[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 7 KB, 281x179, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5927573 No.5927573 [Reply] [Original]

Define and explain time

>> No.5927577

>>5927573
atoms

>> No.5927598

>>5927573
its imaginary space.

>> No.5927616

x,y,z,t

>> No.5927620
File: 228 KB, 1024x768, prince of persia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5927620

>>5927573

Most people think time is like a river that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of time, and I can tell you: they are wrong. Time is an ocean in a storm. You may wonder who I am or why I say this. Sit down and I will tell you a tale like none you have ever heard.

>> No.5927621

>>5927573
Not shitting you here, but play Steins;Gate.
It would give you a good sense of what it is.

>> No.5927623

>>5927621

You posted this the other day as well didn't you?

>> No.5927625

>>5927623
Nope. Not surprised someone else would recommend it though.

>> No.5927640
File: 102 KB, 800x535, Dr. Naruto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5927640

Drop the beat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AuQPqJPSKE

>> No.5927642

time is so everything doesn't happen all at once. and it's very good at doing that. that's about it.

>> No.5927644

Increase of entropy.

>> No.5927645
File: 1.24 MB, 300x149, 1367307732660.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5927645

>>5927640
>Dr.Naruto

>> No.5927657

Time is money

>> No.5927703

>>5927573
Time is mediated by dark matter

>> No.5927704

>>5927573
If you want a literal description it's the dimension in which we give order to a set of events.

If you want a metaphysical description, then tough shit, this si /sci/ not /x/

>> No.5927709

>>5927573
Time is the perception and organization of events into an understandable continuum.

>> No.5927710

>>5927573
time is movement of matter and radiation.

no movement, no time.

>> No.5927713

Was time invented or discovered?

>> No.5927715

>>5927710
>walking with gf
>I look into her eyes
>know this is the happiest i'll ever be
>tell her not to move one fucking muscle
>I stand perfectly still
>she asks why
>tell her I'm trying to freeze time, because this is the happiest moment of my life
>time still continues
>realize theres only one way
>I pull the knife from my pocket and a single tear runs down my face

>> No.5927719

>>5927715
>I stand perfectly still

now get the particles of your body and the signals running through it to also stand perfectly still.

oh, and every other particle and wave in the universe too.

>> No.5927721

What was before time and space i.e. before the big bang and what caused it ;)

>> No.5927722

>>5927721
that's like asking "how fast was that car before it was assambled?"

>> No.5927728

>>5927722
What existed before the Big Bang?

>> No.5927742

>>5927728

Question violates the causality.

Not a scientific question, gtfo faggot.

>> No.5927755

>>5927742
How was the Big Bang created

>> No.5927756

>>5927742
No it doesn't.

>> No.5927759

Consciousness is time.
Time is consciousness.

>> No.5927766

>>5927759
prove it

>> No.5927770

>>5927756
sciences relies on empirical evidence, i.e. what can be observed and inferred from observations.

Try to say what happened BEFORE the creation of space and time, is in it self, an unscientific, and completely preposterous question.

Asking what happened before time, is like asking what comes before 0 in the natural set.

>> No.5927774

>>5927573
something we use to explain decay of matter into different forms.
We use our planets rotations to define how long something has changed/been changing

>> No.5927775

>>5927722
where did the parts to the car come from?

>> No.5927777

>>5927770
-1

>> No.5927778

>>5927755
well thats a little better, better language atleast.

IMO the big bang was an uncaused effect.

at the moment in time, our notions of causallity fail to account for an explanation.

After all, our notion of causality is entirely based on prior observations, and is not an apriori rationalization.

>> No.5927779

>>5927770
no you stupid bitch. do you even read what you write before you post. you dumb fucker. stop trying to be seem smart like we're going to be impressed and shit holy jesus.

>> No.5927781

>>5927770
i said natural set you dolt.negative integers are not natural number, and are not real.

>> No.5927783

>>5927770
You are assuming the big bang was the creation of space and time. The current meaning of the phrase "big bang" is a hot dense period 13.8 billion years ago.

It is hypothesised that this was also the creation of the universe, but there are other hypotheses.

