Time

aceflooder

What do you think about time?Is it a scientific thing like weight?

"I think it is a sense in our brains for coding events and planning things.If not
is it possible to travel in time with going at light speed?"

so travelling in time a fact or fiction?

or what is your theory?

Think

ocalhoun

It's a dimension, like bredth or length or height.
When you describe a location in the time dimension you give a date.
When you describe the size of an object in the time dimension you give a duration.
When you describe the distance between your position and something else's in the time dimension, you give a measurement of how far in the future/past it is.

Just like all the other dimensions, it is infinite, and the only way we have to measure with it is arbitrarily comparing it to other things (such as the time it takes the earth to go around the sun, or for the earth to revolve once, or for the moon to change it's phase).

Time travel has already been proven to be theoreticly possible, but it is beyond our means to do so. (We need either more energy than our sun can produce, or 'exotic matter', which has yet to be found. If we had either of these, opening a wormhole that connected to an earlier or later time would be simple (relitively speaking).)

bluedragon

Time is the 4th dimension.

Our three-dimensional world plus the factor of Time is four dimensions in total. When we are able to understand time as just another dimension we may be able to control it a bit easier and we will then be fourth-dimensional beings. Just something I read. Smile

s43ros

The entire four dimensions are generally reffered to as space time, and yes it is the fourth dimension, although there are some physicists mainly those dealing with quantum physics, as well as string theory, who believe there are many more dimensions, somewhere around 11 i believe

Rico

Time is not a dimension; it’s the principal of a moment followed by another on a linear axis that according to some beliefs have a beginning and an end. Although it is not influenced by the dimensions it plays a big role in transient elements within the three dimensions, we can witness the passage of time by looking at these elements alter.

ocalhoun

Well, you could argue that the first three dimensions have beginnings and ends just the same; it would be just as logical.
Anyway, dosn't the existance of vaccum functions prove time to be a dimension?

redace

For me is time just another space dimension and with the space dimension I don´t mean the space in the classical way it is understand but in the way the physics view at it. The general theory of relativity says that all objects in the universe travels at the speed of light in the SPACETIME and so you can see that for Einstein the time was just another space dimension in which the objects in the universe can travel.

Rico

nodarn

Like i have mentioned in other posts, time does not really exist, it is simply something that everyone travels through. Time is something that is relative to one person and is relative to another. My thought is time or idea of it is simply the median through which we travel. It could be think of it as jello if we throw a penny in the jellow it will move slowly in our perspective, but quickly in water in our perspective but to it, it will seem normal.

Jinx

osbits

Science makes me sad...
Sad

tplanchon

Bikerman

Here's my attempt at time dilation for anyone who wants a simple math (nothing more than simple algebra) look at that bit of special relativity..
http://camres.frih.net/resouces/timedilation/timedilation.html

Regards
Chris

ocalhoun

Asgardsfall

I love the concept of time and time travel, but admit to being under-read in this area. Still my 2 cents should anyone have any further comment.

To me time is a concept which we have created to measure the application of forces in the physical world.

I can understand how it can be seen as a dimention but I cannot conceptualise how it can be unwound.

An apple that fell from a tree has still fallen from the tree, even if it could be put back in the tree.

I can conceptualise how we can theoretically look back in time watching the images light projects to us over great distances, although for any practical observations we would need a really big telescope.

Were some alien race observing earth at this moment from the distance light takes to reach in 2006 earth calandar years, I think they could be watching the build up to the crusifiction, however the point would still be, that at this moment, we are at the point of origin/observation and the event they are watching has happened.

