What is Time?

What is Time?
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What is time?
Date: 08 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <807fi4$kau$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <7vmbt2$81a$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <s22fn6ek24281@corp.supernews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.24
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 08 21:32:51 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
Very amusing stuff, but REALLY:
Time is unpredictable in the absolute: If I roll
a beachball 10 yards in 1 minute you cannot predict
how long it will take that beachball to roll 10 yards
(as long as you know I am rolling it): You can only
make the prediction if you are too stupid to know
I am rolling it.
This means I can warp Time, and thus... Time is not
controlled by the laws of physics = it does not "exist"
(since everything that exists is controlled by the laws
of physics, not my own arbitrary laws).
Or, it may take a planet 365 days to travel once around its
star, but if another planet unexpectedly passes near enough
to our planet to slow it down, it may take 366 days or even
400 the next orbit (our predictions using Time are always
approximations: NOTE the role played by "our" ignorance)....
How do we tell the past from the present,
or from the future? (Since we cannot, really, we
usually do it quite arbitrarily: If we see dinosaurs
walking about it's the past--even if we might
really be walking around a future Jurassic Park.
Or we just might remember... back when we were
a leaping tree swinging from plane to plane like
Tarzan--Waitaminute: Wasn't that a dream?...)
Let's postulate that existence is an icecube:
Let's take that icecube and melt it. (past=icecube,
present=pool of water) Now take that pool of water
and reconstitute the icecube (icecube=future).
How do we differentiate past from future? Given
the same temperature both will melt at the same rate
(e.g. the second icecube will not seem older than
the first one). The two will seem identical.
Surely, you say, although they look identical to us
the future's subatomic particles are older than
the subatomic particles of that previous icecube
(of the past)....!!!!!!
The subatomic particles would remember and
the second icecube would be newer than the first:
Yes, but existence is both what is apparent to us
(and both icecubes would seem identical to us),
and what is not: indeed the subatomic particles
would know the first icecube is older than the second),
although what's that to us? (The subatomic particles
would never be able to tell us this, and so we would
really never be able to tell the past from the future.)
Now let's say the Big Bang universe always collapses
to an always identical singularity and always
expands to an identical universe: Again, even if
something remembers which universe is older, they
would all seem identically aged to the observers
who are observing them at identical moments in
their expansions. That makes Time meaningless.
And, if you're one of those guys who'd rather
know things theoretically anyway, then you have no
use for the icecube... so replace it with whatever
subatomic primordial particle you'd like (as long
as you can deconstruct it and reconstruct it again
so that the reconstructed particle is identical to the
deconstructed one). In fact, this is easier still, because
you won't have to wait around for the icecube to
form again... But you will still face the dilemma that
you will not be able to tell the past from the future
(remember: we will always suspect that "something"
will know past from future, it's just that we won't know).
The point: If we cannot tell the past from the future
why are we using it to construct reality?!?!?!
To say that Time exists we have to KNOW it does
(but we do not know). When psysicists require the
existence of Time for the construction of one of their
dimensions it's as if they were requiring the existence
of the Easter Bunny. It may be charming, but it's
also quite crazy and self-defeating.
In practice (and forever) there is no past and there is
no future: Only the present exists. And in that present:
existence is constructed (or described, whichever you
prefer) by shapes and the never-ceasing motions
that become them: If Abe Lincoln is perfectly
reconstructed (down to his memories, feelings and
emotions), like our old friend the icecube... neither we
nor he will ever be able to tell whether he's a reconstruction
or... somebody zapped him from the 1800s to this place.
(Only the zapper/reconstructioner will know, and, if
I know that guy... he's never gonna tell anybody.)

S D Rodrian
see:    http://members.aol.com/mrealms/261.htm#126

RE:

In article <7vmbt2$81a$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"JB McKee" <jb@jbmckee.com> wrote:
> Here is an excerpt from an article in a new
> e-zine called Deep Thinking.
>
> This particular article is attempting to define
> what "time" is.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> *******************
>
> ...what is time?
7:35:04
> In its most fundamental essence?
The rate the guy who set it
told the clock to move its little hands.
> Can it be defined?
I just did. And about 1,000,000 other
guys will now define it differently.
>Can we as finite beings
> grasp it as a concept?
That's why we evolved opposing brains!
> And this spawns other questions:
Why did we evolve the appendix?
> * What is now?
Everything.
> * How long is an instant?
Depends on whether her husband
just walked into the bedroom.
> * Can time change speed?
You should've seen me jump out
the bedroom window that time!