>> No.5927786

>>5927779
so youre saying that science doesnt rely on various theories and hypothesis supported by empirical observations?

sureissummer

>> No.5927793

>>5927783
Well yes, i can understand that, however ultimately it just begs the question.

Then where did that space come from, and deeper and deeper, ad infinum.

If we just suppose the the big bang was the creation of s & t, we are making fewer assumptions.

>> No.5927798

>>5927573
The measurement of the distance between the change of state of whatever is in question

>> No.5927800

>>5927793
>If we just suppose the the big bang was the creation of s & t, we are making fewer assumptions.
That seems quite unscientific to do.

>> No.5927803

Time is the incubator of madness

>> No.5927806

>>5927793
Firstly, you don't know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Secondly, there are models where the universe, or multiverse, always existed, eg Eternal Inflation.

Thirdly, assuming a creation point exists has the same number of assumptions as assuming one doesn't exist.

You are rather too stupid to continue talking to.

>> No.5927813

>>5927800

not at all, just a basic principle of economy.

Assuming that the BB was the creation of s & t is one thing.

Assuming that the BB was the creation of the universe, and that s & t existed before hand raises the question well where did s & t come from then?

The first theory makes fewer assumptions, and comes closer to a complete answer.

Im not saying its correct, i dont know, this question is unanswerable, but the first answer ought to be preferred over the latter.

Furthermore, if we assume that s & t are infinite (where i feel this is going), we open up an entirely different can of worms. Such a notion, is entirely un-scientific, as the theory set forth is niether falsifiable or unfalisifiable. If s & t are infinite, how could we ever know if so, because our scope of knowledge and experience is finite.

>> No.5927815

time is an illusion. lunchtime doubly so.

>> No.5927819

>>5927806

I was using the modern usage which is entirely permisable, if you dont think i understand which fallacy it correctly refers to, see:>>5927759

a perfect example

>> No.5927820

>>5927625
see
>>5925061

But I agree, it's interesting how Okabe's concept of time changes over the course of the game.

>> No.5927821

Time is a human concept othat only exists in the human mind.

The universe uses "objects moving relative to each other" instead of the more limited human version.

>> No.5927828

>>5927821
Explain half lives in nuclear decay then

>> No.5927831

>>5927828
chance

>> No.5927839

>>5927828
Law of averages and chance.

>> No.5927842

>>5927839
>>5927831
explain how different isotopes have different half-lives using your "time doesn't exists it's all just relative motion" view of time

>> No.5927844

>>5927828
They can vary a little or a lot depending on solar output. Weird, huh?

Anyway, radioactive atoms move too. Wait, are you saying that electrons, radiation and lightwaves prove that -TIME- exists as a correspondible dimension?

You might as well have faith in something.

>> No.5927845

>>5927844
>correspondible
>using a made up word

>> No.5927847

>>5927842

i remember reading somethting relating to QED, that this can be explained by assuming the decaying particles reference frame. Cant be bothered to look it up, too tired.

>> No.5927849

>>5927842

Radioactive output varies, oddly enough.

>> No.5927852

>>5927847
>i remember reading pop-sci

>> No.5927853

>>5927845
"able to communicate information without human device or manipulation" is not a word either.

>> No.5927854

>>5927847
Time is fundamental to QED

>> No.5927860

>>5927845

>WAAAAA!

I'm glad you don't have a on-topic argument,"Mr. Public-School education".

>> No.5927862

>>5927852

no.

and seriously, im quite disappointed with this board. Its all shitty undergrads flashing their e-peens around trying to sound superior.

Are there even any grads on here?

http://physics.technion.ac.il/~conf/ResonancePhenomena/Sindelka.pdf

>> No.5927863

>>5927854

Oh, that is what makes time-travel possible.

>> No.5927865

>>5927860
I went to a state school. You cannot rebut an argument that is nonsensical.

If you wish to have another go, be my guest.

>> No.5927868

>>5927853
that is true

>> No.5927873

>>5927862
>http://physics.technion.ac.il/~conf/ResonancePhenomena/Sindelka.pdf

>look what the high schooler googled up

>> No.5927877

>>5927865

"Time" is not an observable phenomena. Objects moving relative to each other is observable. How fast they are moving relative to each other is observable.

