-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Time. What is it?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
You are forgetting Heisenberg with this statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Abotu 2/3 of the way down this page, there is a section titled Energy-time uncertainty principle that might shed some more light on the subject.........
Last edited:
Baydwin
Well-Known Member
I think Theif and tumbleweed are both correct, just arguing past each other.
Time is, like Theif says, the term we give to the calculable changes that occur as energy/matter alter their positions in space, so in that sense it's an abstract mathematical construct.
However, like tumbleweed says, it is also an inherent property of the universe, it is that aspect of space that allows for energy to alter it's position within 3-dimensions. Without that property there would be no universe as all energy would be contained within a static singularity.
This is why, Theif, physicists refer to the concept as spacetime, all one word, as length, width, depth and motion are inextricably linked.
Time is, like Theif says, the term we give to the calculable changes that occur as energy/matter alter their positions in space, so in that sense it's an abstract mathematical construct.
However, like tumbleweed says, it is also an inherent property of the universe, it is that aspect of space that allows for energy to alter it's position within 3-dimensions. Without that property there would be no universe as all energy would be contained within a static singularity.
This is why, Theif, physicists refer to the concept as spacetime, all one word, as length, width, depth and motion are inextricably linked.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thank you...especially for that last line.
May I say that 'property' does not represent...'tangible'?
And the singularity does not 'possess' a secondary point.
At the 'point' of singularity...no height...no width...no length....
no movement....no time.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, that would be the fact that has been verified numerous times in actual tests. A result predicted in Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Is space "tangible"?
No, it is not.
We only measure space by what occupies it.
Just as we measure time by the objects that occupy it.
(And when did Badran mention the singularity possessing a secondary point?)
Baydwin
Well-Known Member
Lots of things aren't tangible.
Quite, hence the name.
Precisely, and equally; no time... no height... no width... no length.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Ooops...you left out....movement.
It's the one item to which time has a relationship.
But then again...a completely static universe...really boggles my thought.
And perhaps this is the 'point' where people have difficulty separating a cognitive device from physical existence.
I can see where dropping the practice of mathematics can be...awkward.
In all fairness...I've been using..."Relativity"...ISBN 0-517-029618.
Albert wrote most of it.
And like most people using numbers to express a complex idea....
he writes about time....as if you could touch it.
And I will be honest.
Some of the calculations still ask of me further stretching.
That movement....fluctuates...the item that moves....
That unseen forces ARE tangible...and dynamic...to extreme extents...
Of course I must reiterate....numbers are labels...nothing more.
Time is a quotient...nothing more.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Again, I ask...
Is space "tangible"?
Is space "tangible"?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I suspect, Albert would say 'yes'.
The presence of mass seems to influence the 'emptiness' around it.
But then, gravity is expressed as the influence of a body...acting upon another.
So...I would ask....
Prior to the singularity....would 'space' exist?
Do you think of mass and space as opposites?
What does 'void' mean to you?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I was asking you, not Einstein.
In answer to your questions.
- No, neither space nor time existed prior to the expansion of the singularity. Nor does space/time exist beyond the singularity/universe.
- Mass and space are not opposites. They are not, however, the same thing.
- Void has many definitions. It would depend on what exactly we were talking about. The void of empty space. The void of a complete vacuum. etc...
Is space tangible?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You answered your own question.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Copout.
I don't want Einsteins answer.
I don't want a copout.
Why do you refuse to answer the question Thief?
In your view, is Space tangible?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I've never been able to bottle it.
How about you?
Careful...it's a trick question....aimed at someone who doesn't seem to know netter.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
In your view, is Space tangible?
Baydwin
Well-Known Member
Not really, I just used movement as a simple way of expressing the translocation of energy within the fabric of spacetime. Movement itself isn't a dimension of reality, just letters on a chalkboard.Thief said:
Except there is no such thing as a void really, not even in a vacuum.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you can't touch it, so the answer is no.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That's exactly it! (Although Thief refuses to give a strait answer.)
Thief argues time is not tangible, and does not therefore exist. That time is ONLY an equation.
Similarly, if space is not tangible, space itself does not exist.
Both statements fly in the face of known physics.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I hope you get better at making quotes.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That's your answer?
:clapGood job at avoiding a straightforward question:clap
Thief
Rogue Theologian
For those of you following this thread....
This upcoming Wednesday evening...
Morgan Freeman will be narrating...about what might have been....
before the 'big bang'.
The program is called ...'through the wormhole'.
Check your local listings.
There was some indication in the advertisement...
That some of the math used so far in describing our universe might not be all that good.
But I never thought it was.
If you check my postings here at the forum, you will see...as I write about the singularity.....
'Science can't go there.'...'There will be no experiments.'...'No equations allowed'.
For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
Therefore...no height...no length...no width...no movement...no time...
Void.
So, I expect some philosophy, on Wednesday's airing.
Could interesting to see how the scientist and the mathematicians take the podium.
This upcoming Wednesday evening...
Morgan Freeman will be narrating...about what might have been....
before the 'big bang'.
The program is called ...'through the wormhole'.
Check your local listings.
There was some indication in the advertisement...
That some of the math used so far in describing our universe might not be all that good.
But I never thought it was.
If you check my postings here at the forum, you will see...as I write about the singularity.....
'Science can't go there.'...'There will be no experiments.'...'No equations allowed'.
For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
Therefore...no height...no length...no width...no movement...no time...
Void.
So, I expect some philosophy, on Wednesday's airing.
Could interesting to see how the scientist and the mathematicians take the podium.