Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[Justatruthseeker]

Well if God is part of the material world of matter and energy, that clears up a lot. I mean, yeah there's some mystery as to "what actually happens" when matter/energy convert. But at least its observable and takes place in-time.

I have no idea what it means for a being whos outside of the material world to extend from "outside time" to convert non-material form into.... this. Its just a complete muddle.

But before energy first converted to matter, there was no material universe, or anything to take place in time or to calculate time with....

Even proponents of the Big Bang understand there was no concept of time before the event.....

 

[durangodawood]

But before energy first converted to matter, there was no material universe, or anything to take place in time or to calculate time with....

Even proponents of the Big Bang understand there was no concept of time before the event.....

Not quite.

Our time began with our big bang. As for what "existed" beyond/before, no one knows.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Not quite.

Our time began with our big bang. As for what "existed" beyond/before, no one knows.

What He's trying to explain is called panentheism, a theory which posits that all space/time, and any intelligible universe that may come into and out of existence inside of space/time, exist within an eternal Being; a Being from/of which said space/time and inhabiting energy/matter is a tangible projection (the image). It can work in conjunction with the scientific theory called the "big bounce" which allows for a cyclic universe, where the first cosmological event(big bang) was the result of the collapse(big crunch) of a previous universe (ad infinitum).

Now, in regards to the OP, I don't have the time to sift through all these pages of most likely not-very-scientific guesses. But I would hope someone had pointed out Einstein's theory of Special relativity, which learns you that, along with matter and energy being the same thing in different states(just like steam and ice are both water), space and time are also just facets of the same thing. When most people try to consider time they think of a linear succession of events, from a particular point of view (like a particle on the move). But time is a field, in which those sequences of events have their trajectories, and a person's perception of it is relative to his or her locational perspective of it, and how fast he or she is traveling through it. For all intents and purposes, all that a clock is measuring is our linear perception of traveling through recurring cycles occurring within the field of space/time (sunrises, middays, sunsets, solstices, equinoxes, orbits). It may be that time is finite, but, if so, it is infinitely divisible. However if time consists of one eternal moment, it would still be finite compared to whatever contains it, and it would be subject to expansion, contraction, overlap and dilation at various points, even though we are only familiar with the standardized version of it according to our Earthly observations of it. Incidentally, if the universe is cyclic, that might very well mean that there was an infinite amount of time before your birth, and that there will be an infinite amount of time after your demise; which would have you right in the middle of eternity right now. But that's strictly hypothetical.

On a side note, ever notice how slowly a clock seems to move when you watch it, but how much faster it seems to move when you're busy focusing on anything other than time? Maybe that ties into a scientific principle of time being relative to one's perception of it.

 

[dad]

Love your response! Time is a concept we derived from misunderstanding reality, as we typically do as humans. God doesn't exist inside time, and that's the very point I'm trying to solve. Time only exists inside humans. Dogs know when the sun goes up and down, but they don't know what 3 o'clock is. They wouldn't care.

Yet dogs have a life time.

 

[dad]

Not quite.

Our time began with our big bang. As for what "existed" beyond/before, no one knows.

If your time begins with the big bang, your time is a fairy tale.

 

[dad]

If time is past, and time is present, and time is to come...how do we measure anything except what is happening in the present, since the past is gone and the future is yet to be? But even then, how long is the present before it becomes the past or the future? Augustine discusses time beyond the movements of the sun, and goes into deeper into the question of what time is in substance.

What defines the present?

Maybe man can't really define or understand what time is, largely because we are always stuck in the present.

 

[SelfSim]

Not quite.

Our time began with our big bang. As for what "existed" beyond/before, no one knows.

If your time begins with the big bang, your time is a fairy tale.

If our observational/theoretical models can tell us nothing about anything prior to the big bang, then it is meaningless to discuss events prior to it. This does not imply that time is a fairy tale.
Time is a measurable in science .. which makes it a lot more useful than a fairy tale.

If time is past, and time is present, and time is to come...how do we measure anything except what is happening in the present, since the past is gone and the future is yet to be? But even then, how long is the present before it becomes the past or the future? Augustine discusses time beyond the movements of the sun, and goes into deeper into the question of what time is in substance.