Seconds can be measured with a clock, moving objects, or radioactive decay, but CANNOT be observed.

Time is a concept, not a dimension.

>> No.5927893

>>5927742

implying the big bang is real science

>> No.5927895

>>5927877
Time is simply an affine parameter but that does not mean it cannot be a dimension. How is a pure concept distorted by space and mass?

>> No.5927896

>>5927893
>>>/pol/

>> No.5927900

>>5927896
>>>/x/

>> No.5927913

>>5927710
interesting, explain. how do you prove that ?

>> No.5927919

>>5927893
Please share with us your half baked opinions on why that is so.

>> No.5927928

Time is defined as cause preceding effect. Regardless of what relativistic reference frame you are in, causation is always preserved.
As for what it's "made of" it could be better define as the 0 component of relativistic world velocity. That way classical time becomes just another coordinate in space acting on this background where spacetime distances are preserved.

>> No.5927929

>>5927895
We can observe space. We cannot observe a second.

>> No.5927944

>>5927929
You're an idiot. A meter stick measures space. A watch measures time. Measurement is observing.

>> No.5927953

>>5927944
Time is measured by mechanical device, movement of relative objects in space or radioactive decay.

I can measure your faggotry with the same things.

Does that make you a fag?

"Events occur" does not make time into a bunch of dimensions.

>> No.5927955

Isn't there a Planck measurement for time?

>> No.5927963

>>5927929
You didn't answer either of my points. How would a concept be distorted and why can't it be a dimension?

>> No.5927965

>>5927955
Sort of. It relies on a minimum measure of movement.

>> No.5927968

>>5927953
Time is measured with reference events that take a certain time. Space is measured by reference lengths that take up a certain length.

>> No.5927970

>>5927929
>travel very fast relative to someone else
>use meter stick to measure what he perceives as time.

>> No.5927974

>ctrl+f "entropy"
>1 result

What the fuck, /sci/.

>> No.5927984

SO if time depends on movement, and it seems people think time doesn't exist without movement. does that mean that if I take a stationary wave-function of a pi meson that it will never decay since there is no movement?

>> No.5927985

What is being distorted? Movement? The speed of light? Space?

I don't see time anywhere, so it is not being distorted. YOUR PERCEPTION OF "TIME" CAN BE DISTORTED. Your perception of anything can be distorted.

Is a second slower inside curved space? Is a meter shorter?

>> No.5927988

>>5927984

How did the meson occur?

>> No.5927992

>>5927985
>I don't see time anywhere, so it is not being distorted.
You don't see space or momentum, doesn't mean they aren't real.

>> No.5927999

>>5927992
We can see space being distorted. We can see movement being distorted. We can see light being distorted. We can see the cause and effects of those distortions over years.

We cannot see time being distorted, because we cannot observe time itself, just our relative perception of it.

>> No.5928002

>>5927974
>entropy implies time
Wrong way round bro.

>> No.5928003

>>5927988
what does it matter?

>> No.5928008

>>5927999
We can see time being distorted.

>> No.5928018

>>5928008
Time is a perception and an illusion at best.

>> No.5928020

>>5928018
Perceived by what? An illusion to whom? Pin down your terms please.

>> No.5928023

>>5927999
>We can see space being distorted.
How is something like gravitational lensing any less real than shapiro delay or gravitational redshift?

>We cannot see time being distorted, because we cannot observe time itself
But you can't see space itself either.

>> No.5928024

>>5928003
What is it relative to? By itself, it lasts as long as the universe, because it is everything in the universe unless there is something else that exists besides the meson.

>> No.5928037

>>5928020

>Pin down an idea/concept.

You pin down an idea first. Use God or love for your example.

>> No.5928039

>>5928037
>tu quoque

>> No.5928040

>>5928023
>But you can't see space itself either.

Technically wrong. You can observe the shape of space with lasers.

>> No.5928049

>>5928039

I showed you your faggotry by copying your faggotry. If you cannot give me an example of a "pinned down" concept like love or god, then you cannot expect it from me.

>> No.5928052

>>5928049
I don't have to pin down concepts I'm not making any claims about. If you're gonna say time is a perception and an illusion, you better make it damn clear what you actually mean/

>> No.5928056

entropy doesn't full explain it.
(nearly) all physical processes are time reversible. entropy is just a statistical measure that pops out of time.

