. Time is just like length or liquid volume. If you decrease gravity so one liter of water now measures 1.1 liters, you didn�t increase the number of molecules, you just expanded the distance between them. But this is just a Newtonian way of thinking.

[Explosive17]

:(

[JonnyK]

ok, i read the first page and about half of the second, then it got too confusing so don't flame me if someone already said this. they put an atomic clock at a space station and one on an appolo space ship, they made them exactly the same down to like 1 millionth of a second or some tiny number. they were different when the ship came back down, but only by a little bit. so, theoretically, if we could travel at say 1000 times the speed of light, someone went up into space and orbited jupiter for a week at that speed then came back to earth, time would have passed normally for him, but everyone on earth would have aged much more, i'm not really sure how much time difference that speed would produce but i know at a fast enough speed one can "time travel" to a degree.


*edit*
that sounds way too smart for a 15 year old :) lol

[Wombat]

If you traveled into space for three months and then came back to earth everyone that you knew would be dead. Time does change as speed increases. It doesn't require that you travel the speed of light to get it. Even at 50,000 MPH there will be a slight change in time. This has been tested with 2 atomic clocks and a rocket. They set one in the rocket and sent it up and left one on the ground. The one in the rocket was about 2 seconds slower.

Besides all that traveling at the speed of light is impossible. F=MA would be the reason why. Once you hit the speed of light your mass becomes infinite so you would then be required to have infinite thrust to go that speed which is impossible.

[splashlin]

"The only reason for time to exist is so everything doesn't happen at once." -Einstein

[Toimu]

A Newtonian way of thinking is all that makes sense to me. I give up. If you all won't read all of the thread, and quit posting the same thing over and over, and not answer my questions, then I just give up. I would love to debate over physics with you all, but not when it's just some people posting stuff and ignoring my posts.

Nothing wronge with you all's idea of the defintion of time, just is illogical in Newton's Laws of Physics.