Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 34 KB, 645x729, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10784999 No.10784999 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>time is a measurement

>> No.10785002

Time is change, and illusory, and relative. Time is not a constant, so it can't be a standard measurement.

>> No.10785010

>>10785002
>time is change
No. Time changes.
>and illusory
No. Time exists.
>and relative
No. Time is objective.
>Time is not a constant
Correct. However, rate of passage of time is a constant exactly equal to 1, because dt/dt=x/x=1 for all dt≠0,dt≠∞.
>so it can't be a standard measurement
Correct.

>> No.10785037

>>10785010
>No. Time changes.
Time is also change.

>No. Time exists.
Time only exists to those with consciousness. It's Illusory.

>No. Time is objective.
Look into "theory of relativity"

>> No.10785054

can we stop these dumb threads.

time is a dimension. all of physics uses spatial dimensions and a time dimension. (x,y,z,t). dimensions

>> No.10785074

>>10785037
>Time is also change
Wrong. Things that change are not themselves change. That is like saying that a 'bicycle' (noun) is a 'ride' (verb). It is nonsensical and inane.
>Time only exists to those with consciousness. It's illusory.
Wrong.
>Look into "theory of relativity"
"theory"

>>10785054
Space and time are not measurements. They are things that can be measured. Kind of like how a pine tree is not a measurement, but its height (distance relative to space) can be measured. Or like how your intelligence is itself not a measurement, but it can be measured (and would be measured as something like 60 IQ).

>> No.10785089

>>10785054
in a way I like this kinds of thread , they may seem just silly shitpost at first but the question is actually a fundamental.

lets suppose we have a single atom and is funtioning "normally" meaning it has electron movement and all that quantum thing goin on... then if everthing in that atom stops , the electron stops, everything stop, would this means theres no time passing? according to the theory of general relativity this situation can not exist because the atom would become infinitely big...so this means theres a minimum time (or a minimum amount of "slowness"?) possible in the universe.

>> No.10785096

>>10785074
>Space and time are not measurements. They are things that can be measured. Kind of like how a pine tree is not a measurement, but its height (distance relative to space) can be measured. Or like how your intelligence is itself not a measurement, but it can be measured (and would be measured as something like 60 IQ).
are you replying to the wrong person? i said that time is a _dimension_, (x,y,z,t)

>> No.10785097

>>10785074
>space and time are dimensional
>wrong. space and time are not measurements.
Non sequitur.

>> No.10785105

>>10785089
> then if everthing in that atom stops , the electron stops, everything stop
what you're saying is not physically meaningful
>according to the theory of general relativity this situation can not exist because the atom would become infinitely big..
this is false
>so this means theres a minimum time (or a minimum amount of "slowness"?) possible in the universe.
no.

>> No.10785113

>time exists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD2jKSW7yss

>> No.10785128

>>10785105
Stop being fucking dumb. Please.

>> No.10785130
File: 82 KB, 842x792, 0mfay069y0x01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785130

>>10785128

>> No.10785132

>>10785096
Replying to the correct person, but perhaps I misunderstood your intent. I perceived you as intending to disagree with me, with the intent of your post being
>time is a dimension, and therefore is a measurement
implying
>dimensions are measurements
which is false. If you did not mean to imply that, then I apologize for insinuating that you have a low IQ and I rescind the insinuation.

>> No.10785134

>>10785113
*measures, quantifies, observes, and directly experiences the passage of something that doesn't exist, somehow*
weird

>> No.10785137

>>10785089
based
>>10785097
Indeed, though I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that the anon I was replying to was falsely claiming that dimensions are measurements. See >>10785132

>> No.10785138

OP, explain what you think time is.

>> No.10785139

>>10785132
yes, i did not mean to imply that.

maybe the word "dimension" confuses people who are thinking of like, rick and morty or something. not the meme usage of the word. it's like "a circle is two dimensional" or "a cube is three dimensional." right, if you think of a box, and you wanted to describe all possible boxes, you'd parameterize possible boxes with three numbers: their width, height, and depth. so that means the set (or "space") of possible boxes is three dimensional.

>> No.10785140

>>10785134
B A S E D

>> No.10785145

>>10785132
>time is a dimension, and therefore is a measurement
Not him, but why would you think that? Just stop posting if you don't know the meaning of words.