What defines the present?

Maybe man can't really define or understand what time is, largely because we are always stuck in the present.

There's no 'maybe' about it ... science (which was developed by humans) knows precisely what time is .. because its a measurable and is a necessary dimension for understanding observations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I would hope someone had pointed out Einstein's theory of Special relativity, which learns you that, along with matter and energy being the same thing in different states(just like steam and ice are both water)...

Matter and energy are not the same thing. There is a certain equivalence between matter and energy, but they're very different concepts; in simple terms, matter is stuff, and energy is a property of stuff - stuff has energy. See Matter and Energy.

... time is a field...

No, time is not a field in any physical sense; it's what clocks measure, a fundamental scalar quantity, one dimension of spacetime. See Exactly What Is Time?

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Matter and energy are not the same thing. There is a certain equivalence between matter and energy, but they're very different concepts; in simple terms, matter is stuff, and energy is a property of stuff - stuff has energy. See Matter and Energy.

No, time is not a field in any physical sense; it's what clocks measure, a fundamental scalar quantity, one dimension of spacetime.

I'm sorry you're having trouble, but if matter is not energy then most of the technology you just employed, including your thoughts and nervous system, just failed to comprehend what was occurring and what dimension it was occurring in. If matter were not energy, and vice versa, none of the cell phones, or nuclear power plants, or online forums where some might display their lack of understanding, would be in operation.

Matter is condensed energy, a concreted form of the same energy that light consists of. Time that a clock measures, and as you may only understand it, is only a 4th dimension.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sorry you're having trouble, but if matter is not energy then most of the technology you just employed, including your thoughts and nervous system, just failed to comprehend what was occurring and what dimension it was occurring in.

Matter is condensed energy, a concreted form of the same energy that light consists of.

It's no trouble. Energy is an indirectly observed abstract quantity, analogous to financial value. Financial value comes in various inter-convertible forms - gold, cash, bricks & mortar, bank account numbers, labour, etc. Energy comes in various inter-convertible forms - heat, kinetic, electrical, sound, nuclear, chemical, potential, etc., that involve the particular context or state of some object or particle (ultimately, an excitation of a quantum field).

Just as there is no such thing as pure financial value, there is no such thing as 'pure' energy, or energy in its own right. You might choose gold as your 'purest' exemplar of financial value, and similarly, electromagnetic radiation is sometimes referred to as pure energy, but it's actually photons that have a certain amount of energy by virtue of their wavelength; short wavelength equates to high energy.

Don't take my word for it, check out some authoritative sources.

Time is the 4th dimension.

Yes.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Energy is an indirectly observed abstract quantity, analogous to financial value. Financial value comes in various inter-convertible forms

Because financial value is a matter of subjectivity, and differs according to ones value-belief system, what is believed to have financial value or not, and how much, differs from person to person; whereas matter/energy has a definite objective existence, whether or not any particular talking ape can directly observe it or accurately measure it's quantity/quality. So that argument fails, because financial value is a construct/concept which relies on one's awareness and belief in it, while energy/matter exists whther you believe in it or not.

Don't take my word for it, check out some authoritative sources.

Unless they actually created space/time and matter/energy they are not the author's of it, therefore they have no authority over it.

Matter is condensed energy, a concreted form of the same energy that light consists of. Time that a clock measures, and as you may only understand it, is only a 4th dimension.

Yes.

Depending on how many clocks, running at what increment, and when/where any particular parcel of space-time and succession of events one is observing exists, any particular 4th dimension of a data set is unique to that data set. Absolute Time is not THE 4th dimension, but any particular parcel of time is a 4th dimension within an observed or observable data set. Absolute Time is not a single dimension, but the sum of all possible finite dimensions.

 

[durangodawood]

What He's trying to explain is called panentheism, a theory which posits that all space/time, and any intelligible universe that may come into and out of existence inside of space/time, exist within an eternal Being; a Being from/of which said space/time and inhabiting energy/matter is a tangible projection (the image). It can work in conjunction with the scientific theory called the "big bounce" which allows for a cyclic universal, where the first cosmological event(big bang) was the result of the collapse(big crunch) of a previous universe (ad infinitum).