> * Is it possible to travel back in time?
Yes: I meet people from the 18th century
all the time right hereabouts.
> WOW!
>
> Try thinking about that for a bit and you will
> quickly get brain jam.
That's why man does not have to live
by just bread alone.
> So, how to proceed.
Ahead!
> Well, let's talk first about how we normally
> view time and what time is NOT.
When we look at our watches. And when
we ask the Boss to get off work early.
> Time is generally considered to be the regular
> movement of some physical entity.
According to my old man
Time is very irregular.
> For example, the movement of the hands plodding
> around the face of a clock; the turning of the
> Earth defining a day; the movement of the Earth
> around the Sun.
I think my watch uses those standards
(that's why I'm always late for everything).
> However, does the movement of physical entities
> constitute the fundamental essence of time?
> I would think not.
You may think not if you like, but
your brain will still work (even at not thinking).
> The clock is merely a metering device that keeps
> track of how many hours, minutes and seconds have
> passed since midnight.
Guy tried to send me a bill once for it
from the Time Company!
> Really, what bearing does
> the revolution of our Earth have on time passing
> on Pluto?
I think astronomers on observatories in Pluto
have to spend their time blowing on their hands
(not each other, no).
> Again, it is merely a convention we
> employ to synchronize our activities.
Not me: I always manage to escape the dragnet
by never showing up on time.
> No, there must be a more fundamental definition
> of what is the essence of time.
There is always a more fundamental definition
(that's why the Arab world is in the mess it is).
> Now, to really throw a monkey wrench into the
> whole thing, lets consider what happens when we
> get in a spaceship and, just for kicks, we park
> ourselves right next to a large mass, such as
> our sun. What happens (aside from the obvious
> meltdown situation)?
The cops give you punks a ticket for
parking next to somebody's son's large ass.
What'd you expect~?
> AHA!
>
> The hands on that old clock, as seen from Earth
> (I have real good eyes), actually slow down!
> (I knew that old clock was fickle.)
What happens to popsycles?
> Yes, it would appear that time, as we generally
> know it, actually slows down when we are in
> close proximity to a large gravitational force
As does my digestion! Did Einstein prescribe
something for that too?
> (you know, Einstein's theory of General
> Relativity).
Maybe, but that's a hard pill to swallow.
> This was actually demonstrated by
> using two synchronized atomic clocks and taking
> one in a plane high into the atmosphere --
And the other one to 34 miles from the Sun, yes,
where it was kept for 55 hours (or until the guy
holding it got the tan he was promised).
>away
> from the gravitational pull of the Earth -- and
> comparing the clocks after flying around for a
> while.
I put one clock into my clothes washer (on the
gentle cycle) and when I compared it to the clock
I didn't put into the machine it had gone back
2,898 years into the past!
> It would also appear that time is just as
> finicky about going places.
That might explain why when I go someplaces
they don't have any time for me there!!!!!
>The faster you
> travel, the slower that clock goes (again,
> relative to what it would be going while
> sitting still). This is Einstein's theory
> of Special Relativity.
Does this work for rocking chairs too?
My grandmother lived into her 90s but
always looked younger than 80 (and she
was off her rocker only in her finals days).
> Thus, time speeds up or slows down depending
> on how fast you are traveling and how much
> gravitational pull you are experiencing.
I used to have a very cheap watch did this
whenever I got in my car and took the turns
too fast: its hands would all swing around to
the side experiencing the gravitational pull
when I turned the corners too quickly.
> But, again, what exactly is it that speeds up
> and slows down?
My Boss claims he knows!
> What IS time?
>
> To answer that, it must first be understood
> that time and space are codependent on each
> other.
That's true: Space is nothing, and Time
doesn't exist.
> We exist in a *space-time* continuum.
I live in a house myself.
> The two are inextricably interwoven and came
> into being at the same event of creation.
That must've been when the first clock was
created--But I have it on good authority that
it was way off, and back then there were only
3 hours in a day!
> What? Time came into being?
Yes: Saturn, remember how it swallowed
the gods, and then Zeus kicked in the ole la panza
and forced him to regurgitate his brothers & sisters?
> Yes. Before that initial event of creation,
> sometimes referred to as the Big Bang,
That was no Big Bang, that was frijoles
con pork and mas pork.
> resulted
> in the formation of our universe,
Does the universe rhyme with itself?
> time did not
> exist.
Time came into existence
the first time somebody asked what time
it was (and was told ... previously everybody
who had asked had been told it was none of
their business what time it was).