>> No.5928058

You measure space with a mechanical object, a meter stick, or your eyes or a laser or whatever.
To measure time, you need analogous gear. I am ashamed of the anti-time biased here.

>> No.5928060

>>5928052
You claim time has dimensions without observable evidence.

>> No.5928062

Time is just a sequence of molecules colliding and interacting in a chain reaction. You might think of it like a massive domino effect.

All time is relative to the one experiencing it.

>> No.5928065

>>5928040
You can do the same thing with time and lasers, this is what LIGO does.

>> No.5928066

>>5928060
You're making the claim it is not a dimension, you have to supply evidence for that.

>> No.5928067

The difference between now and... NOW!

It's not a different dimension or anything like that. Rather, the perception in the difference of the state of matter as it's constantly changing. We developed a means of measuring it, a standardized unit of measurement as the flow of entropy in our environment is relatively constant across the Earth.

And that is all.

>> No.5928070

>>5928066

Do you really believe it is a dimension? If that is the case then I believe you have no place in the scientific community as I liken it to someone that believes in unicorns and fairies. You're introducing a bunch of bullshit and wasting tax-payer dollars and funding exploring ideas that are obviously ridiculous and stupid from the start. You've blown your own mind with sci-fi, and want to believe as it adds some mystery and beauty to the world that isn't there.

>> No.5928073
File: 157 KB, 1008x707, Timegrab.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5928073

You weren't told that time is cubical because those who try to deny it have you educated dumb!

>> No.5928075

>>5928065
It measures the dimensions of time?!

If it doesn't, then you are off topic, and off your argument.

Assuming you are the person I was talking to.

>> No.5928081

>>5928067
Q: "Is time-travel possible?"

A: "There is nothing in physics that prevents it."

>> No.5928086

>>5928070
>Do you really believe it is a dimension?
No, I know I don't know what it is. You on the other hand are making bold statements with no evidence, that's the bullshit here.

>> No.5928087

Time is your perception of past, present and future events which your mind organizes in a logical flowing pattern so you can comprehend your present situation and relate to your memories.

The other definition of time, is the allocated fixed window of life you have on earth, which is constantly decreasing as you age.

>> No.5928092

>>5928081

Except the need for infinite energy...

>> No.5928094

>>5928086
"Bold statements"? Who said time was a dimension ITT again?

>> No.5928095

>>5928075
No, you're attempting to change the point. I have never mentioned "time having dimensions" it doesn't make sense. You said space can be seen because you can observe distortions in it with lasers, you can do the exact same thing for time. If by this argument you still claim space can be seen so is physical you must also accept time is the same. I'm not saying I agree with that but I'm disproving your argument.

>> No.5928096

>>5928094
Not me. Who said it definitely wasn't? You did.

>> No.5928098

>>5928081
You can't go back in time, scientist have already concluded this firmly. You can only go back as far as when the time machine was turned on to provide you with a beacon or point of entry.

Anything is impossible and would result in a paradox which is impossible because the universe prevents the occurrence of paradoxes to prevent itself from collapsing.

So fuck you, you uneducated retard. Go back and learn your basics.

>> No.5928102

>>5928070
>I know better than all dem scientists with them fancy degrees.

>> No.5928109

>ITT: Minkowski never did science and instead became a baker.

Well im glad we are past the 0.999... != 1 threads and back to the time doesn't exist threads, They are much more exploitable..

>> No.5928116

>>5928095

>I have never mentioned "time having dimensions"

Then stop interrupting other peoples conversations, because I was replying to the earlier person that did say time had dimensions.

>> No.5928119

>>5928096
I didn't. The idea is ridiculous.

I'm glad you agree with me.

>> No.5928122

>>5928095
You're an idiot. Time, as measured by atomic clocks, has been observed to slow at high speeds. So it has been observed distorting. Further time is a dimension! The whole point of relativity is that you can treat it the same way as the three spacial dimensions. All you have to do is introduce a metric. Besides, change can only occur over time (Noether proved this with her namesake theorem). Technically speaking, all the spacial measurements you could easily be measured in units of time. That's in the first goddamn chapter of Einstein's goddamn book for pleebs.