Now, in regards to the OP, I don't have the time to sift through all these pages of most likely not-very-scientific guesses. But I would hope someone had pointed out Einstein's theory of Special relativity, which learns you that, along with matter and energy being the same thing in different states(just like steam and ice are both water), space and time are also just facets of the same thing. When most people try to consider time they think of a linear succession of events, from a particular point of view (like a particle on the move). But time is a field, in which those sequences of events have their trajectories, and a person's perception of it is relative to his or her locational perspective of it, and how fast he or she is traveling through it. For all intents and purposes, all that a clock is measuring is our linear perception of traveling through recurring cycles occurring within the field of space/time (sunrises, middays, sunsets, solstices, equinoxes, orbits). It may be that time is finite, but, if so, it is infinitely divisible. However if time consists of one eternal moment, it would still be finite compared to whatever contains it, and it would be subject to expansion, contraction, overlap and dilation at various points, even though we are only familiar with the standardized version of it according to our Earthly observations of it. Incidentally, if the universe is cyclic, that might very well mean that there was an infinite amount of time before your birth, and that there will be an infinite amount of time after your demise; which would have you right in the middle of eternity right now. But that's strictly hypothetical.

On a side note, ever notice how slowly a clock seems to move when you watch it, but how much faster it seems to move when you're busy focusing on anything other than time? Maybe that ties into a scientific principle of time being relative to one's perception of it.

Most things have a very different relationship to time than they do to space. This indicates to me that they arent identical.

Just on the mundane level, I can walk forward and backward in space. Try that with time!

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Most things have a very different relationship to time than they do to space. This indicates to me that they arent identical.

Just on the mundane level, I can walk forward and backward in space. Try that with time!

Do you think it's merely coincidental that when you walk back and forth while in space, you are also walking back in forth while in time? Or are you merely conceiving time as a single succession of events only you have observed, and in which you would like to willfully change your position to a former one or one that you have yet to experience?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you think it's merely coincidental that when you walk back and forth while in space, you are also walking back in forth while in time? Or are you merely conceiving time as a single succession of events only you have observed, and in which you would like to willfully change your position to a former one or one that you have yet to experience?

Not sure what you mean.

If I walk backwards far enough, I'll pass the same gas station again. But the gum I was chewing will never become un-chewed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because financial value is a matter of subjectivity, and differs according to ones value-belief system, what is believed to have financial value or not, and how much, differs form person to person; whereas matter/energy has a definite objective existence, whether or not any particular talking ape can directly observe it or accurately measure it's quantity/quality. So that argument fails, because financial value is a construct/concept which relies on one's awareness and belief in it, while energy/matter exists whther you believe in it or not.

The analogy is only conceptual - the obvious difference is the constant 'rate of exchange' of energy in physics.

It's true that financial value is subjective and energy is objective; nevertheless, energy exists, not independently, but as an observed equivalence of certain properties.

Unless they actually created space/time and matter/energy they are not the author's of it, therefore they have no authority over it.

Do you really not know what 'authoritative source' means?

Depending on how many clocks, running at what increment, and when/where any particular parcel of space-time and succession of events one is observing exists, any particular 4th dimension of a data set is unique to that data set. Absolute Time is not THE 4th dimension, but any particular parcel of time is a 4th dimension within an observed or observable data set. Absolute Time is not a single dimension, but the sum of all possible finite dimensions.

That makes no sense in classical, relativistic, or quantum physics; I'm guessing you made it up, but if not, I'm curious to know where you got it

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Do you really not know what 'authoritative source' means?

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that "authority" and "source" were implying those that both governed, and were the purveyors of, the space/time, matter/energy we were speaking of. Did you think those self-proclaimed authoritative sources you found were that? Or do you just have an endorsement deal with them?