>> No.10785150

>Thinks properties exist
You have no understanding

>> No.10785153

>>10785139
I know what dimension means of course, and your original post is valid. I (mistakenly) believed you to be implying that dimensions are measurements because you said that the thread is dumb, making me (mistakenly) think that you thought that time is a measurement, since the OP post implies that only brainlets think that time is a measurement.

>> No.10785155

>>10785138
He's probably stealth-shilling Bergson not knowing that he was talking about something different. I had that phase too.

>> No.10785159

>>10785145
I know the meaning of words. I thought that other anon did not know the meaning of words because, in calling the thread dumb, he seemed (to me) to be disagreeing with the OP implication that time is not a measurement.

>> No.10785160

>>10785089
>the atom would become infinitely big

I double checked this and it should be infinetely small if time becomes zero.

>> No.10785161

>>10785074
Then are you proposing time is a dimension, a space that we are "moving through" with the passage of time? Same thing as moving through space, passage of space, but through a metric of temporal nature. As in, the timesnake, the theory that if time is a dimension then our lifetimes are "snakelike" in the full scape of the time dimension? As in, our conception is the tail of the snake and our death is the end, and we are just essentially experiencing the snake one slice at a time, moment by moment. When you warp spacetime around you through relativistic speeds, your snake becomes enclosed off from the rest of the universe in a spacetime warp manifold or field.

>> No.10785165

>>10785160
Space, length, and matter are quantized and as such cannot be infinitesimal. Yet again, quantum physics disproves relativity.

>> No.10785170

>>10785159
nobody in the fucking world claims that "time is a measurement", so what's even the fucking point of this thread? time still exists.

>> No.10785186

>>10785165
false, space/length is not quantized according to quantum theory

>> No.10785187

>>10785165
>ive never taken a physics class, btw

>> No.10785189
File: 67 KB, 728x546, reductionism-vs-holism-4-728[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785189

>>10785105
>what you're saying is not physically meaningful

but what would be your take in that situation, if theres NO action at all in that sole atom , would time still "pass" as a independent phenomena.

I guess by doing some logic I could say that the propotition is just not logical that I can't do that type of reductionism even if it is just hypothetical because it could lead me to a wrong conclusion.

>> No.10785192

>>10785189
see
>>10785187
just read a book, nigger

>> No.10785194

>>10785189
i mean, if you had a camera taking a video of the atom, then whatever the atom does internally would not effect how the camera does its thing. the camera would still go at, e.g. 60 frames per second happily regardless of what the atom does. same thing even if there were no atom there at all and it was just taking a video of empty space.

>> No.10785200

>>10785170
>nobody in the fucking world claims that "time is a measurement"
Two anons in one thread alone claimed that time is a measurement >>10782274
That is the purpose of this thread. And yes, of course time exists.

>> No.10785202
File: 45 KB, 344x356, wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785202

>>10785186
>>10785187
>I've never studied quantum physics, btw

>> No.10785204

>>10785202
>b-b-but plank length means space is quantized, right?
again, proving that you don't know what words mean

>> No.10785209

>>10785204
>doesn't even know how to spell Planck
>accuses others of not understanding quantum mechanics
KEKKEST, my sides are in the highest of orbits

>> No.10785211

>>10785209
you are just wrong anon. pick up griffiths instead larping like you know anything about quantum physics

>> No.10785220

>>10785211
>implying anyone KNOWS anything about quantum physics
It's all theory at this point, kiddo.

>> No.10785226

>>10785220
you're just a brainlet, face it anon. just read a textbook. and if you think "theory" is a word you can use to criticize anything, then you are basically illiterate too. check #16 here, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html sorry i don't have a youtube video of someone reading it aloud for you with a picture book....

>> No.10785229
File: 27 KB, 735x541, 501.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785229

>>10785209
>pic
>>10785220
>i dont know what "theory" means in context of science

>> No.10785230
File: 138 KB, 480x650, Hitler_time_magazine_1dqpdpgzw[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785230

>>10785194
a sole atom with nothing else, would time still pass or it would become non existant? if is non existant in that case time becomes meaningless this would mean that time is matter dependant. if time is not matter dependant it should still pass even if that sole atom is completely devoid of any movement or any action and it is just frozen...

(this atom is the only thing existing, theres no camera, no people to see it, nothing, just a sole "atom universe")


>>10785165
>Space, length, and matter are quantized and as such cannot be infinitesimal


yes, thats why I said that according to general relativity that situation should not exist.