>> No.5928127

>>5927713

Neither.
It was not invented, it always existed.
And it was not "discovered", higher level creatures are intrinsically aware of time because it is how events are ordered in our minds.

>> No.5928129

>>5928116
It does have dimensions. In the SI system they are usually called "seconds". Here's where it gets technical so hold on, those "seconds" can be used to measure distances. In fact "real" scientists use the same units to measure distance and time.

>> No.5928136

>>5928129
Oh good. I was worried that time-travel was impossible.

>> No.5928141

>>5928122
Time being a dimension is sensical, it having dimensions doesn't make sense. I didn't say it wasn't a dimension.

>>5928116
When your examples are full of holes I am going to interrupt. Again deflecting the point, you can't see space any more than you can see time.

>> No.5928142

>>5928122
YAY! ANOTHER "TIME-TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE" POST!

THE FUN NEVER ENDS!

>> No.5928144

>>5928141

Oh, MY post was full of holes, but the "time has dimensions" arguments are not?

Troll.

>> No.5928145

>>5928142
You're just badly trolling people now.

>> No.5928148

>>5928122
Except that in its natural state, space is empty, time is not. so how can that be true?

>> No.5928149

>>5927877

Even if "time" cannot be observed, it is a way to standardize "change" into units of measurement.

You could say Object took 3 Particle-A half lifes to move from point X to point Y, but thats just silly. Even if time is "just a concept" it is only logical to treat it like a dimension.

>> No.5928150

>>5927893

troll/10

or religious which amounts to the same thing

>> No.5928151

>>5928129
If thats so, why do we need 2?

>> No.5928153

>>5928136
>>5928142
Then why are we experiencing reality?

>> No.5928155

>>5928145
...says the guy that believes a measurement exists like matter, movement and space.

>> No.5928157

>>5928142
Nope. That metric plus causation keep time travel out of the question.

>> No.5928160

>>5927929

Ok you could "observe" the average half-life of some particle to correspond to some other change (e.g. how long it takes some other even to happen) but you are essentially just assigning arbitrary measurements.

So maybe another way to say it is we can only observe time as change. So maybe we can't physically observe a second, but we can observe an even that consistently takes 1 second to occur.

>> No.5928161

>>5928151
Cause it too hard to give directions to the supermarket with light-seconds

>> No.5928162

>>5928149
> it is only logical to treat it like a dimension.

"GOD EXISTS! PROVE ME WRONG!" is now a logical argument.

>> No.5928163

>>5927968

I like this explanation

>> No.5928166

>>5928144
I never said their argument did not, that doesn't excuse your argument.

>> No.5928169

>>5928037
>>5928049

This is so fucking retarded, I don't even.

>> No.5928170

>>5928148
That's complete nonsense. How do you define a natural state.

>> No.5928172

>>5928060

You literally aren't even arguing you are just pulling random shit out of your ass.

In order to better understand whatever fucking retarded idea you were proposing he asked for clarification, and you immediately got so fucking butthurt your response was "pin down god and love"

>> No.5928177

>>5928062

This is good. Time is our perception of movement/change. So while time doesn't have its own dimension per se, we can measure it relative to other things. When matter goes really fast and "time slows down" its really just the rate of change/movement in said matter that is slowing down.

>> No.5928179

>>5928166
Says the guy making excuses.

>> No.5928180

>>5928155
I did say this:
>>5927968
In light of this why is distance and different to time.

>> No.5928181

>>5928070

Thats an opinion homie. I personally agree with you, but youre arguing with Einstein and the like

>> No.5928185

>>5928172
You pin down "time", "love" or "god", and I'll pin down "Illusion".

"Pin down" doesn't work with concepts.

>> No.5928188

>>5928098

>go back as far as when the time machine was turned on to provide you with a beacon or point of entry.

please explain

>> No.5928189

>>5928177
Nope. No it's not. Time slows and the and "constants" like reaction rates slow accordingly.

>> No.5928193

Time is the direction in which entropy increases. (Every other physical law can be reversed exactly)

We remember things because there is entropy released in storing information.