>Remember, it is a space-time continuum
> that was created.
How can I forget? Help me forget!
> So, which is what? How exactly are the two
> elements related?
By marriage and bad chemistry.
> In their most fundamental essence, space is the
> existence and time is the event.
Nothing is what exists and... when
did you say it didn't exist?
> To elaborate,
Have you ever noticed how when people
have nothing to say they ALWAYS elaborate?!?!
The guy who has something to say says it:
"$5.50 Pay me or get out!" Period.
> space is the existence and state
> of all the physical material that constitutes
> the universe.
Especially your brain.
>Time is the animation of that
> physical material.
I knew sooner or later this whole thing
would end up in the funny papers!
> In other words, if time were suddenly to no
> longer exist,
You would see a long tunnel with
a light: Go towards the light!
> the entire universe would still
> exist, but it would be frozen in place.
But somebody would soon find a way
to ice pick portions of it and sell them
to the tourists in the Caribbeans.
> When
> the universe changes state in any way, that IS
> time.
Is that New York/New Jersey?
> To expand the definition:
Oh-oh....
> Time is the continuous progression of distinct
> increments of existence called an instant.
This means: the clock's still ticking.
> The progression of one instant to the next is an event.
Not to me: I've seen The Beatles live.
> Let that rattle around in your brain for a bit!
Good! It might help muffle the rattling going on
there now.
> Let's dissect that statement.
Triple: Oh-oh!
> What do I mean by distinct increments of existence?
The clock's ticking?
> What I mean is that an instant is the smallest
> divisible unit of time.
That's what you think: What about nanoinstants?
> Time is the progression
> of these units or 'time particles' if you will.
You mean if we set up a mirror and
force the time particle to bounce back we can
travel back in time (to when mortgage rates
were on the floor)?
> Hey, why not?
Yeah!
> Everything else in the universe
> is comprised of a conglomeration of fundamental
> particles.
Except my Aunt Reagan, who is a
conglomerate just by herself.
>Why would time be any different?
Because if it were the same
it's be hard to sell watches to men...?
(Shame on me: This is a zinger to all your gals.)
> For the duration of each distinct increment
Most excrements do depend on what's been
consumed.
> or
> instant, the physical existence, space, is frozen
> in place.
I once tried to pay a bill with space
and was almost busted for it (up).
> Space remains frozen until the next
> event, or progression of instants.
Is this guy saying that nothingness moves
from nothingness to nothingness in a
discernible rate?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> The state of
> physical existence in one instant dictates what
> the state of physical existence will be in the
> next instant.
I knew we lived in a dictatorship!
> Time is the transition of one
> state of existence to another state.
New Jersey/New York?
> Furthermore, each fundamental particle that
> constitutes the physical universe possesses its
> own time characteristic and has its own particular
> length of instant and rate of events.
Yeah, but some use Timexes
while other use Rollexes.
> The length
> or duration of every instant for each fundamental
> particle is influenced by motion and gravity.
AND how much torque (if it's one'a'em
cheap windup watches).
> The faster a particle is moving, the longer the
> instant.
Naturally: a faster moving particle streaks,
while one standing there in front of you
nakedly... just annoys.
>Likewise, the more intense the gravity,
> the longer the instant.
This sounds like this guy hates fat people.
> And, the longer the
> instant, the slower the event rate and, thus,
> the slower the passing of time.
I've had days at work last three weeks or more.
> This would also explain how time passing at
> different speeds depending on influences of
> motion and gravity is subjective.
I always respect people who know their grammar
real good.
> In other
> words,
Last oh-oh, I hope.
>an hour is still an hour to you whether
> you are sitting next to the Sun, traveling at
> close to the speed of light, or sitting at home
> on Earth watching TV.
Ripping off Shakespeare! "an hour would
smell as sweat" (next to the Sun)
> This is because it is
> the progression of events that causes the
> sensation of time passing.
I'm beginning to feel Time pasing, yes~!
> There is no
> sensation of time passing for the duration of
> an instant.
Depends on the drugs you're using.
>Thus, an instant could be long or
> short,
Now, that's a great truism there!
>but the sensation of time passing would
> be the same.
>
> ***************************
>
> The article goes on to discus what "now" is,
A brown cow: Now you don't have to bother
with the article.
> how an instant can be measured,
with very talented little tweezers
> and whether
> or not traveling back and forth through time
> is possible.
It's possible, but they don't let you
take your carry-on luggage with you.
> Go to
> http://www.jbmckee.com/deep/time.html
> to read the article in its entirety.