Again, I'm sorry for this grade school logic, but I would love to be convinced of something different.

ocalhoun

Bikerman

healyrj

Perhaps the greatest success of nineteenth-century physics was the prediction (and subsequent demonstration) of the existence of "electric waves." Light was nothing other than such a wave. Suddenly the ancient science of optics became no more than a subfield of electromagnetism. At the same time, this thrilling finding brought with it a puzzle: Physicists of the late nineteenth century, very reasonably, thought that a wave had to be a wave in something. After all, waves at the beach are waves in water, sound waves are waves in air, and so on. But light could travel in a vacuum – that is, apparently through empty space. This led most everyone to suppose that there had to be a special all – pervading (and as yet undiscovered) substance – the "ether" – permeating everything, everywhere, present even in a vacuum. But experimentalists had no luck finding this elusive medium. Einstein's famous 1905 paper on relativity begins here. Generalizing from failed attempts to "see" the ether (or, more correctly, to see any evidence that the earth was moving "through" it), Einstein decided to scrap the ether altogether, and to go after the problem of the propagation of light in a different way. First, he stipulated that all the laws of physics – including electricity and magnetism – were the same in any constantly moving frame of reference. Then he added a seemingly simple (and modest) second assumption: Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast its source is moving. To anyone thinking of ether this was not so strange: Move your hands at any reasonable speed through a room of still air; once you clap your hands the sound waves propagate through the room at the same speed – independent of the original motion of your hands. Maybe light was like that: a lamp moving in the ether simply excited light waves that radiated out at a single speed independent of the motion of the lamp. Yet these two reasonable starting assumptions appeared to contradict one another. Suppose lamps were flying this way and that at various speeds, but that in some frame the light beams from those lamps were all traveling at 186,000 miles per second, just the speed predicted by the equations of electrodynamics. Wouldn't those same beams of light appear to be traveling at different speeds when seen from a different, moving frame of reference? If that was so, then the equations of electrodynamics would only be valid in one frame of reference, violating Einstein's first principle. It was to resolve this apparent contradiction that Einstein made his single most dramatic move: he criticized the very idea of time as it was usually understood. In particular, he relentlessly pursued the meaning of "simultaneity." Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory – that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source – into harmony. And this is where the trains and clocks enter. Suppose, Einstein reasoned, that you wanted to know what time a train arrived in a train station. Easy enough: you see where the hand of your watch is at the time the engine pulls up alongside you. But what if you wanted to know when a train was pulling into a distant station? How do you know whether an event here is simultaneous with an event there? Einstein insisted that we need a simultaneity – fixing procedure, a definite system of exchanging signals between the stations that would take into account the time it took for the signal to get from one station to another. By pursuing this insight, Einstein discovered that two events that were simultaneous in one frame of reference would not be simultaneous in another. Moreover, since a length measurement involves determining the position of the front and back of an object at the same time, the relativity of simultaneity meant that length was relative as well. By removing the absolutes of space and time, Einstein restructured modern physics.

Bikerman

Once again I must point out that the contribution above is a direct lift from
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm

Chris.

bluedragon

Time is faster than the speed of light.

Check out the Foundation for the Law of Time.

T(E)=ART

Bikerman

ocalhoun

Bikerman

Kiandoshi

Time is a "scientific thing" or "dimension" that also happens to be a system of measure. I believe this is proven by the fact that time slows the faster you go. When the measuring tool itself changes due to an action, such as going fast, its no longer just a tool for measure or the observance of events, but an "object" or "dimension" to be measured.

All creatures/life forms are "sculpted" by time. The very thing we are made of, Star stuff, is a result of time. In that way I think the term Father Time is appropriate.

Bikerman

songsalways

When we think of time we tend to think of the ways in which we measure the passing of time, such as a clock or watch, or perhaps a measured interval of time such as an hour or minute, but not of time itself. So what is it? what actually are we talking about? or what are we measuring?

We can begin to answer the question with the basic description that we are using the units to measure the interval between two events, the units that we have chosen for the purpose. We may say, for example, that the next train will be due in 5 minutes. While this information may be very useful for telling us how late the train is when it eventually arrives, it does nothing to describe just what it is that we are measuring. We want to know exactly what the 'interval' is.

In order to investigate the nature of time it may help to break it down into four main issues: The flow, The direction of the flow, Is there anything called constant Universal time, and is it a real diimension.

I have also heard and read many explanations so i will be focussing on these issues in my upcoming posts, when i collect some useful information.

webadmin