>> No.10785236

>>10785226
>it's a theory so it's almost definitely true
We can be pretty certain of some theories. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are not among them yet.
>acting so certain that space is not quantized
Have you seriously never fucking heard of loop quantum gravity? I'm not even arguing that loop quantum gravity is correct (though I find it plausible), I'm just giving it as one example of a theory involving quantized space.
No one fucking knows if space is quantized. I think it is. If you think it isn't, then fucking congratulations, but you have no proof and almost no evidence (just as I have no proof and almost no evidence that it is quantized).
Why are you such a fucking brainlet?

>> No.10785239

>>10785229
Not all theories hold equal weight, and not all quantum mechanical theories suggest continuous space. See >>10785236
dumbfuck brainlet

>> No.10785241

(this atom is the only thing existing, theres no camera, no people to see it, nothing, just a sole "atom universe")
yes, if you take the video camera out of the thought experiment, it makes no difference. what the atom does doesn't affect time.

>> No.10785246

>>10785236
based and redpilled

>> No.10785249

>>10785236
loop quantum gravity is fringe, and even then, space doesn't get quantized how people would hope. LQG still has lorentz invariance, which means it still has length contraction, which means if you say "nuh uh, this is the smallest unit" all you have to do is start moving and then that unit looks smaller. this invokation of LQG is a terrible case of brainlets trying to use big-boy words.

LQG has nothing to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics. quantum mechanics, a well-established field where all the foundations have been worked out, treats the time variable t as a real number. it treats time as continuous. this is not a matter of interpretations either. read griffiths

>> No.10785254

Time is the entropy of energy
time does not exist when speed or gravity is very high

>> No.10785255

>>10785249
>LQG is fringe
*tips fedora*
>what is superposition
You're the brainlet here.

>> No.10785259
File: 27 KB, 425x320, out.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785259

>>10785249
>a quantum mechanical theory has nothing to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics

>> No.10785260

>>10784999>>10785002
>>10785010
>>10785037
>>10785074
>>10785089
Philosophy is not science or math

>> No.10785265

>>10785260
Then quantum physics is not science or math and will not be until quite a while into the future when quantum theory is substantially evolved.

>> No.10785293

>>10785255
>>LQG is fringe
>*tips fedora*
what? is your argument that if you don't believe in loop quantum gravity then you are some reddit atheist? i don't get it. the fact is that loop quantum gravity is only pursued by a very small (maybe 20 people) community of physicists, probably because it is wacky and because it doesn't solve nearly as many issues as string theory does, which is much more mainstream in theoretical physics. though, for the record, both are purely speculative at this moment in history. quantum mechanics is not.
>>what is superposition
>You're the brainlet here.
no argument here either, not even one i might try guessing at

>>10785259
LQG has nothing more to say about interpretations than string theory does, which has nothing more to say than quantum field theory, which in turn doesn't add very much at all to discussions of interpretations of quantum mechanics. i mean, QFT gives us a little insight, but definitely LQG doesn't go any further than QFT on settling the arguments brainlets get into over Everett's interpretation

>> No.10785301

>>10785265
>Does it have testable theories
>Does it have reproducible results
There sure are a lot of pseuds on this board.

>> No.10785327

>>10785301
Show one where "time" and "space" are a testable "thing" with properties.

>>10785260
Good thing we're talking about measurements you illiterate idiot. Unfortunately some people in this thread are making the mistake of thinking measurements are actual "real" in the sense that they have a basis in reality past a conceptual aid for humans.

>>10785002
>Time is change, and illusory, and relative. Time is not a constant, so it can't be a standard measurement.

It is strictly a standard of measurement, but it measures something that is actually real (that something is not "time").

>>10785037
>Time only exists to those with consciousness. It's Illusory.
So it doesn't exist as something that does something.

>>10785054
>time is a dimension
Time has no properties that give it "dimensionality". It's a measurement

>> No.10785333

>>10785327
ah hah, has berzerkfag returned? want to give us your equations of the fractal hologram?

>> No.10785347

>>10785333
>>>/x/

>> No.10785369

>>10785347
nice projection, berzerkfag. still no equations for your fractal hologram theory of everything? nope? thought so

>> No.10785386
File: 22 KB, 372x465, 1258821857538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785386

>>10785369
This is a thread about time.

go back to >>>/x/. Nice get by the way, fitting for a crystal worshiper.