Or drink beer instead: It's the equivalent
(practically),
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
****
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What is time?
Date: 09 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <809pl5$993$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <7vmbt2$81a$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<s22fn6ek24281@corp.supernews.com> <807fi4$kau$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<807mmm$18o$1@news.netvision.net.il>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.64
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 09 18:37:34 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
In article <807mmm$18o$1@news.netvision.net.il>,
"Shlomo Bronstein" <sbronst@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it,
> did it
> really fall?
You overLOOKed the deaf guy who SAW it fall (so
it did fall... as he told the rest of us--unless he's a liar,
which is not outside the realm of possibilities).
> Is there anything but what WE as humans think or feel?
Not to US, no. Trillions of worlds exist out there as rich or
richer than our planet, but we will live & die without knowing
anything specific of them (except this one fact, of course).
> We make predictions. That's one of the things that we as humans can do
> better than most animals.
Actually the animal brain's principal reason for evolving was
to make predictions (after it takes care of breathing, and pumping
blood & other chemicals around the body, et al): All brains,
whether human or iguana brains, record... how to deal with
whatever circumstances its beast will face in the future (all brains
are already born with instinctive instructions on what to do when
faced with X (say, such as suckle or bite); and some brains (which
we like to call 'higher brains') are born with the capacity to be taught
by new experiences which the species might never have faced before
--certainly an edge in the struggle for survival).
> We can predict to a certain degree what will
> happen.
Given absolute knowledge we can predict absolutely
EVERYTHING that will happen unto the end of existence
itself. On the other hand, given partial knowledge, we might
be able to predict what "may" happen Tuesday next week
(if an unknown asteroid doesn't wham/blam the Earth
in the meantime, of course)... Who knows! Can you
predict what your wife's mood will be when you walk
through your front door tonight? Really!
> This may be inaccurate but measuring time is a very convinient way
> to predict the future. It is the order of the events. We know that one
> event
> will follow the other.
Time is not a "force" acting across the universe (Time
is NOT synchronized throughout existence BECAUSE
Time does not have any existence there--it only exists in
human brains and is but an idea in no way different than
spatial measurements or direction): A minute has no more
"existence" than an inch (nor than South/Southwest):
A minute is the arbitrarily-set rate at which the minute hand
is made to describe a circle in our clocks & watches (arbitrarily
because we divided the day into 24 hours and the hour into 60
minutes... and if the earth were rotating at a different rate our
hours & minutes would be longer or shorter, quite arbitrarily
... provided we were still hell-bent in dividing the day into 24
hours).
An inch is the arbitrary width of the thumb of the guy who
decided it should be that long (and I don't suppose I have to
tell you how a foot got to be a foot-long; it's: whose foot it was).
Any & all directions depend on where (to what) we hitch them:
North/South follow the magnetic poles on this planet, and
all other direction flow from that. But in an universe totally
devoid of matter there would be no direction (up/down, East/West
& all-around-the-town would be meaningless). AND if ever
a physicist were to conjure up a mathematical dimension
whose existence depended on direction... you would instantly
know this guy's nuts (no pun intended: could be a woman).
And yet there are any number of physicists today (some
even living outside madhouses, mind you) who are endlessly
postulating mathematical dimensions whose existence depend
on Time!!!!!!! And... otherwise sane people actually pay
attention ( and cash) to these flights of insanity. In fact, I would
go so far as to state that physicists are the only lunatics
(outside of politicians, of course) people take seriously.
For all sane people out there who wish to remain sane:
Please note: Time does not have existence outside the
(until we meet little green men) human brain.
MOTIONS are taking place across & throughout the universe
according to each motion's own unique dynamics--And
each specific motion's rate of movement is seldom or even
never affected or influenced by one or all the other motions
of which existence is comprised.
Note: The above "never" is going too far, of course, and
just there purely for the dramatic effect: In reality, because
every motion is made up of an infinite number of inner motions
(e.g. an atom is composed of sub-subatomic particles which
themselves are composed of more basic particles ad infinitum):
if you synchronize two atomic clocks and then force one to
travel at a relatively greater velocity than the other one... the
one having traveled at a relatively greater velocity will report
that Time has slowed down for it--A curious phenomenon which
means that if you had accurate enough watches and placed one
at the center of a spinning CD and the other at the CD's rim
you'd get the (mistaken) impression that Time was passing
faster at the center of spinning CDs than at their rims! (The truth,
of course, is much more accurately expressed by simply saying
that a greater relative velocity seems to have a calming effect
on subatomic motions for whatever reason... perhaps gravity
is a more pervasive force than we now suspect, or perhaps there are
as-yet any number of strong forces to be discovered).
