• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Time Study

Yes. The entire universe exists relative to your boobies' distance from the floor.

Who said or implied that? Was the question one of whether or not time exists? I'd say that if I didn't have breasts at all, the effects of time on me (and on all of us) would still be apparent. Unless we are all just figments of our own imaginations, which may very well be the case.
 
Not everything in physics is time reversible, so I would think that time, at least on some level, exists.

That's a good point.

What are some of the other things in physics that aren't reversible? Do we have the ability to alter and/ or initiate them?

My thing with time is that it is not only non-reversible, but also completely otherwise intangible. Even with the most horrific reactions, we often have the ability to initiate them.
 
If one questions the existence of time then they should also question the existence of space. How much time and space between your ears did that take?

I do question the existence of space, along with time and non-existence those are the three intangibles that I in fact question.

I suppose one could argue that non-existence and space might be the same thing though.
 
Unless we are all just figments of our own imaginations, which may very well be the case.

But would we not still occupy some physical space inside the brain, even if that were the case?
 
-Marginally Sound Theories

I've been working on several time-based projects at work and, also some independent studies on my own lately. As a result I've started to write/ type some of my thoughts out. Anyway, the link references to a blog where there's additional thoughts.

One of the main issues I'm trying to tackle is whether or not time actually exists. Personally, I'm leaning towards the concept that it does not exist, at least not in any tangible sense.

What are your thoughts?

Time is what stops everything happening at once.
 
I do question the existence of space, along with time and non-existence those are the three intangibles that I in fact question.

I suppose one could argue that non-existence and space might be the same thing though.

The vacuum of space is not empty.


And you can question existence, but you cannot deny it (at least not sanely).
 
Time is what stops everything happening at once.

I don't think it's time that stops everything from happening at once. That's just the way things happen, besides in a sense everything is happening at once.
 
The vacuum of space is not empty.


And you can question existence, but you cannot deny it (at least not sanely).

I would argue that the vacuum of space is in fact empty, that's why we call it the vacuum of space. Because there is nothing in it.

Thing is, you can put stuff into a space, or move it through space, but in the end, that space is still space. Down here on earth, there just happens to be a lot of stuff within the space. However, out in space that isn't necessarily the case.

I'm not suggesting that you cannot put something into space, or that stuff doesn't happen within time. I'm wondering about the possibilities of these two entities actually existing.

Not the stuff in space, but the space between stuff.

Not the events in time, but the time itself.
 
I would argue that the vacuum of space is in fact empty, that's why we call it the vacuum of space. Because there is nothing in it.

Thing is, you can put stuff into a space, or move it through space, but in the end, that space is still space. Down here on earth, there just happens to be a lot of stuff within the space. However, out in space that isn't necessarily the case.

I'm not suggesting that you cannot put something into space, or that stuff doesn't happen within time. I'm wondering about the possibilities of these two entities actually existing.

Not the stuff in space, but the space between stuff.

Not the events in time, but the time itself.

I wasnt kidding nor making anything up. quark and gluon field fluctuations...

 
I wasnt kidding nor making anything up. quark and gluon field fluctuations...



I wasn't trying to suggest that you were kidding, or making anything up. That was a legit question, which I think this video might answer.

Unfortunately, I'm headed out to the airport now and will be flying most of the day today/ tomorrow and likely won't get back to this until the 1st. However, I will definitely need to check out the video.

I don't honestly know much about the physics of space, and should probably read more into it at some point.

Anyway, I'll check out the video when I land and get a reply then.

Thanks for the link.
 
I would argue that the vacuum of space is in fact empty, that's why we call it the vacuum of space. Because there is nothing in it.

Thing is, you can put stuff into a space, or move it through space, but in the end, that space is still space. Down here on earth, there just happens to be a lot of stuff within the space. However, out in space that isn't necessarily the case.

I'm not suggesting that you cannot put something into space, or that stuff doesn't happen within time. I'm wondering about the possibilities of these two entities actually existing.

Not the stuff in space, but the space between stuff.

Not the events in time, but the time itself.

You're not making sense. Space exists.

Space is the difference between line 1 and line 2 below.