>> No.5928200

>>5928122

Matter A = moving at high speeds
Matter B = rest of universe, normal speeds

Yes "time" slows, but its not time as a dimension changing. It is the rate of change of the matter. The half life of Matter A would take "longer" to occur than B. A non-dimensional way of saying this is, at some state of the universe, B will have completed a full half-life where A has not. So "time" didn't slow down per se, but the change/movement of matter at A "slowed down"

>> No.5928208

>>5928162

Youre fucking trolling m8. Actually argue against me or don't shitpost.

What I said and
>"GOD EXISTS! PROVE ME WRONG!" is now a logical argument.
are not the same thing whatsoever. If you think they are, explain why

>> No.5928210

>>5928189
>Time slows and the and "constants" like reaction rates slow accordingly.
If you slow down/speed up with them, then they don't change relative to your perception of time.

>> No.5928212

>>5928185

By pin down he literally meant define your terms, how fucking aspie are you

>> No.5928214

>>5928189

Yes that is exactly my point just reworded, where is the discrepancy?

>> No.5928216

>>5928208
>are not the same thing whatsoever.

>TIME EXISTS!

>PROVE ME WRONG!

>> No.5928221

>>5928216

And I gave a summary of my reasoning for why I think it exists, if you don't think it exists, state why.

>> No.5928223

>>5928212

Oh, "pin down" means "define".

Okay, replace all occurrences of "pin down" with "define".

You define "love" and I'll define "illusion".

>> No.5928231

>>5928223

NIGGA THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE

>> No.5928235

>>5928221
>why I think it exists

As a word, time exists.

As a concept, time exists.

Same goes for God.

The universe doesn't use time. It uses "A universe of objects and forces moving and interacting relative to each other".

"Time" is an incomplete and shitty idea.

>> No.5928237

>>5928231
>>5928221

Hey bro don't forget that, at the end of the day, this is still 4chan. Thats an obvious fucking troll, stop responding

>> No.5928242

>>5928193
Nope. Weak interactions violate time parity.

>> No.5928247

>>5928235

I didn't say that time "existed" I said it was a way the human mind could compare the occurrence of independent events. I also said that, instead of describing one event in terms of other events, it is simply more practical to assign units to so-called "time"

>> No.5928251

>>5928235

lrn2debate

Like what the fuck are you even posting, youve said the same thing 4 different times without posting any real thought or ideas. Dumbasses like you are the reason this board is going to shit.

>> No.5928254

>>5928231
Don't expect me to define or "pin-down" anything then, you chuckle-fuck.

>> No.5928258

>>5928200
Nope. The dimension changes. It warps just like space. High gravity slows time as experienced by someone in the field. Kinematics all adjust to this new time-velocity.

>> No.5928259

>>5928251
If time does not have dimensions, then stop arguing with people you agree with.

>> No.5928262

>>5928210
Sorry, I meant slow with respect to a "motionless" observer.

>> No.5928273

>>5928259

I'm not the guy arguing, I just hate seeing someone posting his ideas, and some jackass going

HUR prove god exists

>> No.5928274

>>5928258

Put this in laymen's terms plz

>> No.5928276

>>5928258

Does that invalidate my point? That when "time" is slowing down isn't that just another way of saying constants of reaction/half-lifes/particle vibration/etc slow down?

>> No.5928282

>>5928254

So buttmad

>> No.5928284

>>5928273

Thanks anon

>> No.5928285

On the grounds of no standard movement time bexists as all things,b it has the same identity conflict as the term god, the realism of it is it is a suspense of manifold of gravities. The acute realism of its existance with us is it existing as the 0.....00x in math terms which basically means it keeps things in place woth the normal of particle observation... which is more thourough than you want to know ... :*)

>> No.5928303

>>5928274
So reaction rates (which can be expressed as mol/sec) for example can be treated as constants for most purposes. But they CAN be calculated for actual fundamental constants like h-bar and the charge and mass of an electron etc. When you preform the calculations in your're fast-as-shit rocket, you get the same answer but to a "motionless" observer outside the rocket, reactions take longer. Thus, time itself and not the molecules have changed.

>> No.5928329

Time is interaction between masses.

>> No.5928357

>>5928060
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE, SIR.