That makes no sense in classical, relativistic, or quantum physics; I'm guessing you made it up, but if not, I'm curious to know where you got it

No one has to take the word of anyone else for anything, and I would suggest no one do so unless their trust is well founded. And I'm glad that someone existing these days is familiar with Newtonian principles, and even relativity(whether general and special). I'm sure, after much meditation, you saw what relativity meant in regards to time and the general human conception of it being not entirely comprehensive, and that the current understanding of quantum mechanics has not changed that? Or are you just taking other people's words for something, rather than using the personal capacity and abilities that were given to you, to seek out the truth? If where somebody "got something" was only from some other talking ape, then I would sincerely urge that person to be methodically skeptical. Because walking around with other people's concepts in one's head would be just lazy erudition, monkey hear monkey say, and not personal knowledge. I'm sure what does not make sense to some, is only that which is, as yet, beyond their capacity. But don't feel bad, no one gets to choose who and what they are, at any given time. That's why if you acknowledge and admit your limitations and imperfections, and forgive others theirs, who and what you are won't be held against you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not quite.

Our time began with our big bang. As for what "existed" beyond/before, no one knows.

Sure we do. Science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it definitely existed prior......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that "authority" and "source" were implying those that both governed, and were the purveyors of, the space/time, matter/energy we were speaking of. Did you think those self-proclaimed authoritative sources you found were that? Or do you just have an endorsement deal with them?


No one has to take the word of anyone else for anything, and I would suggest no one do so unless their trust is well founded. And I'm glad that someone existing these days is familiar with Newtonian principles, and even relativity(whether general and special). I'm sure, after much meditation, you saw what relativity meant in regards to time and the general human conception of it being not entirely comprehensive, and that the current understanding of quantum mechanics has not changed that? Or are you just taking other people's words for something, rather than using the personal capacity and abilities that were given to you, to seek out the truth? If where somebody "got something" was only from some other talking ape, then I would sincerely urge that person to be methodically skeptical. Because walking around with other people's concepts in one's head would be just lazy erudition, monkey hear monkey say, and not personal knowledge. I'm sure what does not make sense to some, is only that which is, as yet, beyond their capacity. But don't feel bad, no one gets to choose who and what they are, at any given time. That's why if you acknowledge and admit your limitations and imperfections, and forgive others theirs, who and what you are won't be held against you.

Agreed.

What they continually refuse to consider is that their authorities are constantly surprised every time they look in the telescope.

They couldn’t even get their models of the heliosphere correct, and that is right next door cosmologically speaking. Models based upon all their other models. So where we could actually send a probe and take direct measurements, their models were falsified. And so to a logical person that says a lot about the models the falsified models were based upon.

Time is ever changing and never the same from moment to moment. We with our pitiful skills of observation simply continue to call different duration ticks of time seconds. Just as the twin continued to call his duration ticks of time seconds, even when not of the same duration as they once were.

And this is why their calculations of age will forever be flawed. They calculate for a constant rate backwards when the rate actually increases exponentially the further back in time one goes.

But creationists also calculate incorrectly, not taking into account length contraction, which would change our perception of days.

And in the end everyone gets the wrong answers....

 

[durangodawood]

Sure we do. Science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it definitely existed prior......

Are you sure that conservation of energy applies "beyond" the universe?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because financial value is a matter of subjectivity, and differs according to ones value-belief system, what is believed to have financial value or not, and how much, differs from person to person; whereas matter/energy has a definite objective existence, whether or not any particular talking ape can directly observe it or accurately measure it's quantity/quality. So that argument fails, because financial value is a construct/concept which relies on one's awareness and belief in it, while energy/matter exists whther you believe in it or not.

Exists yes, but in a sense still subjective and the energy one measures is based solely on ones choice of coordinates.

Depending on how many clocks, running at what increment, and when/where any particular parcel of space-time and succession of events one is observing exists, any particular 4th dimension of a data set is unique to that data set. Absolute Time is not THE 4th dimension, but any particular parcel of time is a 4th dimension within an observed or observable data set. Absolute Time is not a single dimension, but the sum of all possible finite dimensions.

Yes, the duration of our clock tick we call a second can change due to energy content.

It is those treating this frame as an absolute frame while professing everything is relative that think in absolutes....