Line 1: #..........#
Line 2: ##

There exists a difference between line 1 and line 2. That difference we call "space". To say space doesn't exist is to say the difference between line 1 and line 2 doesn't exist, ie that there is no difference. That is nonsense. It's obvious to everyone with eyes that there's a difference.

If that's not what you mean by "space doesn't exist", you'll have to clarify.
 
I wasnt kidding nor making anything up. quark and gluon field fluctuations...



Now that we've landed and I've actually had time to watch this.

Great video, thanks for the link.

I think this definitely does answer some of my speculation, namely being that there isn't much in the way of empty space. However, this still begs the question, where there are more and less densely filled space (i.e. the center of a brick of gold versus the intentionally sealed vacuum of a thermos), are the almost incalculable voids between fluctuations more or less numerous? I also like how he addressed the increased energy requirement to make a true [albeit unstable] vacuum. This is something I remember discussing a while ago, where it can be said that nothing sucks, but everything blows. Plainly, that sources with higher energy/ pressure/ density will constantly be trying to fill areas with less. And in order to keep those areas that are less full of stuff empty, it takes massive amounts of energy- i.e. levees.

Also, I think this also supposes that I didn't really express my intention clearly.

What I'm really talking about is space, as in the location. If you were to think of the whole universe as existing on a multi dimensional coordinate system, everything (all quarks, fluctuations or kittens considered) would exist at some set point within that system. However, the objects would be constantly moving.

For example, I place my computer on a table. In relation to me, and hopefully the table, it stays in one place. However, in relation to the sun it is rotating on a given axis and around a set orbit. Further, in relation to the center of the galaxy, it is rotating yet around the center of the galaxy also.

On of my questions is, are there set coordinates within space, and objects are simply moving through these coordinates. In other words, are we moving through set space?
 
You're not making sense. Space exists.

Space is the difference between line 1 and line 2 below.

Line 1: #..........#
Line 2: ##

There exists a difference between line 1 and line 2. That difference we call "space". To say space doesn't exist is to say the difference between line 1 and line 2 doesn't exist, ie that there is no difference. That is nonsense. It's obvious to everyone with eyes that there's a difference.

If that's not what you mean by "space doesn't exist", you'll have to clarify.

Yea, I don't think I expressed my thoughts about space very clearly. Possibly because I was more focused on the time concept when making the OP.

Anyway, as far as space is concerned, I'm not really addressing the difference between line one and line two, in your example. I'm talking about where all of that stuff is, the pound signs you used exist, we know this. We also know that they move, and my question lies about what happens when they move, the space they move into and the space they move out of. The previously posted video does a pretty good job explaining what happens in otherwise observable empty space.

Does that clarify it any?
 
Yea, I don't think I expressed my thoughts about space very clearly. Possibly because I was more focused on the time concept when making the OP.

Anyway, as far as space is concerned, I'm not really addressing the difference between line one and line two, in your example. I'm talking about where all of that stuff is, the pound signs you used exist, we know this.

It's the same thing. Instead of pound signs pretend they are marbles on your desk. Two close together and Two far apart. There exists some difference between the two pairs. To deny the existence of space is to deny the existence of a difference. It's ludicrous.

We also know that they move,

No, they're not moving. The marbles are stationary. Besides, movement as a concept doesn't exist without the concept of space. You'll have to explain what you mean by "movement" if there is no space. When someone tells me a marble "moves", I usually understand this to mean that the marble's position in space has changed. But apparently you mean something else by "move"? What?

and my question lies about what happens when they move, the space they move into and the space they move out of.

What is your question?


The previously posted video does a pretty good job explaining what happens in otherwise observable empty space.

I'm sorry, do you think space exists or not? I can't tell anymore what you're saying...


Does that clarify it any?

Not really, no. :lol:
 
It's the same thing. Instead of pound signs pretend they are marbles on your desk. Two close together and Two far apart. There exists some difference between the two pairs. To deny the existence of space is to deny the existence of a difference. It's ludicrous.