>> No.10785398

>>10785386
well your entire post is nonsense:
>>10785327
and if you are not berzerkfag, you are saying all the same innane shit he used to say, before he would go into deep insanity about some nonsense fractal hologram stuff.

anyhow you're just retarded across the board. spacetime has four dimensions, (x,y,z,t) as was said earlier. spacetime is real. let's see how triggered you get arguing that spacetime doesn't real

>> No.10785440

>>10785398
>well your entire post is nonsense:

"And here is why...."

>and if you are not berzerkfag, you are saying all the same innane shit he used to say, before he would go into deep insanity about some nonsense fractal hologram stuff.

You just described about half of the board you should go back to.

>spacetime has four dimensions, (x,y,z,t) as was said earlier.. let's see how triggered you get arguing that spacetime doesn't real

The quantified theoretical model does yes. Those are measurements yes. But I'm concerned about what is being measured. What is space? What is time? They aren't actually "things" you can test.

>spacetime is real
The theoretical model of it yes, but concepts aren't actually real. They're interpretations of what is real.

>> No.10785445

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7YFU0HHe-s
TIME IS MEASURED BEFORE IT'S BEGUN
IT SLIPS AWAY
LIKE
RUNNING
WATER

>> No.10785447

>>10785440
space and time are dimensions. how many times do i have to say this

>> No.10785499

>>10785447
>space and time are dimensions
>according to a theory

Dimensions of what? The universe? Why does it need more than "dimension" and "no dimension"? Answer: Because you quantified 3 as "xyz" because you assumed there were "3 spacial dimensions" and the 4th as something that has no basis in reality just because you observed a change in quality when introduced to another quality.

>heat water
>it turns to steam
>but only when I observe it and describe it using a measurement and call the measurement a phenomena otherwise the water won't change.

Time does not exist.

>> No.10785534

>>10785499
>change in quality when
>change
>when
you are implicitly using time in your reasoning. do you understand derivatives? like “slope”? things changing “when” something happens correspond to a derivative with respect to ... time. ba dum ching. do you think everything is static or happens all at once? are you schizophrenic?

answer: yes you are. still waiting for equations of the fractal hologram theory

>> No.10785550

>>10784999
Time is a valuable thing, watch it fly by as the pendulum swings. Watch it count down to the end of the day, The clock ticks life away.

>> No.10785555
File: 97 KB, 660x600, ff5d3611699a26abf51d0f19cea45890.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785555

>>10785534
>giving berserknigger (You)s

>> No.10785570

>>10785534
>you are implicitly using time in your reasoning.

See now you're arguing semantics. I don't do semantics. It's inherently ingrained in our language yes, and it's difficult not to use them. None the less my point still remains. Would "once introduced" give you less of a hissy fit? It could happen (and does happen) instantaneously. It is only measured after it happens.

>do you understand derivatives? like “slope”? things changing “when” something happens correspond to a derivative with respect to ... time. ba dum ching.

Right. It quantifies the change. That is what math does. That's what time does. This still doesn't make "time" actually something that exists.

>do you think everything is static or happens all at once?
It is happening all at once, right now this very instant actually. Everything is impelling each other. No "time" involved, only "what is" and "what it isn't".

What the fuck is it with you and fractal hologram theory?

>> No.10785578

>>10785002
No, change is defined in terms of time, not the other way around.

>> No.10785581

>>10785054
dimensions should have the same units by definition.

>> No.10785587

>>10785570
How can it be possible to measure, quantify, observe the passage of, and directly experience something that doesn't exist? Please explain.

>> No.10785592

>>10785581
That's not part of the definition, no.

>> No.10785597
File: 97 KB, 620x465, shadow[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785597

>>10785587
>How can it be possible to measure, quantify, observe the passage of, and directly experience something that doesn't exist? Please explain

By not understanding that it's an illusion in the first place.

>> No.10785603

>>10785597
be less vague and answer the question

>> No.10785606

>>10785603
I did. You can measure a shadow and feel the effects of it, yet it does not exist as it's own thing. It's an illusion of something else.

>> No.10785608

>>10785606
Shadows do exist though

>> No.10785611

>>10784999
It is absolutely a measurement. What the fuck is this garbage thread?!