>> No.5928360

>>5928329
Please define masses under the conjunction of the potential affectual basis of non-relitivty Mr.Hurdur

>> No.5929147

Time is an illusion.

>> No.5930938

Time is simply the measurement of objects around the sun. prove me wrong

>> No.5930978

Define :Time is a perceived number (measured)or(calculated) relative to space.
Explain: A measurement placed on observations.

>> No.5930984

>>5930938
There is no sun, there is only Zul.

I win.

>> No.5931016

>>5929147
This.
Time is obviously linear and unidirectional for the same reason the earth is obviously flat; cause that's the way it looks.

>> No.5931035

>>5931016
>assumes the future is immutable

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

>> No.5931036

Time the rate of change of entropy divided by the smallest possible change in entropy.

>> No.5931105

>>5928357
It is, that's a basic rule of probability theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

>> No.5931132

>>5930938
well considering the amount of anti-matter and its a effect on distortion rates.... yeah maybe

>> No.5932493

>>5931105
Thank you.

>> No.5932604

>>5927644
this.

>> No.5932627

>>5927719
>oh, and every other particle and wave in the universe too.
He doesnt have to since time is relative.

>> No.5932636

>>5927777
>natural numbers
>-1
>>>/sp/

>> No.5933704

>>5932636
The natural numbers are a a field.

>> No.5934754

the thing we're wasting on 4chan

>> No.5935002

>>5928223
>Love
Generally means emotional or physical attraction between two human beings. It can have more general definitions depending on the context
>illusion
Usually means when a person's senses are fooled by certain stimuli in to thinking things are there that aren't really there

Is that enough or are you trying to go full Plato and say that there are immaterial forms that correlate with human ideas?

>> No.5935038
File: 15 KB, 222x340, LMsDqsvcxckC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5935038

>req reading

>> No.5935095

>>5935038
got a pdf/

>> No.5935103

Time is resonance of the big bang

>> No.5935105

define and explain movement along the x-axis

>> No.5935115

Product of the Big Bang, constantly increasing by the same rate.

>> No.5935141

>>5927573
Time is a sequence os instants, which is the infinitesimal part of the time, by definition.
One instant is the presentantion of the universe with the results of the forces on the immediate anterior instant.

>> No.5935145

>>5935141
I purposely left the explanation, because there is no explanation;
see this: >>5935105

>> No.5935180

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdQY7BusJNU

>> No.5935215

>>5927644
the thread should have ended here

>> No.5935223

>>5927710
"no movement" ... for a period of time...
>idiot

>> No.5935258

>>5935095
share it, faggot

>> No.5935264
File: 4 KB, 147x55, Studies on the Structure of Time.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5935264

>>5935095
books.google.com/books?isbn=030646439X

>> No.5936043

>>5935180
This video is not available in my country.

>> No.5936063

>>5927573
>Define and explain time

Time is an advent of the CNS in response to gravity.

>> No.5936106

Just cause and effect. The Universe can't just create consciousness willy-nilly. But one thing can lead to another and so on.

>> No.5936318

>>5928098
>because the universe prevents the occurrence of paradoxes to prevent itself from collapsing.
That's why you need a flux capacitor

>> No.5936324

Time = entropy

Entropy = what my dick does to your mom's pussy

Ergo

My dick constantly changes state in your mom

>> No.5937525

>>5936106
How is concsiousness created?

>> No.5939337

>>5937525
It is neither created nor destroyed because it is pure energy.

>> No.5939377

>>5927715
>walking with jotaro
>I look into his eyes
>know that I gotta kill this nigga
>tell him his stand is weak and he's a big faggot
>he summons star platinum
>he starts punching
>tell him ZA WARUDO!
>time stops
>realize theres only one way
>I pull 50 knives from my pocket and a single tear runs down my face

>> No.5939455

>>5936324
lol rekt

>> No.5940646

>>5939377
I do not understand.

>> No.5942181

>>5927573
An ordered collection of states of the Universe

>> No.5942202

>>5942181
We can't know whether or not they are ordered.

>> No.5942203

>>5942202
Causality hints that they are

>> No.5942300

>>5942203
The total collection of states we know of the universe is a drop within an ocean of possibility.
Those hints are meaningless.