I'm sorry. I just don't understand time.

Why oh why didn''t you post this in the physics forum?

Hay I''ll move it if that''s possible. I was just under the impression that it had to pertain to games.

Time is nothing else than a word for a simple formula:
Velocity/length

Time is nothing else than movement.

You can also go back in time. Let''s say a car has moved from A to B. To go back in time, move the car from B to A. Then the time (but only for the car) has gone backwards. Again, time is simply nothing else than a lot of movements of our objects.

THAT sir is what you get for posting this question in the lounge!

Is the physics board seriously a good idea or will they get angry because it''s not about games?

Probably not; but let''s find out, shall we?

[Moved to: Math and Physics]

I see time as the change of objects which overlaps the 3 dimensions we can move in, i think it's a dimension of movement but not going in a direction we can see, which isn't that weird...

Lets say we didn't have gravity and planets (like a species evolved somewhere in outer space, yes i know that's not possible as far as we know ), we would probably (if there was any life at all) be radially symmetrical (or however that's called in english, it's straalsgewijs symmetrisch in dutch ) blobs as there are no limitations or what so ever to grow in any directions and there are no directions in which we'd need or want to grow (like towards sunlight or towards food in the ground).

People can create things because they see them in nature, they can recreate them and exaggerate it and combine concepts, all science works like this, just as computers (we just built a lot of APIs and templates on top of some things that can have either an off or an on state, in hardware (microchips and such) and software, which is just temporary harware stored in another way and slower because we have to convert it to something we can actually use to change states).

If the blob example i gave above would be reality we would never have thought of 'height' and 'width' and 'length'. There must be a reason we can't really notice time or really understand it (not just speculate or having a view about it).
We know something we call time exists because of our memory, i think our memory will be an important key of understanding the so called time but i think timetravel as in many movies and books isn't really possible because it means everyting (EVERYTHING!!, over the whole universe and maybe further) should be in exact the same state as before. If it would be possible timetravel would be (i think) a way of looking back (if our memory evolutes in such a way we can remember the position of individual atoms and even smaller particles over the complete universe (or further if there is indeed more), which would would mean knowing EVERYTHING for true timetravel), not changing. Just like movement, it is simply impossible to go back to the exact same location, what dcgeek said:

"You can also go back in time. Let's say a car has moved from A to B. To go back in time, move the car from B to A. Then the time (but only for the car) has gone backwards. Again, time is simply nothing else than a lot of movements of our objects. "

Is not true, try to drive to point B and return EXACTLY at your starting point A (it is simply trying to recreate a state that has been before), it is simply impossible, even saying that your car is standing still at a parking lot is complete bull, it is simply impossible. Just like calling saying the exact same words twice is going back in time, it is maybe repeating something you have done before in a way we can (almost) not seperate from the previous time but it is certainly not going back in time.

Well, in short that's the way i think of time , what about you?

Frank de Bresser

EDIT: close italian font tag

[edited by - Tree Penguin on June 3, 2004 8:33:39 AM]

You said that you wanted to visualize the concept of time, time dilation, and related concepts. The problem is, this approaches impossible for the average human. The only people who can probably do a reasonable job of visualizing such concepts are people who do work with the formulas on paper a lot. Obviously, we are all so use to Euclidean 3 dimensional space that we can just think it, without any great effort. Why? Because we''re surrounded by what appears to be Euclidean 3 dimensional space all the time. It''s an inherent "truth" of the universe. To do the same with modern theories of physics, you''ll have to try to do the same: get so familiar with the subject that it makes you wanna say "Well, duh!" (Note: I''m certainly not there yet.)

As for really understanding time, I don''t think any human being does or ever has done so yet. There are theories on the psychological nature of time, too, since time might be totally based on our perception of something, but we still think that there would have to be something inherently different from other dimensions to make it unidirectional as it seems to be.

---

Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.

-Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, "Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind"

There is a law called 2nd law of thermodynamic that says: (by my words )
"Once something goes messy, it can only returns to its initial state if you make more mess"
->Time is something you notice because things are going messy.<-
Memory is a good example... you can remember thing, but for this your body wasted several amount of energy! Your body is becoming a mess! stop thinking now!!
nah... you cant! So many chemical reactions inside it trying to reach an equilibrium!->Time!!!
If atoms didnt move, energy didnt transfer, time doesnt exist.
Like in black holes and other stuff. :D

i would write more stuff, but I think its better let people complain a bit



[edited by - ygor_freire on June 3, 2004 8:48:28 AM]

"I''m sorry. I just don''t understand"
There''s nothing to be sorry about. You shouldn''t worry that you don''t understand current theories on subjects like time, gravity, strings, etc, since in the future we''ll probably find that they are wrong, when hopefully they are replaced with a simple theory that is blindingly obvious (but as yet undiscovered) which make sense and everybody understands. Now that would really be ''elegant''.

