Staredit Network

What determines time exists at all ? The sun?

The time we get is from our sun but does it really matter? does anything really exist.



----------------

No, these days time is derived from something that isn't even contsant (oscillation of cesium)

Time is just a measurement of camparison, so things can seem to be relatively slower and faster, but the change won't be incredibly drastic. Due to speeds and gravity and many other factors, time can seem to progress at slightly different rates, but it's mnot going to stop unless everything reaches 0Kelvin, whioch would require the loss of all heat and energy, also requiring the loss of all amtter, in which point the measurement is useless and nothing happens.

Well put.

But you realize that right now a human can circumnavigate the universe (go all the way around it) in 64 years? However, 3 billion years would have passed on earth before he returned.

It would be along time to circumnavigate the universe but how would he or she get there supplies to to circumnavigate the universe.



---------

circumnavigate in 64 years? i think not, for one are universe is ever expanding, so you would ahve to go further as time continued, second the closest galaxy is a couple hundred light years away... light years, we cant even travel at the speed of light, or anyhitng close to it, so it would take more then 64 years to reach the next galaxy. third off, scientist do not know how big the universe is, they have made predictions in corralation to the rate of expansion and explosive power of the big bang but it isnt exact.

also, as far as i know nothing in the universe is constant, for instance the speed of light varies. light doesnt even travel the "speed of light" it travels at a slightly less of a ratio because of friction, in a true vacum then light would travel the "speed of light".

It also has been proven that time is relative jst as einstein predicted. scientists took atomic clocks of certain atoms (not ure whihc at the moment) which decay at a certain very exact rate. they then loaded one onto a plain which went around the world at supersonic speeds, when they got back they found that the atmic clock whihc was taken on the plane had indeed lost a certain amount of time. So not only is their theoritical premise for the distortion of time but their is also empiricle data to suggest that time is relative.

also the only reason we measure time the way we do now is in corralation to the sun. someone just decided one day to base things on that becuase it was a large solectial object gien by god. and we have been baseing all our measurements on it sense.

what is time in my opinion? time is just another force in our universe such as energy, gravity, and matter. just one more confusing thing that makes up the whole of being

My views about Time Travel, copy pasted from my post in the the time travel thread that happens to be locked because there are too many time threads.


I'm going into the future right now, I'm travelling through time


K, now I'll being serious:

Time technically divides infinitely so to go back in time you would have to plot infinite coordinates which I think is highly impossible.

As Albert Eistein said before, there is no direct space and time. It isn't definite because according our movement speed, time around us travel at different speeds. A person travelling at the speed of light would age slower than anyway except the people travelling at the exact speed. I, myself sometimes can't feel the existence of 'time' it is just based on the movement of things around. Humans just invented it to be easier to record things. Our seconds are really just based on the movement of the hands on the clock, which also is a human invention.

This is based on the theory of relativity, which Eienstein suggests everything in the world is relative. You can't measure something accurately, for example a car travelling 60 kmph or 36 mph is based and compared to the the the ground which appears to be stationary. However, the ground which is the earth is travelling at 3km per second. The car compared to space therefore travels at about 3 km per second compared to the space around it. The fourth dimension suggested by Eienstein which is Time has a similar relativity rule based on it.

In other words, its practically impossible...Why? The reason is time cannot be counted, humans just build mechanical equipments based on movements for calculations of time. There is no present, present is just the ignorance of human race to take into account of the molecule movments, different speeds everything is moving and different dimensions our universe counter at the same time.

Love Eistein, one is his theory said "time travel" is impossible, and this is based on mathmatical calculations and not based on what people's opinions are a few centuaries ago. However, time halting or stopping is possible which I said before is fundamentally travelling at the speed of light.

--- can't be bothered typing the rest of my views ---

Not proof read. Too lazy to read thru this blabbering post

this is true, but special relativity also says that time viewing is possible, ie, you can look into the past or into the future. all people can look into right now is the past. for instance using the hubble telescope the further away we look the further back in time we go. so time travel is impossible but we can view what has/ will happen.

Rhiom>

The guy in the spaceship would have aged 64 years.

are yu saying with current day technology? becuase i hate to break it to you but we cant travel at any rate even near to that of the speed of light, and when something is so-so light years away, it is a lot farther in actual years, becuase we cant travel at the speed of light.

If you were able to go very fast; I suppose aging at that rate would make sense. However, we need huge rockets to make it out of our atmosphere; and we rtavel at about 17,000 MPH. Compared to light, that's pathetic. Also, in order to go faster than light, you'd need have some kind of negative amount of matter, or take control of inertie; enough to pattern it into imaginary numbers if it was able to be recorded as a numerical value. Of course, any kind of flux in inertia that drastic would completely destroy people and their functions would flat out stop or go berserk.

Time is a strange thing though; because to be able to attain such a speed as to have the effect that Bolt stated, something weird would have to ahppen (lik what I mentioned about negative inertia or matter), and that would most likely affect the rate in which everything around it moves and changes, screwing up how time is comprehended there.

in order to go faster then the speed of light you would have to generate an infinite amount of energy and becuase the universe has finite matter this is impossible... cant remember why you would need infinite energy at the moment but you would..

the 'negative' matter could be something like anti-matter, which is generated when super-novas explode.

