What is time?

[clapstyx]

Thats all interesting.

I dont have any clocks in my life I juts do things whenever I can whenever I feel like it basically. For me I measure time by how long a particular moment goes on for before it changes into a new event. For example if I'm working on one of my books the moment might last for as long as it takes to make a new realisation. If I am building say a hen house I might go continuously on through moments until I cant maintain continuity at the task or to be more exact when I cant keep improvising a direct progress. Basically I measure time based on the number of experiences in the day. If I am playing guitar then its different. Ive been in a moment where I havent failed to meet the calibre of resolve to greater artistry of musicians on record for nearly 5 years. So if I were to fail to exceed my own previous equivalency or fail to hold the equivalency of the artist I'm listening to and playing along with on record then that would be a new moment for me and time would change. Time I guess is just a perception that works. The Australian Aboriginals measure seconds as marking points for tribal realisations..so 10 realisations ago could be half an hour or a thousand years to them it doesnt matter.

[Little Bang]

I have described gravity, inertia. electromagnetic energy and mass as a function of time here. http://hypography.com/forums/physics...with-time.html Admittedly the idea’s are moot but if they are not then one could argue that Einstein’s E =MC^2 is the simplest equation describing the Universe in that the C is a function of time. Given this argument then the question isn't what is time but rather why does time change moving into denser and denser energy fields?

[dkv]

clapstyx, I am unaware of the Australian story which you are telling.I will be glad to hear more if you can discuss.

[Rade]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

....why does time change moving into denser and denser energy fields?

It my view, time is that which is intermediate between two moments, space is that which is intermediate between two existents. Thus space-time is that which is intermediate between two moments of existents. Time is thus a type of number, a number of motion. Given these definitions, it is clear why time and space would 'change' when moving into denser energy fields, thus away from lesser energy fields. That which is intermediate (space-time) between the two energy densities is not linear but curved and the extent of the curving becomes more pronounced closer to denser fields--as predicted by GR of Einstein.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Rade:

It my view, time is that which is intermediate between two moments, space is that which is intermediate between two existents. Thus space-time is that which is intermediate between two moments of existents

.
We don't need more than that to prove DoctorDick's assertion that Belief is the worst human invention ever. Rade, your belief system includes the past and future as existents, now. I understand your belief and have contemplated it. You have not contemplated the idea that only now exists and that the past is gone and the future hasn't happened yet.
We have no external evidence suggesting that all three co-exist. Only now exists.
You can contemplate them because you have memory and imagination. But you cannot touch either the past or the future, except in your imagination. And even 'now' is untouchable because by the time you become aware of it, it's gone. The whole concept of space time is like a structure of fog. Space is nothing and time is an internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind, i.e. it doesn't exist outside of a conscious mind.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Space is nothing and time is an internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind, i.e. it doesn't exist outside of a conscious mind.

Hmmm...

That speaks of subjective idealism to me.

Time is more than an "internal concept used to order events in a conscious mind". I can understand why that statement could be produced, but I don't agree with it entirely.

In the sense of "What time is it?". Yes, I agree that time is an arbitrary measure of events, but in the sense of Relativity Theory, it's more profound, whatever arbitrary unit of measure we use.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Yes, I agree that time is an arbitrary measure of events, but in the sense of Relativity Theory, it's more profound, whatever arbitrary unit of measure we use.

I presume you mean "Einstein's Relativity Theory". Has it occurred to you that Einstein could have been "wrong".

Perhaps it is not so profound after all.

Of course that my require a little thought.

Have fun -- Dick

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I presume you mean "Einstein's Relativity Theory". Has it occurred to you that Einstein could have been "wrong".

Wrong? No. Not quite right? Maybe.
Einstein's theories explain empirical phenomena quite well. Until some other theory comes along that has even higher precision with regards to explanations, then we can move on to that.

Perhaps it is not so profound after all.

I disagree. It's like saying that Newton's theories of gravity were not profound. They may not be perfectly correct, but they are still profound, evidenced by the fact that they are still used and taught today.

Of course that my require a little thought.

Can you define "little thought"? Is it just like a normal thought, but shorter?

[Doctordick]

Freeztar, I think you and I have a rather different opinions on the whole issue here. You are interpreting the word “wrong” to mean that the results are consistent with experiment. Under your definition, Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles of the celestial spheres would be “right”. Anyone who understands that “deep and profound” explanation of the motion of the heavenly bodies (which is not easy: i.e., it requires intellectual depth and insight) comprehends that any motion may be duplicated via a sufficient number of cycles and epicycles (that would be to any precision desired). On top of that, Ptolemy's solution stood the test of time for over a thousand years; but I doubt anyone today would attach the word “right” to it.

Taken from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Profound (as an adjective, which is the way it is being used here): a having intellectual depth and insight or b difficult to fathom or understand.

Under that definition (considering the idea that profound means requiring deep understanding or is difficult to understand), I don't think “profound” is an accurate description of Newton's insight at all. His realization with regard to gravity was that the answer was unbelievably simple as opposed to either the arguments standing behind astrology or the analytical work of Ptolemy. Newton's greatness was that he realized that there was nothing profound about it at all: the moon could be seen as simply falling towards the earth.

What was profound were the consequences of that simple thought. That required an understanding of rational logic which appears to be beyond the ability of most people. As I said, it requires a little thought; and “a little thought” is more than “none”: i.e., the amount of thought most people put into their beliefs.

Originally Posted by freeztar

They may not be perfectly correct, but they are still profound, evidenced by the fact that they are still used and taught today.

So is astrology and theology, as I have pointed out, there are a great many professional practitioners making a good living in both of those fields. Now that is a “profound” thing (difficult to fathom or understand).

Have fun -- Dick

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Freeztar, I think you and I have a rather different opinions on the whole issue here. You are interpreting the word “wrong” to mean that the results are consistent with experiment. Under your definition, Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles of the celestial spheres would be “right”. Anyone who understands that “deep and profound” explanation of the motion of the heavenly bodies (which is not easy: i.e., it requires intellectual depth and insight) comprehends that any motion may be duplicated via a sufficient number of cycles and epicycles (that would be to any precision desired). On top of that, Ptolemy's solution stood the test of time for over a thousand years; but I doubt anyone today would attach the word “right” to it.

I agree. Good point.

Under that definition (considering the idea that profound means requiring deep understanding or is difficult to understand), I don't think “profound” is an accurate description of Newton's insight at all. His realization with regard to gravity was that the answer was unbelievably simple as opposed to either the arguments standing behind astrology or the analytical work of Ptolemy. Newton's greatness was that he realized that there was nothing profound about it at all: the moon could be seen as simply falling towards the earth.

But there's two definitions for profound, per your quote. I think I'm using the first definition and you are using the second. Therein lies the miscommunication.
[quote]
What was profound were the consequences of that simple thought. That required an understanding of rational logic which appears to be beyond the ability of most people. As I said, it requires a little thought; and “a little thought” is more than “none”: i.e., the amount of thought most people put into their beliefs.
[quote]
I agree.

So is astrology and theology, as I have pointed out, there are a great many professional practitioners making a good living in both of those fields. Now that is a “profound” thing (difficult to fathom or understand).

Yes, it is difficult to understand how those belief systems have thrived for so long. But I wouldn't say either have "intellectual depth or insight". Perhaps we should do away with "profound" as it carries paradoxical meanings for the purpose of this discussion.