[Chess_Master]

I believe philosophy is the place for this topic, if it takes a turn towards theology I suppose it can be moved.

Now, how do you see time? What is it? The most accurate way I've heard it described as was a sort of illusion, which is at least a good concept to start off with.

Discuss

[jthomas1600]

I'll put my 2 cents in before all the smart people get started.

Theologicaly I believe God exists outside of time. My presumption is that He exists yesterday, today, and tomorrow all at once. If that makes any sense.

Other than that I view time as a measurement of events--a period between hight tide and low tide, between full moon and new moon, sunrise and sunset etc.

[Chess_Master]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I'll put my 2 cents in before all the smart people get started.

Wise. I may soon boycott posting in this thread myself and simply read it if the conversation gets too deep for me to follow :-P

Theologicaly I believe God exists outside of time. My presumption is that He exists yesterday, today, and tomorrow all at once. If that makes any sense.

Agreed, although it really doesn't make much sense to us mortals, as during our life we are confined within time.

Other than that I view time as a measurement of events--a period between hight tide and low tide, between full moon and new moon, sunrise and sunset etc.

Plausible answer, since that is the only way for us to really measure time.

[Nate]

Change.

Entropy.

Death.

[Chess_Master]

It's nice to know there's someone who holds the answers to the universe

Originally Posted by Nate

Change.

Without time no progression can occur, but time can elapse while no change is made. Therefore time =/= change.

Entropy.

I suppose entropy applies to our topic, but rather loosely at best.

Death.

Very good, death is the only way to be released from time. Two gold stars for you

*edit*
Great Pearls Before Swine, btw. That's my favorite comic for sure

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Chess_Master

Without time no progression can occur, but time can elapse while no change is made. Therefore time =/= change.

UTTER NONSENSE!

Maybe I'm a bit overdramatic, but I don't think you're thinking fully about what you're saying.

Certainly you know about stuff like cellular death / regeneration, and classic philosophical questions like "can you step into the same river twice?" The galaxies and planets themselves wheel and whirl as in a dervish with every passing moment of time. If nothing else, we are located somewhere different in the cosmos, which is certainly a change, with every new nanosecond.

I suppose entropy applies to our topic, but rather loosely at best.

We measure many types of time in half-lives and quarter-lives and the like. This is often a much more descriptive and useful measurement of time than our abstract seconds and minutes that we resort to in common usage.

Very good, death is the only way to be released from time. Two gold stars for you

Nay, rather [or, maybe, more accurately, moreso], I think death is very essence of time, to some extent. Death is the ultimate change, the ultimate entropy, the ultimate mutation. God's eternity is often paired with His immutability and undying-ness.

[Chess_Master]

Originally Posted by Nate

UTTER NONSENSE!

Maybe I'm a bit overdramatic, but I don't think you're thinking fully about what you're saying.

Certainly you know about stuff like cellular death / regeneration, and classic philosophical questions like "can you step into the same river twice?" The galaxies and planets themselves wheel and whirl as in a dervish with every passing moment of time. If nothing else, we are located somewhere different in the cosmos, which is certainly a change, with every new nanosecond.

It is true that there has always been motion within the universe (as far as we know, there may have been an exception when the universe was first created, but that is all mere speculation). However, in theory, if all motion ceased to exist, time would carry on. Even if you go deeper into that, I see no proof that time is dependent upon molecular motion.

We measure many types of time in half-lives and quarter-lives and the like. This is often a much more descriptive and useful measurement of time than our abstract seconds and minutes that we resort to in common usage.

We are in agreence here, thank you for explaining.

Nay, rather [or, maybe, more accurately, moreso], I think death is very essence of time, to some extent. Death is the ultimate change, the ultimate entropy, the ultimate mutation. God's eternity is often paired with His immutability and undying-ness.

True, death is change, so that which transcends time cannot die.

[slap_j]

According to relativity time is bound up with space as part of the fabric of reality. Just as we know mass curves space (gravity) it also slows time. I've mentioned this before but you can see the effect in GPS satellites. Their clocks run faster as earth's gravity well has less of an influence on them.

As far as God being outside of time...it's possible. At least time in the sense we're familiar with it (being part of creation and all).

