Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

[Sorn]

Hi, thank you for your input. Time is more than a concept. Time is something that is objective and can be observed. This is why in my original post I outlined the only way time can be observed. I believe the way in which something is observed is the way in which it exists.

Hi Ohj1n37,
great discussion, only just found this thread though I have not read all the way through yet but will in the next day or so then i will provide some ideas.
Can you please provide an example of time being observed?

 

[Kylie]

Can anything move in this universe? No, since there is no time, and movement requires time.
- disagree, movement does not require time, movement requires energy (initially) and space. Movement then has a property called duration.

Why do you disagree? How do you figure that movement does not require time? Movement is literally being in one place at one point in time, and then being in a different place at a different point in time. Since two different points in time are required, there can be no movement if there is no time.

Thus, if everything stops moving, time stops, and nothing can start it up again.
- disagree, an input of energy from a source external to the universe can start it (movement, activity) up again

Again, this requires time - at one point there is no energy coming in, and at another point in time there is energy coming in. If there is no time, there can be no change, and thus no input of energy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Imagine a universe where there is no movement at all. Time must not exist.
-agree, ie time (or more correctly duration) cannot be measured by any reference inside that universe.

Can anything move in this universe? No, since there is no time, and movement requires time.
- disagree, movement does not require time, movement requires energy (initially) and space. Movement then has a property called duration.

Thus, if everything stops moving, time stops, and nothing can start it up again.
- disagree, an input of energy from a source external to the universe can start it (movement, activity) up again

I've said that time is dependant on Mass, but you seem to have a good point as well.

 

[Sorn]

Why do you disagree? How do you figure that movement does not require time? Movement is literally being in one place at one point in time, and then being in a different place at a different point in time. Since two different points in time are required, there can be no movement if there is no time.

I guess that i'm coming from the point of view that time as a thing doesn't actually exist.

What exists are 'events'. In much the same way as the OP, where he stated that time is based on motion, i think it can be abstracted further to say that time, or more correctly, the perception of it, is based on events.
Time is effectively a human construct in much the same way that SelfSim posted in post #54.
So object x moving from A to B doesn't need 'time' but it does need energy and space. You can say it took y units long to get from A to B where 'y units' is some measure based on some other series of, presumably regular, events so x's movement has a duration based on y units but that's all, its an arbitrary measure.

Any measure of 'time' you care to think of is couched in words that relate directly to a series of observable events (some would say observable motion, but i think that's too restrictive and think 'events' fits much better).

Using a separate series of observable events (y units) as a measure you can say that x was moving for y units but if object x does not move you can still say object x has NOT moved for y units.

On the other hand if your scale of events is too course you could be left with the problem that you know x moved (or was stationary), but you can not say for how long because your unit of measure is not fine enough.

Again, this requires time - at one point there is no energy coming in, and at another point in time there is energy coming in. If there is no time, there can be no change, and thus no input of energy.

Yes, at some point when measured against a series of observable events external to the universe in question, energy was added and the previously stationary universe is now 'eventing' again. However it was motionless or 'non-eventing' for y units based on the externally referenced, regularly spaced, series of observable events.

 

[Sorn]

If you don't have a series of regularly spaced observable events with which to measure duration then time effectively, or largely, disappears and is not relevant.

You could then say object x is moving (ie describing its current state) or you could could say object x was over there, describing its previous position in space and yes, you can say that it was there before it was here, but that is all you can say, you can not say when it was there except in relation to the current now.

Anything else and you start heading back down the path of describing things in terms of other events to try and create a conceptual 'timeline'.

If you like, i think the term 'eventline' is far more appropriate than the word 'timeline'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess that i'm coming from the point of view that time as a thing doesn't actually exist.

What exists are 'events'. In much the same way as the OP, where he stated that time is based on motion, i think it can be abstracted further to say that time, or more correctly, the perception of it, is based on events.
Time is effectively a human construct in much the same way that SelfSim posted in post #54.
So object x moving from A to B doesn't need 'time' but it does need energy and space. You can say it took y units long to get from A to B where 'y units' is some measure based on some other series of, presumably regular, events so x's movement has a duration based on y units but that's all, its an arbitrary measure.

I think Einstein would disagree. He saw time as an integral dimension of spacetime, and no experiment to date has contradicted that model.

The concept of time may be a human construct, but making constructs takes time; we wouldn't be able construct them without it.

There is a debate about whether time is emergent or fundamental (just as there is for space/spacetime), and it doesn't appear in the fundamentals of physics, but at the macro level of everyday physics, Einstein seems to have the advantage.