>> No.10785625

>>10785054
>x,y,z
but 3d is completely arbitrary. who said this world is 3D? orthogonality is subjective. we could have just said we live in 5D. physical dimensions are our imagination. maybe if our eyes worked differently it would be more convenient for us to think that we live in 5D.

>> No.10785627

>>10785606
what "something else" is time an illusion of? equations plz

>> No.10785650

>>10784999
time is a measure of time

>> No.10785674

>>10785608
a privation of light

>>10785627
>what "something else" is time an illusion of?

A change of nothing specific.

>> No.10785684
File: 74 KB, 645x729, 6687050B-B156-4F58-AF83-224F96D6C958.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785684

>>10785674
>A change of nothing specific.

>> No.10785691
File: 34 KB, 500x403, 1547005809869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785691

>>10785684
What specific thing is changing that is your standard of measure for time?

>> No.10785702

>>10785691
>me smart, time doesn’t real, it’s an illusion of the change of nothing specific, me revolutionize physics hurr durr

>> No.10785739
File: 335 KB, 400x400, 1537318989888.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10785739

>>10785702
Well at least you tried.

>> No.10786585

>>10785691
The phase of radiation emitted or absorbed during the ground state hyperfine transition of cesium-133.

>> No.10786609

>>10785074
>>Look into "theory of relativity"
>"theory"
You were doing good up until this point.

>> No.10786624

>>10785327
>Show one where "time" and "space" are a testable "thing" with properties.
When a thing goes fast, the rate at which time passes for it slows down, this is measurable, and it's a property of time in relation to speed.
Space bends around matter, we can measure this by the light that bends with the space, this is measurable and it's a property of space in relation to matter.

>> No.10786648

>>10786624
>When a thing goes fast, the rate at which time passes for it slows down, this is measurable, and it's a property of time in relation to speed.

Resistance, aka "something else with properties that is not time".

>Space bends around matter, we can measure this by the light that bends with the space, this is measurable and it's a property of space in relation to matter.

So the light (the thing with properties) is what is bending then. What makes it "bending with space"? It's light encountering resistance.

>> No.10786682

>>10786648
Please create a complete description of reality, with equations, that explains those events without space and time bending.
Nothing you say has any value unless you do that, so don't respond with anything but.

>> No.10786689

>>10784999
>>time is a measurement
in the same frame of reference, it is

>> No.10786691

>>10784999
checked

>> No.10786701
File: 167 KB, 500x382, 1517319544761.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10786701

>>10784999
But it is a measurement. Of decay and entropy for starters.

>> No.10786703

>>10786689
>>10784999
yes, time is absolute in the same FoR

>> No.10786736

>>10786682
Please create a complete description of reality, with equations, that explains those events without space and time bending.

I don't think you understand. "Space" and "time" are assumed to be real under the premise that there is actually a "where" and "when" to be had. Of what? The universe? The universe is ONE thing. There is no "where". "It is" and it does something. "What it does" doesn't imply a where.
it was not created so it is timeless. It has no start end or middle. "It is". Where else is there other than "the universe"? Another magical thought experiment place? No, it is either manifested or not and obviously it is empirical that "it is at least something".
The changing is just an illusion too. Water, steam and ice are all just "water" in a different form.

Also I'm not interested in "describing reality". I want to know how it actually works. Describing it would be like describing a flower. "Oh it's very pretty, and has blue pedals on the top of it, and it has green leaves coming out of the ground beneath it". It doesn't explain what a "flower" actually is nor how it exists nor how it came to be. Wouldn't even matter how detailed your descriptions would be, without an explanation behind it, there's no actual usable knowledge to be had.

>Nothing you say has any value unless you do that, so don't respond with anything but.
That's not how a dialectic works buddy.

>> No.10786740

>>10784999
Trips checked.

Time keeps on slipping slipping slipping into the future.

>> No.10786741

>>10786736
>Is space an empty pocket devoid of energy?
>Is energy responsible for the presence of gravity?
>Does time exist if there is no shift in energy?
What is energy in it's purest form?
>How many dimensions does energy exist in and how many can we manipulate it?
>If solidified energy is matter, are there other unknown forms of energy that exist as well?
>Is the pattern direction and flow of energy responsible for all of the phenomena that make up the universe and thereafter?

The answer lies in the fundamental nature of energy.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action