[Chess_Master]

Originally Posted by slap_j

According to relativity time is bound up with space as part of the fabric of reality. Just as we know mass curves space (gravity) it also slows time. I've mentioned this before but you can see the effect in GPS satellites. Their clocks run faster as earth's gravity well has less of an influence on them.

You're referring to Einstein's theory which states that the universe is flat and gravity creates a funnel. I assumed this point would come up, and this is where things start to get complex lol

So you're saying that time travel is possible- the speeding of time occurs when less gravity is present, and the opposite when more is present?

[slap_j]

disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

Originally Posted by Chess_Master

So you're saying that time travel is possible- the speeding of time occurs when less gravity is present, and the opposite when more is present?

A clock on Jupiter would run slower than a clock on earth but from their own frames of reference they feel exactly right. I don't believe simply moving from a place of higher gravitational potential to a place of lower gravitational potential constitutes time travel. As the entire time you move your frame of reference is moving.

[Chess_Master]

Originally Posted by slap_j

disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

Nor am I, so you have nothing to worry about I'm not even a philosophy or science buff, so try to keep it simple

A clock on Jupiter would run slower than a clock on earth but from their own frames of reference they feel exactly right. I don't believe simply moving from a place of higher gravitational potential to a place of lower gravitational potential constitutes time travel. As the entire time you move your frame of reference is moving.

So if you synchronized two clocks then kept one here on earth and sent the other to Jupiter only to bring it back in a year and compare the clocks, you're telling me Jupiter's clock would actually be behind earth's, but when in the same environment they would run at the same rate. If that is correct then there is a proven relation between the rate at which time applies to matter and the amount of matter (also gravitational pull) present.

This is purely speculative and could very well be off-the-wall, but perhaps there is a given amount of time applied evenly throughout space (so if you divided the universe into equal sections you would find the same amount of time being applied to each one), and matter "takes up" a certain amount of time.

If that is true, I am wondering why matter takes time.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Chess_Master

If that is true, I am wondering why matter takes time.

I think it has to do with velocity relative to the speed of light. Take the twin "paradox" for instance. One twin boards a spaceship that can travel near lightspeed while another remains on earth. The round trip takes 5 years for the spacefaring twin yet upon returning to earth he discovers his sibling has aged 10 years. Now we know that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. If I told you I had a machine that could simulate the gravity on the surface of Jupiter (assuming there was one) but it was actually a fast moving elevator there would be no difference in the experience. The earth's gravitational field produces an acceleration of 9.8 m/s. Jupiter's would be higher (sorry, not sure on the numbers). So relative to earth time would seem to pass more slowly on Jupiter and hypothetical inhabitants of a jovian colony would seem to live longer. Yet from their own frame of reference they age the same as they always have.

Jeez...I hope that makes sense. Haha.

[Chess_Master]

Yes, it does make sense.

So you're saying that time can be altered by any force. It's almost as if forces suck time out of their portion of the universe, so my last post isn't nearly as far off as I had expected it to be. According to this, driving on the freeway and especially riding in an airplane could slightly reduce your aging process

[RelientKFan7]

This has a lot to do with the Theory of Relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity
Yea. If you are in an an airplane, you will age less quickly (in terms of time not physical appearance) compared to someone that is not moving. I am not sure with the twin paradox if they would look the same or if the one on the plane would age(physically) more slowly... hmm

[Chess_Master]

Oh no, Wikipedia But yes, I should have found a link to a description of Einstein's Theory of Relativity a while ago, since it has become detramental to the ideas behind this topic.

For those of you who don't know this theory and don't like to read long in-depth articles, the Theory of Relativity states that the universe is flat, and all matter makes a "dent" in space, more or less depending on it's mass.

To understand this better, I like to think of space as a tarp or trampoline. In terms of our solar system, let us pretend the sun is a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline, and the planets are much smaller spherical objects, such as ball bearings. The weight of the bowling ball in the center of the trampoline creates a shape in the trampoline similar to a funnel, so every other object is drawn towards it. The planets are not sucked straight into the sun because of the inertia created by their velocity which pulls them away from the sun as much as they are being pulled towards it by gravity, but inertia is relevant to this topic in an entirely different way

*edit*
And I believe that the appearance of the twins would differ as well as their perception of time.