I wouldn't argue that there is a difference between the two pairs, but that would be distance. Distance deals with the position of one object in relation to another object. Space could be defined as one of two things:

1. The empty vacuum between objects
2. The vast realm within which everything that exists is positioned.

No, they're not moving. The marbles are stationary. Besides, movement as a concept doesn't exist without the concept of space. You'll have to explain what you mean by "movement" if there is no space. When someone tells me a marble "moves", I usually understand this to mean that the marble's position in space has changed. But apparently you mean something else by "move"? What?
[/quote]

First of all, the marbles are in fact moving. Maybe not in relative to each other, but they are certainly moving. Consider that they are sitting on the surface of the Earth, which is rotating on an axis and circling the sun in an orbit. Movement is when one object changes its position relative to another. I don't know that space is required for that, so much as other objects. Maybe those objects are positioned within space, but that's my question.

While we might all agree that the objects exist, but does the void in between objects exist? Is that a thing, or is it actually nothing?



I'm sorry, do you think space exists or not? I can't tell anymore what you're saying...

I'm not really convinced in either direction, similar to my feelings on time.

If I had to choose, I'd say that neither space, nor time actually exist. I think we measure distances relative to other objects, and that we can quantify the lapse between events relative to other events. However, I don't think that this proves that either exists.
 
Now that we've landed and I've actually had time to watch this.

Great video, thanks for the link.

I think this definitely does answer some of my speculation, namely being that there isn't much in the way of empty space. However, this still begs the question, where there are more and less densely filled space (i.e. the center of a brick of gold versus the intentionally sealed vacuum of a thermos), are the almost incalculable voids between fluctuations more or less numerous? I also like how he addressed the increased energy requirement to make a true [albeit unstable] vacuum. This is something I remember discussing a while ago, where it can be said that nothing sucks, but everything blows. Plainly, that sources with higher energy/ pressure/ density will constantly be trying to fill areas with less. And in order to keep those areas that are less full of stuff empty, it takes massive amounts of energy- i.e. levees.

Also, I think this also supposes that I didn't really express my intention clearly.

What I'm really talking about is space, as in the location. If you were to think of the whole universe as existing on a multi dimensional coordinate system, everything (all quarks, fluctuations or kittens considered) would exist at some set point within that system. However, the objects would be constantly moving.

For example, I place my computer on a table. In relation to me, and hopefully the table, it stays in one place. However, in relation to the sun it is rotating on a given axis and around a set orbit. Further, in relation to the center of the galaxy, it is rotating yet around the center of the galaxy also. On of my questions is, are there set coordinates within space, and objects are simply moving through these coordinates. In other words, are we moving through set space?

So you dont mean space you mean space. In other words the universe (the proper word for space in this context, is the universe). So you are wondering if the universe is fixed in one place, and the matter within in it is moving about. The universe is expanding. The coordinates are also expanding. Billions of years from now the stars of the milky way will be far apart. So it would seem that the answer to your question is: No.
 
Time is the one and only thing that every living thing that has ever lived, or will live, brain or no brain, experiences in some form. "Time" as we have come to understand and define it, is merely the form we perceive as order of events. A tree, for example, would not perceive time the same way we do, but it does know (For whatever that means) that it must sprout its leaves in spring in order to continue the cycle. Time is the one and only fundamental and intrinsic property of space. All other properties need time in the equation for any of it to make sense; without time, there is nothing to measure. In this sense, although not visually conceivable, time is tangible because everything MUST touch it in order for "it" to be.

I put the concept of time in along with the concept of nothingness, and dimension. On the surface you say, "oh yeah I know what that is", but dig a little deeper and your brain explodes. ;)

Tim-
 
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas.
 
-Marginally Sound Theories

I've been working on several time-based projects at work and, also some independent studies on my own lately. As a result I've started to write/ type some of my thoughts out. Anyway, the link references to a blog where there's additional thoughts.

One of the main issues I'm trying to tackle is whether or not time actually exists. Personally, I'm leaning towards the concept that it does not exist, at least not in any tangible sense.

What are your thoughts?

So my theory is that time simply measures the rate of change. If nothing changed, then the very idea or concept of time, would be meaningless. I suspect that prior to the moment when the universe expanded, nothing changed, everything was made of the same stuff and it never changed, thus the concept of time would have been an unthinkable, unknowable concept.
 
Back
Top Bottom