Time

>>6667943
>So, since 'time' is just a convenient concoction we use to make communication easier, how do things like space-time make any sense?
Well that means either you aren't making sense or people much smarter than you like Albert Einstein aren't making sense. I wonder which one it is?

>>6667951
I just see no evidence that 'time' has any meaning.

>>6667960
Care to explain how relativity is observable if time is only a concept or idea?

>>6667943
Sure, time measurements are completely arbitrary. So are you space coordinates, you can choose any you want. Everything you said about time can be said about space. So what?

Time doesn't stand on its own so you are right, but nobody was saying that in the first place. Time is the increase of entropy.

>>6667960
do you see any evidence that "space" has any meaning?

Time is that which stops everything from happening at once.
Space is that which stops everything from being in the same place.

Both time and space are forms of separation.

Through Maxwell's equations and Einstein's formulation of General Relativity, the two are intricately linked.

File: ughpattern.png (17KB, 831x406px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 831x406px

all things are ONE.
1689

File: TT8.png (860KB, 1250x994px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 1250x994px

how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real

EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED

File: cropcircle.png (986KB, 1083x680px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 1083x680px

>>6668106
CROP CIRCLES CONVEY THE SAME PATTERN OF ALL THINGS. ZERO POINT.

File: derp.jpg (99KB, 940x373px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 940x373px

>>6668110
LIGHT. GEOMETRY. RELATIVITY.
CONSCIOUSNESS. PERCEPTION.

ONE.

File: zeropoint.png (280KB, 705x661px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 705x661px

>>6668113
ZERO POINT.

>>6668098
>>6668101
>>6668103
>>6668106
>>6668110
>>6668113
>>6668119
Missed your dose today?

>>6667960
>i think time is analytic proposition
>shiggy diggy my niggy

File: dmtme2.png (471KB, 792x553px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 792x553px

>>6668141
why was i deleted

>>6668206
Backto /x/ you fucking new age piece of shit

>>6667943
I fail to see how this can be classified as anything else than philosophy. Wether 'time is an actual object' or not has nothing to do with our physical understanding of it.

Also I just love how so many people who have no familiarity whatsoever with the modern picture of time in physics (in GR's context) get so upset over this.

>>6668101
what the fuck? you're here? is it because they banned you from /psy/?

how about you kill yourself and stop polluting every place you go with your stupid pseudoscience

faggot

>>6668071
That's a nice little analogy, but it doesn't really make sense.

You can't measure the separation of two objects in any way but with independent spatial measurements without running into vicious circles. 1 Planck meter or whatever is the shortest distance anything can travel. This definition can not be reduced to a simpler form.

However, you can measure temporal separations in any number of ways that are not dependent on any independent existence of 'time'.

>>6668735
To continue this line of thought, you can define a second by, say, the amount of 'time' that goes by (measured by vibrations in an atom in that same amount of time or whatever) when a light beam travels 1 meter, or something similar.

You cannot similarly define a meter in terms of a 'second' without chasing your tail. Therefore, time is not an entity with any objective existence and things like space time are ridiculous. There is only space.

>>6668743
You can define a meter as the amount of space that goes by as a light beam travels one second. Are you too stupid to see that everything you say about time applies equally to space?

BTW, there's this thing called Planck time...

>>6668735
>>6668743

Yeah, you can though. You define a Planck length based on c, h-bar, and G, (which is sqrt(h-bar * G/c^3) and then a Planck Time Lp/c.

>>6668743
>You cannot similarly define a meter in terms of a 'second' without chasing your tail.

isn't that how a meter is defined tho?

so, wtf, is it all meaningless? how do we know the speed of light is even constant?

>>6668753
But what is a 'second' in that example? How do you define a second not in terms of some physical phenomena?

And what about physical phenomena that aren't just distance? For instance, rotation. We can define a second as the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate some amount.

How would you define the amount of rotation the earth underwent in terms of an abstract 'second'?

You can call it whatever you want. The thing that the word "time" usually describes is going to exist/happen regardless of what you call it.

>>6668769
see
>>6668755
Planck Time is sqrt(h-bar*G/c^5). It is essentially the fundamental unit of time.

Time is an abstract concept developed by carbon based life forms to monitor their ongoing decay.

>>6668765
My point is that you don't NEED to define it like that.

You can whip out a ruler and declare 1 meter to be the distance from the front to the back, with ZERO temporal help.

There is no equivalent process for time. You can't clap your hands, wait, and clap your hands again and declare the interval to be one second without chasing your tail.

>>6667943
You should read "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. He actually reformulates physics without time. And yes, this has fucky consequences for spacetime and relativity.

>>6668777
Yes, and note that the 'fundamental' unit of time is defined in terms of c, which is defined in terms of distance.

>>6668781
>you can't define time without using time

Gee, thanks for that wonderful revelation

>>6668790
What I'm saying is that you can't define time without x, x being some physical thing, distance based or not.

Physical phenomena, however, can be defined without time.

>>6668809
You're not making a fair comparison. You say time can't be measured without time but distance can be measured without time. You should be using distance and distance since you're using time and time.

>>6668815
You aren't getting my point at all. My point is that time can be reduced to x physical thing in all cases, whereas physical things don't simplify like that.

Time is like a row in a matrix that is a linear combination of all the others. When you simplify it to its most simple form, it just goes to 0.

>>6668825
And you're mistaken, x cannot be reduced to a physical thing without including time, in the same way time cannot be reduced without x.

Time is an ocean of piss where you count the waves and call that time.

>Speed of light = 299792458 meters per second

>1 meter = Length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second

kek

>>6668872
Which is circular reasoning. You showed nothing.

File: 1211821628692.jpg (24KB, 366x358px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 366x358px

>>6668909
that's what i mean

File: 1405639101459.jpg (97KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 650x433px

>>6667943
Yes time is relative congrats op

>>6668956
I'm not using the standard definitions, I'm using a more intuitive definition. Yes, the International Jew Academy of Mars defines a meter in terms of time, but this is not *necessary*.

You can only define a meter in terms of time (which is for convenience's sake, it is not logically necessary) after you have already defined a meter independently of time.

What they're doing is defining a meter, then defining time, and then defining a meter in terms of that time. This shows that time is reducible to the spatial measurement (or whatever physical phenomena is at hand).

>>6668964
>You can only define a meter in terms of time (which is for convenience's sake, it is not logically necessary) after you have already defined a meter independently of time.

No. We define a second based on X number of cycles of a hyper-fine transition of rubidium (or similar standard) and you define the meter based on the how far light gets in y fraction of a second. No meter needed.

The meter is not used to define the second, it is not circular.

>>6668986
Yes, a second can only be defined externally. We CHOOSE to define a meter in terms of this time (that is only a shorthand for some other physical occurrence that happens at constant intervals), it is not necessary. A meter can be just as easily defined as the length from one end of a ruler to the other. Bam, space measuring space, valid.

>>6669050
You said:
>You can only define a meter in terms of time after you have already defined a meter independently of time.
Which is wrong. Can doesn't mean must.

>>6668065
>implying anything has meaning

>>6669070
'Can only' is basically a synonym of 'must'. Derp

>>6669144
That's a different point. Please read before posting.

>>6668786
c is a velocity, a ratio of both distance and time. If it was only defined by distance... it would be a distance.

>>6667943
Right, time isn't a physical object, it's an abstract relationship between physical concepts.