There was probably someone like you years ago thinking "I''m sorry. I just don''t understand how the earth could be flat", even though all the ''clever'' people at the time were blinding us with ''complicated'' religion/science as to why the earth was flat, and most ''known'' data at the time also supported this notion. Equally there must have been those ''extremely clever/educated'' people who did understand why the earth was flat, who if they could look back in retrospect would either think that they were still right or pretty dim.

My personal view is that the true theory of everything will be very simple not very complicated, so any current theory that sounds too complicated is a red herring, and not worth losing sleep over if you can''t understand it.

quote:

---

Original post by ygor_freire
There is a law called 2nd law of thermodynamic that says: (by my words )
"Once something goes messy, it can only returns to its initial state if you make more mess"

---

They''ve tried in the past to explain time in terms of entropy increase. However, this has the nasty effect of suggesting that in localized areas, time can flow backwards. And then forwards again. Of course, at the same time, this whole idea is suggesting a different time, a super-time, if you will. Because this flowing backwards of time is localized to both space and time. In a certain area, for a certain period of time, the rate of time passing will be negative. But there is this other period of time that just steadily kept going forward, and there is this other time to which the other time was compared, in order to get a negative rate (or any rate at all, really).

I suppose this happens in many thoughts on time. Whenever someone talks about the "rate of time-passage", they''re very likely implying another absolute time, to which this relative time can be compared. Which basically adds an extra useless layer onto our concept of time.

quote:

---

Original post by ygor_freire
... So many chemical reactions inside it trying to reach an equilibrium!...

---

Isn''t the accomplishment of that the end of the universe as we know it (at least the end of all (subatomic) movement and therefor all life)? How likely is that to happen and is the urge for the equilibrium maybe the reason for the expansion of the universe?

That''s really a nice and interesting topic. But I wouldn''t go as far as trying to "explain" what time is. There quite some other things that people take as granted even though nobody can explain them. Take gravity for example. There are some wild theories about it, how it works and these theories often use (much) more dimensions than our beloved 3-dimensional space. Nobody can explain (at least in our 3D space) how this works, because gravity force is instant which means it actually travels faster than light, at endless speed - actually it doesn''t travel, it needs no time for the gravitational force of one body to reach another. Well gravity doesn''t look very fancy or interesting on the surface, but it actually brings all our science to its knees. Very funny...

quote:

---

Original post by abstractworlds
...in the future we''ll probably find that they are wrong, when hopefully they are replaced with a simple theory that is blindingly obvious (but as yet undiscovered) which make sense and everybody understands.

---

quote:

---

My personal view is that the true theory of everything will be very simple not very complicated

---

I agree with the first statement, but I have a feeling that ever since we moved beyond Newtonian physics, we''ve moved beyond any theory of physics that is "blindingly obvious". You can have a simple theory, but still not have an obvious one. Newtonian physics had the advantage of basically providing the mathematical foundation for what we experience every day. We''re so use to it that the math is obviously valid (for anyone reasonably adept at math).

Physics now, however, is buried so deep in layers that are totally removed from our everyday experiences, that we can only really think about them in terms of the math, and only become familar with them by working the math over and over. In addition, the more analogies we make between modern theories and everyday occurrences, the less we can precisely understand the modern theories. Analogies can be a good starting point, but after a certain point, you have to quit thinking in analogies, and think in terms of the theory itself.

My suggestion for future studies: If we ever are capable of creating computers or something that appear to be sentient, and seem to be quite capable of analyzing and interpretting whatever data it receives (sight/sound/etc. perception, if given the right equipment), then we should create some of these, and feed them nanoscopic data only. Then, after they''ve gotten entirely use to that level of data, just as we are use to the Newtonian level of data, we would learn to communicate with them. It''d be difficult, but we''ve been able to do it before with various cultures, as long as there is something in common.

It''s an idea. Crazy, far-fetched, but still an idea.

---

Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.

-Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, "Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind"

quote:

---

Original post by Maddin
...because gravity force is instant which means it actually travels faster than light, at endless speed - actually it doesn''t travel, it needs no time for the gravitational force of one body to reach another.

---

That has been experimentally shown to be incorrect. Gravity does travel at the speed of light. A source I quickly found

well this "measurement" actually split the scientist-world in half. They all agree that something was measured that day, but there are also some papers that state that what was measured was actually the speed of light and not the speed of gravity (Hideki Asada). Well I''m not claiming that it is not possible that gravity only travels with the speed of light but it actually has not really been proven to be true.
Wether true or not I''m still fascinated about how gravity works and what actually causes that force. Interesting stuff I think...

Maddin