Topic: Time Does Not Exist (Read 1461 times)

Im sure u are wrong. Time passes everyday the sun goes round the earth.

It does not exist, and it exists at the same time. From my perspective, as a human being, time for sure exists. I do not say, of course, that it's the right one, but still the most important (for me) at this moment.

Time is only relative to the person experiencing it in certain cases such as those of age, where as you get older you're perception of time dwindles, so what may seem like an eternity to everyone else is hardly any time at all for you.

Time is linear, and no matter what nonsense people like to say that the past, present, and future, are one, that's not true.

as i said previously, i don't think the statement should be an absolute "time does exist." it's still relative to the seer.

That youtube video is extremely wrong, check this out.. http://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

Time does exist, it's not in our minds. If humans were to become extinct tomorrow, time would go on. Time is simply a dimension, and was started the same moment space began expanding during the big bang...

it's just a mindfucking clusterfuck. so many things in nature are paradoxical, yet they exist somehow. just like atoms that exist as both a wave and a particle.. how can it be two mutually exclusive things at once?

i think in the end, with time, it's best to just say that it does indeed exist - but only subjectively. there is no such thing as objective time.

I have no idea what to say in this discussion.

Time does exist.. 

Its a measure of how long we have for anything.

I am not exactly sure where to find the research, but if you watch this video they talk about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9JIXoQPxOo

Time is able to be measured, but using time and space we can not account for our own universe and it's neighbors. So, no matter how much you prove that time seems to be there, it's just not. We have more to learn and Time is just the "God of the Gap" we have for now.

I like the argument that time is a purely a function of entropy in thermodynamics, and this is underpinned by quantum mechanics (also explains why time only goes forward).

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33030/second-law-of-thermodynamics-and-the-arrow-of-time-why-isnt-time-considered-fu

What if time and what we consider reality are the same thing?  I think trying to give them different definitions is only causing confusion?

Man, I thought I had something academic to say, but the poster two above nailed it. Couldn't have said it better myself.

time is still the same if you are looking at your watch right now, and the person on another planet looking at it now. it's the motion that causes the dilation of time.

Time is what a clock measures.

Imagine you have a best friend, living on a planet in the universe near one of the stars. You decided to talk on http://bitcointalk.org by private message, at exactly 3pm.



Your friend, on the planet, is 94607304725808000 meters from earth.
He looks on his clock, it's 3 'clock.
You look on your clock, it's 3 'clock

Yet, he is not there  why is he late? how is this possible?



Say your internet speed is the speed of light: 299792458 metres per second. Remember the earth is 94607304725808000 meters from your friends planet, so it would take many seconds for a signal to go from the planet to you. (you can do  the calculation if you wish). Thus, you get that the time, even for the most near stars or planets is not the same on both clocks.

In fact, this also happens on the smaller scale. Say the:
 moon is at 356.400.000 meter from earth
 lightspeed is at 299.792.458 meter / second. So your view of the moon, is little bit more than a second old.

Now imagine an nice lady 2 meters from you. But.. you do not  see the lady, you see how the lady looked like 
about 0.00000001 seconds ago.



0.00000001 seconds is not a big deal for us. Thus what a clock measures 'time' is connected with space.



This is a tiny tiny explanation of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein.  I tried to explain it as simple as possible.
(if you have any spare money left, send 0.0001 B or less to 1BmXxf38SXuTk73X1HgmVF5SgpgbZUdFcX  )

Time does exist , it couldn't exists but in reality everyone does everything based on time, I don't think it's gonna change anytime soon

time doesn't wait for anyone

i think the buddha claimed that there were subatomic particles that vibrates a shitload of times in 1 second. he also said that the universe was expanding and contracting. a lot of physics goes hand in hand with buddhism, which is why i like it.

I agree with this. The Hindus had a pretty good idea of the universe.

Basically I just believe the only thing that ever really exists is the present moment. The future and past are just concepts, we only ever experience the present moment. Yes things happened in the past etc but in the present moment they only exist in the mind. The time is always "right now", and it always has been. If anything things go in cycles, not linear. If you don’t know what I am saying its kinda like Buddhist/zen philosophy.

so you're saying that the record of time , in past and future is an illusion and there is only the moment, right? that the recollection of past and future is the illusion, an anticipation created by the human mind.

I disagree, for me space and time are related to each other while general and restraint relativity theories explain it pretty well, I have my own interpretation on this mater that doesn't include an observer at all :

For me the a non existence of time requires a static system, a system that never change trough time, and such does not exist in the universe thanks to the second principal of thermodynamic, everything changes and the change can be expressed with a time equation and thus time exist, but where we might agree, is that the time as we perceived in our daily lifes might not be the real or rather the only representation of time as proven by relativity for example

But that doesn't prove anything about the existence of time, it really just asks more questions.

I am going to start reading more into time-space and relativity. It seems like Physicists are into something we should all know.

Time is just a idea for something much larger created by humans, to simplify something unknown. Hey, maybe 'time' is actually something else. But humans didn't necessarily come on the Earth with time as a essential, so who knows?

See, that brings even more questions after proving that time as we know it is a lie.

well, my point was that time does not objectively exist.. if it's not objective, the question is.. does it truly exist? factor in the observer effect, and it seems more and more likely that the observer creates "time," but that exact "time" is not necessarily bound to everyone else.

what you are mentioning here is just the relativity of time, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it's not a constant. Einstein had the swag!