Any measure of 'time' you care to think of is couched in words that relate directly to a series of observable events (some would say observable motion, but i think that's too restrictive and think 'events' fits much better).

In physics, an event is a point in spacetime.

 

[SelfSim]

I think Einstein would disagree. He saw time as an integral dimension of spacetime, and no experiment to date has contradicted that model.

“The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
and;
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
― Albert Einstein.

Einstein's model was devised as an explanation for other scientific thinkers. Those thinkers require time in order to understand that explanation .. as does pretty well every other explanation in Physics does. Physics is a human endeavour and not some object (like a rock) floating around in space waiting for us to discover it!

The concept of time may be a human construct, but making constructs takes time; we wouldn't be able construct them without it.

'Tis you who are saying that also .. and presumably you're a human requiring the concept of time (like the rest of us) in order for that explanation to make sense for you .. and other humans.

There is a debate about whether time is emergent or fundamental (just as there is for space/spacetime), and it doesn't appear in the fundamentals of physics, but at the macro level of everyday physics, Einstein seems to have the advantage.

Yet again, you ignore that physics makes use of humanly comprehendable constructs which obviously, evidently includes time (there's tonnes of evidence of our usage of tenses in our languages .. but you actually have to look in order to see that).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

“The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
and;
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
― Albert Einstein.

Einstein's model was devised as an explanation for other scientific thinkers. Those thinkers require time in order to understand that explanation .. as does pretty well every other explanation in Physics does. Physics is a human endeavour and not some object (like a rock) floating around in space waiting for us to discover it!

'Tis you who are saying that also .. and presumably you're a human requiring the concept of time (like the rest of us) in order for that explanation to make sense for you .. and other humans.

Yet again, you ignore that physics makes use of humanly comprehendable constructs which obviously, evidently includes time (there's tonnes of evidence of our usage of tenses in our languages .. but you actually have to look in order to see that).

Yes, physics is a human endeavour, and I'm a human that requires a concept of time; and no, I'm not ignoring that physics makes use of conceptual constructs - I'm well aware of that.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, physics is a human endeavour, and I'm a human that requires a concept of time; and no, I'm not ignoring that physics makes use of conceptual constructs - I'm well aware of that.

Physics is evidently dependent on its own testable conceptual constructs .. thus Physics is an example of a human endeavour to achieve understanding of human perceptions - in this case: observations. There is no evidence that Physics exists independently from that human endeavour.
There is no evidence that anything other than minds can make use of their own concepts (of which time is demonstrably one such instance. I refer to Einstein's own words as the evidence for this).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Physics is evidently dependent on its own testable conceptual constructs .. thus Physics is an example of a human endeavour to achieve understanding of human perceptions - in this case: observations. There is no evidence that Physics exists independently from that human endeavour.
There is no evidence that anything other than minds can make use of their own concepts (of which time is demonstrably one such instance. I refer to Einstein's own words as the evidence for this).

Yes, human concepts and perceptions are human concepts and perceptions.

 

[Sorn]

In physics, an event is a point in spacetime.

Maybe so but 'event' is much, much better at describing the things we use to make timelines or eventlines.
So the earth completing 1 revolution around the sun is an event that is marked on an eventline that happens to be used to measure and categorize other events.
The origin point on the above mentioned eventline (year zero) is determined by an event of a totally different nature, the birth of JC, yet this event plays a pivotal role in the primary eventline we run our lives against.

Likewise an event can be anything you want it to be, so its not limited to motion etc. To use time language again, if you have a thought, then there was a time before that thought and a time after that thought, ie the thought itself is an 'event' by which other events can be categorized if you wanted to use to that way.
Hence you can count to 10 before you do something, here you have 10 thought events that you have just used to create an arbitrary timeline with which to measure or in some other way categorize or action some other events of particular interest to you.

 

[Sorn]

If a black cat walks across my path, every one knows that bad luck is sure to follow, and when something bad does happen, invariably, it will be because of the black cat walking across my path.

Hence bad luck clearly exists and is a thing, i'm sure i could write equations with it as a variable that has diminishing influence over time (possibly) or where the size or type of bad luck event is shown to be relative to ones speed and frame of reference and also correlates with the 'eventual' negative consequence, though there may be other mitigating factors.

I've applied for a grant as i hope to run experiments where i isolate bad luck events to then determine their true effects, free of the noise of possible good luck events or other bad luck events etc. and anything else that might pollute the results. Some space travel may be necessary to explore bad lucks relativistic effects.
It will take several decades to conclude this study however so the funding has to be big!

