Does time move?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

The rest of this is filler words.

PhilX

[Present awareness]

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

The rest of this is filler words.

PhilX

Time, is the measurement of objects, moving through space. Time itself, does not move through space. The still point of the present moment, is what makes the concept of time, possible. "Now" it is here, "now" it is there, let's call the difference in position, the "time" it takes to change.

[enegue]

The still point of the present moment, is what makes the concept of time, possible. "Now" it is here, "now" it is there, let's call the difference in position, the "time" it takes to change.

The difference in "position" of an object in space is given by a "distance". The time taken by a body to move through a "distance" is given by referring to the number of cycles completed by some other body that is caught in predictable repetitive motion.

Cheers,
enegue

[Steve3007]

Of course, the way that we come to the conclusion that those other bodies are engaged in predictable repetitive motion is by comparing them with other instances of predictability. Why, for example, do we consider the Earth to orbit the Sun in a predictable, regular fashion? How would we predict it? By comparing to other things that we regard as predictable.

If we say that we measure time by comparison with objects that undergo regular repetition then we have to define the term "regular repetition". It means: "doing the same thing at regular intervals in time". But how do we measure whether they're doing that? We're still trying to establish how we measure time.

I think, however we word it, our definitions always have a tendency to be circular. When Einstein defined time as: "what we measure with a clock", he invited the question: "What is a clock?". I don't know of any verbal answer to that question that doesn't involve using the word "time", or another word whose definition, in turn, uses the word time. (e.g: "an object that performs a repeated activity at regular intervals of time, like ticking").

Of course, we could point to a whole load of "clocks" and say: "whatever it is that those things have in common, that's a clock (The form of the clock, as Plato might put it)". Ultimately, I think, that is how we define our abstractions, whether they be "time" or any other generalized concepts. We create them by inducing from individual observations.

[Ruskin]

It could we're the ones who move but the same difference either way. Apparently time is relative as well it's not universally consistent throughout the universe.

[Present awareness]

The second hand of a clock, moves in a repetitive circular motion, and is what we compare other motion to, in order to assess it's time in movement. We put little slash marks on the face of the clock and call them "seconds" . It takes 60 seconds for one revolution of a 360 degree circle. A clock is a convenient measuring tool and nothing more. The world has agreed upon an arbitrary speed, to make the tool consistent. Just like a clock, a tape measure, is a tool used for measuring length, only with a tape measure, there are two systems of measurement, inches and centimetres. This proves the arbitrary nature of assigning slash marks for any sort of measurement tool.

[Misty]

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

The rest of this is filler words.

PhilX

Time, is the measurement of objects, moving through space. Time itself, does not move through space. The still point of the present moment, is what makes the concept of time, possible. "Now" it is here, "now" it is there, let's call the difference in position, the "time" it takes to change.

Kind of like the disk? The center of time is stationary but connected to and controlling its outer parts while they are moving and changing?

-- Updated Wed May 07, 2014 8:27 am to add the following --

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

PhilX

Time is measured by changes in all creation (sun up, sun down) and for humans in all that is seen and experienced. Time is increments of motion, the whole in a frame by frame process. (reminds me of cartoons being drawn part by part on paper pages put together then flipped to move the drawing)

[Vijaydevani]

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

The rest of this is filler words.

PhilX

You are a truly brilliant man, Phil. I am stumped with this one. No clue at all.

[enegue]

It could we're the ones who move but the same difference either way. Apparently time is relative as well it's not universally consistent throughout the universe.

Whether we use as a reference the orbit of the Earth about the Sun, or the spin of the Earth on its axis, or the natural oscillation frequencies of atoms, we can determine by various processes and calculations a unit of time on which they all agree, such as the "second".

The idea that time is relative is a myth based on the observation that an atomic clock in orbit about the Earth gets out of sync with one on the ground. However, it's the affect of gravity on the oscillation frequency of the atom in the clock that creates the difference, not that "time" has changed in any way.

Cheers,
enegue

[Present awareness]

Time, is relative to the speed of light. The present moment, travels at the speed of light. The light you are seeing right now, in the present moment, will be 36,000 miles away, in one second. If you could travel at the speed of light, you would be frozen in time, the same way a photograph has frozen the light it captures, in time. Earlier light would not be able to catch up, so you would see no changes at all.

[Ruskin]

The idea that time is relative is a myth based on the observation that an atomic clock in orbit about the Earth gets out of sync with one on the ground.

It's based around the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of how fast you move. For instance if you throw a ball inside a train it will travel forwards at 10 miles an hour from your position but to an observer out the train the ball would be traveling at 70 mile an hour. Speed is the ratio of space to time however if the speed of light is absolute and does not depend upon the speed of the observer then time must be relative.

[Misty]

Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

The rest of this is filler words.

PhilX

It seems time moves with all moving things.

[Steve3007]

The experiments that demonstrated gravitational time dilation by flying atomic clocks around the world didn't just demonstrate that. They also demonstrated the time dilation caused by their velocity, which complicates the result.

But I think the key reason why it's regarded as "time dilation" rather than simply as a "classical" change in oscillation speed somehow caused by the change in gravitational force, is that it applies equally to all processes which contain time as a variable. For example, it affects the half-lives of radioactive particles.

In the same sense, the Lorentz length-contraction which is observed for bodies that are moving relative to each other shouldn't be regarded as some kind of classical-type squashing of the moving object due to inertial forces - like a person getting pushed back into their seat in a fast car. It is an actual contraction of space. Of course, you could still maintain that it is not a contraction of space but a contraction of every object that could possibly exist within that space and of the distances between all those possible objects. But since there is, by definition, no possible empirical way to distinguish between the two concepts, the distinction has no physical significance.

This is the origin of Einstein's point about time being what we measure with a clock and distance being what we measure with a ruler. His point was that, at least for the purposes of physics, the only useful distinctions between concepts are those that correspond, either directly or indirectly, to something that could, at least in principle, be measured.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Ruskin wrote:

"It's based around the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of how fast you move."

It's not a fact, it's an assumption within the theory of special relativity.

PhilX

[A_Seagull]

Ruskin wrote:

"It's based around the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of how fast you move."

It's not a fact, it's an assumption within the theory of special relativity.

PhilX

Not quite.

It is actually an empirical 'fact' that stems from the famous 'Michelson Morley' experiments at the end of the nineteenth century.