I forget which book it was, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote one where on one planet time was linear. Those on the outside looking in could see what had been, what was, what was soon to happen. Only those inside, the ones living within, would experience time as it was. I really don't remember all the details, I read it back in high school, roughly 15 years ago. But I remember thinking it was a cool concept at the time.

if you were to stand outside an event horizon, and you saw an object get sucked in, it would take what seems like forever for it to go inwards.. on the other hand, if you were the object being sucked in, it would happen within a matter of seconds. so there is no objective time, it's all just relative to the observer.

and then you have the observer effect - through your consciousness, you can affect reality (at the very least) on an atomical level.

See. I can accept that, it is not a constant in the universe though, unless someone is there to experience it.

watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzgYRBlslw you might understand what's time from a scientific perspective in theoretical physics

I tend to believe time exists but just in the way we try to rationalize it.  I think it is one of those things that is beyond or knowledge and understanding.

Time exists as a dimension of human reality, just as dimensions exist to define the physical space we inhabit. One uses dimensions to determine coordinates (position) within this physical frame of reference, and one uses time as the 4th dimension to measure our relative progress through 3 dimensional space. This is known as "space-time".
The enigmatic nature of space-time is this: if you are stationary (or relatively so) within the 3 physical dimensions, time is not stationary and keeps moving forward in relation to you, so future and past exist but they are only accessible through thought. If you are not stationary but increase your speed within those 3 physical dimensions, time begins to pass more slowly. If you reach the speed of light, your local time stops. If somehow you could ride a wave of light, time for you would halt and past and future would merge with "now". Thought itself would become frozen until you slowed down again.
What I have said so far is in essence what Einstein was on about with his Theory of Relativity. While the mathematics of it can be grasped, the enormity of the meaning behind it hurts the brain. I like to shrink it to something more manageable for my brain which is that time simply exists for me.

to be honest, i'm not smart enough to explain it to you in full detail (or even understand it). but general relativity was his discovery about that time and space are part of the same thing - called timespace. through his equations, he figured out that you could dilate time depending on the speed that you are travelling; it is like a fabric. also, two seemingly simultaneous events are not necessarily simultaneous - it depends on where the two event occur in relation to where your position is.


spacetime is inseparable.

You are making a straw man argument, Space and Time are not the same.

Definitively universal time clock does not exist, but saying time does not exist is like saying space does not exist.

You are talking about "Space-Time" not "Time"

Time is simply motion and space, and time can be easily measured. The events that consisted with a particular moment and area in time-space are actual in regards to our own universe. Positive acclimation of time is what makes the world go round, and thus, the transverse (negative acclimation through time) must be present as well. Acceleration of time is possible and has been conclusively proven, and deceleration and reversal of time may be possible too

I have been talking to a few people about time, and the idea of infinite time. And there is a guy that says that it has been researched, and if the universe was infinite, and had no beginning or end, we would never reach the present moment. BUT, my question is, what if we AREN'T in the present moment and time has some form of layers. Like it is infinite, but in a circle.

Exactly, meters are not real, but the "time is not real" statement is actually going a step further. Meters are measuring a distance between two things, time is measuring an illusion given to us by light and movement.

Oh, I'm not claiming to understand. I'm at a loss. It is weird though how we think of time as movement. Is it that we are moving through the matrix of possibilities held in some kind of superposition? Hell if I know?
I like how Stephen Hawking asks "how do we know time only moves forward? Would you be able to tell if it stood still or went backwards?"

The twin paradox is often referred  to for an explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

In that case I partially agree with you.
The concept of time just depends on in what way look at it. We made several concepts that everyone uses.

That is the same with length and math. Why do we say that a certain length is one meter? Just agreements everybody uses.

Can you explain how he thought time could bend? I do not understand that.

the existence of time is relative, as discovered by albert einstein. there is no objective, true existence of time.

Again, you are not proving times existence, you are just stating that it "seems to go by" to you. But again, you are acting like your perception of light, distance, etc matter, when all that matters here is "Is there a substance called time, and if not what exactly are we calling time" and what we are calling time is "Movement and change" which is NOT "time".

I never made a point like that.
My point is that it IS NOT REAL. It is an illusion, and you delude yourself into believing it by measuring hundreds and thousands of things and calling that measurement time.

I think of it as time does not exist independent of an observer. If all of us were gone tomorrow then there is no time, as it is only our perception that creates time. To some physicists, everything that has, could, or will happen is there. It is our brain that perceives us as moving through these possibilities and causes the phenomena of time.

Mind blowing stuff.  

I agree with you about the fact that we can't taste, feel or see time.
What we do know about time is that certain things do not happen at the same time. What happened yesterday isn't happening now.

You not experiencing doesn't mean it is not existing.

That is pretty much what I am saying.

It is an illusion. Just because it can be marked does not make it real.

I have always thought time was an abstract idea constructed by the human mind, like many things. Time supposedly travels forwards yet it is always the present, future and past are just concepts. There is only the eternal now.

Indeed, I call it time. I don't know any other word for it.

Are you really saying that between those cell divisions, no time passes?

Again, you are doing what everyone does.

Just because you get more precise about what is happening, and can measure the splitting down to EXACTLY how "long" each cell lives, you are still just measuring a movement-change and calling it "time"

You are saying that time doesn't exist. According to you there is just a 'now' when your cells divides themselves into two.

Let me tell you this:
Human cells can divide up to a maximum of 50 times. Every time a cell divides, the end of the telomeres of the DNA is cut off. If all of the telomeres has been cut off, the cell dies.

Let's say a certain cell has a certain length. It can divide itself 50 times.
After the first celldivision, both cells can only divide 49 times. After another division, the cells can divide 48 times, and so on.
As you can see, time exists. There is a certain point in time where the cell can divide 49 times, and there is a time a cell can divide only e.g. 32 times. In between those situations, time has passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_UkLPxIWCE