But, at any rate (pun), now... next TIME you hear
someone say that "time is relative" you will know
that although they are indeed speaking the truth,
they are probably doing so without knowing
what the hell they're really talking about. (And, naturally,
next time you are presented with a mathematical dimension
whose existence depends on "the dimension of time"
tell the physicist presenter to try to construct one next
out of the whiskers of the Cheshire Cat (and don't be
surprised if he/she actually does it, by the way).
> The same question goes about weather there is a past, a present and a
> future.
No past/future: Existence does not cease to exist
and come into existence moment to moment:
Existence is all that exists (and if something has never
existed it doesn't exist, and if something has not yet
come into existence it also doesn't exist): Now
bring something into existence out of nothing! (Sarcasm)
> How can you tell what will happen in an hour?
Schedule it yourself.
> How can you tell that
> what you remember that happened an hour ago really did happen and what
> difference does it make?
You better remember: It makes a lot of difference
to the cops & to the guys dressed in white.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/261.htm#126
*********************

From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What is time?
Date: 10 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <80cikm$c0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <7vmbt2$81a$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<s22fn6ek24281@corp.supernews.com> <807fi4$kau$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<80bko6$krc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.66
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Nov 10 19:56:08 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
In article <80bko6$krc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Lapidary (Peter D Jones) <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <807fi4$kau$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>> Very amusing stuff, but REALLY:
>>
>> Time is unpredictable in the absolute:
>
> So is everything else. You cannot predict how far I can
> roll a beach-ball in 10 minutes eiter, so by you logic space
> is non-existent as well.
Can you say your reply was unpredictable? But "space?"
Isn't one of the basic definitions of space non-existence?
>> How do we tell the past from the present,
>> or from the future? (Since we cannot, really, we
>> usually do it quite arbitrarily: If we see dinosaurs
>> walking about it's the past--even if we might
>> really be walking around a future Jurassic Park.
>
> How do you know that you haven't been
> teleported in your sleep to an identical replica of Earth in
> another place in the galaxy ? Spacial
> locations are not absolutely determinable, either.
Since I already said in my statement
what you just said 'in other words' ... either you
misread me, misunderstood ne, or you are one of those
fellows whose fury of emotions make you bark and bark
until your proper owner bangs you over the head with
a rolled up newspaper. (After all, my emphasis IS on
"quantum ignorance" being a redundacy, not the oxymoron
phycisics would like us to see us beliving it is.)
> You are attempting to argue that, since time is not
> absolute, scientific ideas
> of time are wrong;
Not really, not exactly: I have but proved
that time is just an idea
with no more influence upon anything outside the brain
than that which the person with the idea of time in his/her head
may himself/herself be able to have on the world around him/her.
You may read the original post again at:
"http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=546031573&fmt=text"
or a follow-up at:
"http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=546519803&fmt=text"
(copy the entire url into your browser0
My purpose was & remains to brush away confusion,
that by a more elegant understanding
science (and not illusion or delusion) is advanced.
>but
> physicists don't regard time
> (or space) as absolute anyway.
Would you deny that existence is absolute
where it exists? (And what bearing do things
which do not exist have on anything which exists?)
... I am not aware of ANY region of space (still "space")
in our universe (yet another definition of existence)
that might be absolutely empty. Can such a thing
even be possible ... outside the brain, of course, inside
which there always is a lot of absolute emptiness
to be found?
>> In article <7vmbt2$81a$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>>   "JB McKee" <jb@jbmckee.com> wrote:
>>> Here is an excerpt from an article in a new
>>> e-zine called Deep Thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...what is time?
>>
>> 7:35:04
>>
>
> An appropriate riposte: about as novel as the original article.
At least you understand (or maybe you yet misunderstand)
that only a fool answers a foolish question with deadly
seriousness.
> [ much presiflage snipped ]
I would never snip thy persiflage. (What
would I do for entertainment were I to?)
> Regards, Peter D Jones .
> "I had a million pounds in the bank. I spent most
> of it on booze, women and fast cars. The rest I
> wasted" -- George Best.
I myself still have 234 million dollars in one account:
It's one of those... what'd you call it?... One of those
less-than-truthful accounts.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/261.htm#126
Yes, it's an LTT Account, but the money's still there
(all I have to do is find some way to withdraw it
and I'm set).
******************
INDEX