Admittedly, physics has yet to identify exactly what bad luck is but they are working on it and many physicists are hoping that the Large Hadron Collider, when run at 120% of rated capacity will reveal the bad luck particle or field.

 

[Sorn]

Incidentally, to those reading that think motion proves time (see above), motion is completely separate from time.

There are 2 cats, ginger and fluff, each in a room with a corridor between them.
I walk down the corridor and see fluff in one room next to the fireplace. I look in the other room and see ginger also next to a fireplace.

What can i say: 2 cats exist and are stationary

I go to the kitchen, have something to eat and come back. I look in one room and see fluff now on an armchair. In the other room ginger is still next to the fireplace.

Does the fact that fluff has moved prove time??, (some say yes )

Does the fact that ginger has not moved prove time does not exist??
Of course not!! If fluff moving proves time exists then ginger NOT moving ALSO has to prove time exists because ginger not moving also takes time.

Hence we can completely remove motion from the discussion as it just serves to confuse and muddy the waters.

What can we really say:
2 cats still exist.
1 cat has expended energy and moved to another set of co-ordinates in the room
1 cat can move.
1 cat has not moved.
Both cats will continue to exist until they don't.

It reveals nothing about time! unless we choose to believe it does!*


* to believe it does say something about time will bring bad luck - lots! You know bad luck is real, you have been warned!!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe so but 'event' is much, much better at describing the things we use to make timelines or eventlines.
So the earth completing 1 revolution around the sun is an event that is marked on an eventline that happens to be used to measure and categorize other events.
The origin point on the above mentioned eventline (year zero) is determined by an event of a totally different nature, the birth of JC, yet this event plays a pivotal role in the primary eventline we run our lives against.

Likewise an event can be anything you want it to be, so its not limited to motion etc. To use time language again, if you have a thought, then there was a time before that thought and a time after that thought, ie the thought itself is an 'event' by which other events can be categorized if you wanted to use to that way.
Hence you can count to 10 before you do something, here you have 10 thought events that you have just used to create an arbitrary timeline with which to measure or in some other way categorize or action some other events of particular interest to you.

OK. So?

 

[Sorn]

OK. So?

Your post implied or could be inferred that i was somehow using the word 'event' in an incorrect manner or out of context. I was just describing the context that i use the word event in this discussion.

 

[Kylie]

I guess that i'm coming from the point of view that time as a thing doesn't actually exist.

What exists are 'events'. In much the same way as the OP, where he stated that time is based on motion, i think it can be abstracted further to say that time, or more correctly, the perception of it, is based on events.
Time is effectively a human construct in much the same way that SelfSim posted in post #54.
So object x moving from A to B doesn't need 'time' but it does need energy and space. You can say it took y units long to get from A to B where 'y units' is some measure based on some other series of, presumably regular, events so x's movement has a duration based on y units but that's all, its an arbitrary measure.

Any measure of 'time' you care to think of is couched in words that relate directly to a series of observable events (some would say observable motion, but i think that's too restrictive and think 'events' fits much better).

Using a separate series of observable events (y units) as a measure you can say that x was moving for y units but if object x does not move you can still say object x has NOT moved for y units.

On the other hand if your scale of events is too course you could be left with the problem that you know x moved (or was stationary), but you can not say for how long because your unit of measure is not fine enough.


Yes, at some point when measured against a series of observable events external to the universe in question, energy was added and the previously stationary universe is now 'eventing' again. However it was motionless or 'non-eventing' for y units based on the externally referenced, regularly spaced, series of observable events.

So how do you stop all the events from happening at once? Or in the wrong order? Why didn't I give birth BEFORE I got pregnant? Could it be because of the flow of time?

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, human concepts and perceptions are human concepts and perceptions.

So, is there a test which allows us to decouple time from also being yet another concept? (Ie: which distinguishes it as existing as 'a something' other than what we merely infer from successive observations of a clock?)

 

[SelfSim]

So how do you stop all the events from happening at once? Or in the wrong order? Why didn't I give birth BEFORE I got pregnant? Could it be because of the flow of time?

Because you remember being pregnant before you gave birth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your post implied or could be inferred that i was somehow using the word 'event' in an incorrect manner or out of context. I was just describing the context that i use the word event in this discussion.

No, I was just pointing out what I thought might be useful - something I wasn't aware of until fairly recently.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, is there a test which allows us to decouple time from also being yet another concept? (Ie: which distinguishes it as existing as 'a something' other than what we merely infer from successive observations of a clock?)

Like many concepts, it's a way of representing some feature of what most of us take to be an external reality; in this case, how everything doesn't happen at once.