Not this religious zealotry again... 1st of all brainiac, time is sensed (felt n' seen). See for instance the weather stations like Spring, Summer, yata yata that occur. We just created a scale to measure it since it was easier to make noticable the changes time produces (see aging effects to name only one).
Your sarcasm just doens't fit the whole concept.

----------
Time also depends on the referencial you take to measure it as DT_BK said. Since we're on Earth, our time can be different from other times, in other places. Even in our own solar system. You can see the difference from the example of the delay time of our communications to other places out of Earth's orbit, such as the deep space/other planet's sent probes.

Even nature shows us the passing of time... the tree's circular nodes when it's cutted for study, to see the differences between circles show us sensibly a year from it's more opened circulatory vases into the more closed ones (according to the weather stations).

So by that proof, we can sense n' feel time, thus making it be/exist (at least in our little corner of the Universe).

Now if God/whatever is out of our time loophole or not, I won't bother to wander into that field of assumption. Ain't gonna convert this into another religious stances thread, if possible.

Edit reason: Typos. *Meh*

when he refers to the fact that you cant prove it i think he's talking about how in any argument you have to asume at least 1 thing, for instance in your arguement towards the fact that you can sense time, we would have to first asume that you exist in order to sense it. but we have not proven this point yet.

Time does not exist in the sense in which we percieve it. Things are not changing. On a quantum level time plays no factor whatsoever, so how does it simply appear as you go up in measurements? It must not. Time is more likely a representation of our passage through numerous and infinite existences. Like a cartoon. When all the images string together, it appears that they are changing. But it is actually a number of different pictures shown to you very fast. A possible theory is that the Universe is like this, and that nothing is "changing" but you are simply viewing the next "picture" as it were. This is of course just a theory, there is probably some other explanation though there is no reason to discard that one out of hand just because it seemed obvious. Time however, factually does not exist as we think of it.

On another note: Aznwolfstein your signiture is retarded. The egg came first. Misuse of mathematics is not "thinking outside the box." Neither is saying that God does not exist, as that idea has been around for quite some time. Then again, the idea of God is about as illogical as saying you believe there is an invisible piece of cheese in front of you, floating there, except if you try to see if it's there it disappears.

Wanna know what time is in the English language?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=time

I exist. As sure as I'm now typing. As sure as it takes time for my posts being presented in the page, from the exact second I submit'em.

And if he's assuming that God exists, that's is gimmick. Not mine. Imho, will buy it when I'll see evidences... How can you measure God, if it hasn't been proved it's existance in the 1st place? Answer: you don't.
Not the philosophycal mambo jambo some of us are tryin' to push on others. *Ponders if thread isn't goin' to Hell after this*

Evidences as in the experiments of time's existance and creating a referencial for it to be measured from.
Respect his opinion but don't believe it to be true. 'Till proven that is. See my drift now? Now let's please not derail the topic any further.

I think that time is a way to measure the fourth demention. Humans came up with time, but we are only measuring the length of a day or the duration of someone's life.



Gosh, cant people without a religeon just be without a religeon. I mean, these people dont know something and are turning it into a religion. WTF?? Also, ever heard of Doubting Thomas??

Time is entirely relative.
The fastest way to detect something far away is to see it.
If you were to shine a light across a long distance onto a mirror, you would see it after you shown the light.
But light itself obeys several laws of physics, it has mass and can therefor be affected by gravity, it has a charge and therefor can be affected by magnets, it has wavelike properties in that it tavels at different speeds through different substances. (the speed of light c is only for its speed a pristine vacuum) Scientists have discovered many ways to manipulate the speed of light, going so far as to stop it completely using powerfull magnets. It has even been mathmatecally theorized, and will be tested soon, that light could travel faster than the speed of light. This would mean that light would be seen before the light was released from the emitter. If this were possible it would be like looking into the future. This may seem to defy every physical law of science today. If we were to shine this "faster than light" light on a mirror, though, it light would never hit the detector before the light was released, the time for the light to travel out and back would be greater than if the light were to just go out and be recieved. This is a very shabby description of the properties of light and how it seems to set up rules for yet defy time. Tell me if this makes sense.

AHG people...God could of created it in no time at all, because there was no time before that? or you guys talking about earth...

anyways...1 second for him might be a century for us....so he could of created it in a millisecond....depends on what the time unit is...he could have 1 millisecond per 2 seconds..(WTF?) lol

Or the centuries that have passed already. Don't shorten it widened range, please.

If you seen or even read carefully my religious stances before, you'd realize that I'm agnostic waving to atheist. I'm the thin edge. That's what is my current 'religion'. "Constant revolution" as Trotsky would say. I believe what's proven to be acurate. Since you can't be accurate and know nothing of this as well, I'll stick to my PoV's.

And I 'just happen' know doubting Thomas, with the sticking the fingers in n' all. Since you don't know my religious stance(s), it just doens't mean I won't know yours.

Edit add:


Seen my point. Different time referencials as stated before.

The only thing I'd like to see proven it's the creation time it took (aka implying God's existance). Not with the ol' book again.