A Thought on Time and its characteristics

Conceptually, of course, and rudimentary:

Time = Change
Time = Motion
so

Time = Change and/or Motion

Motion = Time
Change = Time
so
Change and/or Motion = Time

Motion = Change
so of course
Change = Motion

change.. must then be the Same.. as motion

so to narrow:
time = motion

without time there would be no motion

again this is conceptual not mathmatic.. not exact.. not precise..
no proof that anything i have said is TRUE.. its just a thought..

i like rudimentary logic.. dont see alot without articulate runarounds and refferenes to math and people ive never heard of.

any thoughts or maybe another no comment post by me.. we'll see i guess


-G







[edit on 22-10-2007 by GlahES]

Aah, but think of this...

The arrow can never hit the tree, because it must first travel half the remaining distance.

This holds true if motion cannot exist without time.

However, if there is such an infinitesimally small moment, that is so small that 'time' no longer applies, then the arrow can hit the tree.

It seems that there is such a 'moment' in which motion exists without time, otherwise the arrow could never hit the tree...

Or not?

the paradox you speak of is not a paradox.. IF the arrow Only traveled half the distance every time.. it would not reach the target..

its like saying the arrow shoots in the opposite direction of the tree and it never reaches the tree... and thats a paradox..

or saying an arrow never leaves the quill and it never hits the tree.. so its a paradox..

or saying the arrow is never made.. so it never hits the tree.. so thats a paradox..

aha! but the arrow travels.. the whole distance.. but it has to get half way there, then half way.. so it can never reach the target..

yet in REALITY.. it DOES... so there Is No Paradox.. fire an arrow at a tree.. with an accurate shot.. it hits the tree.. so the paradox is interesting but does not portray reality.

the Thought in my original post is: without time there is no motion or "change" but we have motion.. there fore time exists..

so in relation to this "paradox" you mention.. if tiem does not exist.. then the arrow never existed because it has to be made which means combining of substance.. which takes motion to do.. and if the arrow Was pre-made.. or w/e you may say.. it cant travel even half the distance.. without time.. so it never hits the tree.. but not because it only goes half way exponentially.. but because the arrow and the tree do not exist..

that paradox is null and bringing it up at the first responce to this post is saddening to me.. better than nothing i guess.

to argue with myself.. how can i say time = motion? how can i prove that? i cant.. prove me wrong?

-G

[edit on 23-10-2007 by GlahES]

yet in REALITY.. it DOES... so there Is No Paradox.. fire an arrow at a tree.. with an accurate shot.. it hits the tree.. so the paradox is interesting but does not portray reality.

Perhaps it does. Pehaps time is finite (bounded on the infinitesimal end).
This would explain why the arrow hits the tree. And if this were the case, then motion exists without time...

I don't see how you can have motion without time - motion is change in position with respect to time. Without time there is no motion - no change at all in fact.

motion is change in position with respect to time.

Is it?

What about this definition:

"Motion is change in position."

I don't see why the time factor is necessary...

reply to post by Saurus


I was just about to post something like that. This discussion seems to be leaving out space.

In physics, motion is usually defined as a continuous change in the position of a body relative to a reference point, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference.

It mentions nothing of time. (Perhaps the word "continuous" might suggest 'time', but I don't feel that it is necessarily so...)

Jim.. i think your about on level with me...

Saurus-
ok so you say change, and motion.. has nothign to do with time..

And the arrow Perhaps hits the target.. well get shot by an arrow and then argue that it never hit you.
perhaps it hit you...
are you saying that you realize the arrow hits the tree.. and then you say its because time is 0.. or is very small.. ? your losing me in a logical sense.

But im not here to debate if time exists.. that i will not debate.. noone can win that.. my thoughts are on if time DOES exist.. then... ect.

thats not really accurate but im not as articulate as most.


-G

my brain just fell out of my head.
Great forum!

I thought there was nothing such as motion.

Are we not all just warping time space when we "move"?
or you guys believe that we are really moving our atoms from
point a to point b.

Hmmm I think I would have to agree that motion=time seeing as that the motion of objects and light can change, affect, and stop time and without time there would be no motion.....I think

i can understand when someone says that motion does not relate to time.. but it relates to something.. same as change.. and maybe they see whatever they see the same way that i see time..

to say that motion is independant... motion doesnt need time.. it doesnt need anything.. at all.. ever.. maybe space... but it sure as hell doesnt need time.. since there is no time.. and time doesnt exist... but i just said time.. so the word exists.. and the concept exists.. but time itself does not.. because it is not a "self" and.... makes me want to bang my head on a wall..

i cant prove time exists and you cant prove it doesn't..

R3KR - your thoughts that movement is just a warping of space-time..
it is.. but its motion.. or change.. same thing.
if you do not "move" you atoms still go from point a to point b in time.. just not position in relative space.

time an dspace are conected.. but you can move in time.. but not space.. but you cant move in space, but not time.. youd have to be two places at once.. and as far as the quantum entanglement thing goes.. both entangle thingies would have to be in 2 places at one time..

bleh I think im done ranting.. im sure its a rant.. logical rant.. heh.

-G

i was wrong time does not equal motion. or change
time = the perception of motion/change

without time.. nothing could percieve motion or change..
more of.. without time.. humans would not percieve motion or change.

i think thats more logical.

-G

For more on the debate on if time exists or not, visit this thread.


Time is measured by observing a motion.
Motion is observed over time.

What a vicious circle!

And the arrow Perhaps hits the target.. well get shot by an arrow and then argue that it never hit you.

The arrow does hit the tree because it moves without time playing a role.

ie. It moves that last infinitessimal distance in zero time, which is why it is able to 'defy' the paradox.

ie. It changes position spontaneously, (without time) meaning that it does not have to first travel half the remaining distance.

Originally posted by BlitzKrieger
Hmmm I think I would have to agree that motion=time seeing as that the motion of objects and light can change, affect, and stop time and without time there would be no motion.....I think

No! I don't agree!

Yes, I agree that motion can change time. ie. As we approach light speed, time slows...

BUT:

The motion of a pen in my hand can change the appearance of a piece of paper (when I write on it.)

However:

- I can change the motion of my hand without affecting the appearance of the paper.

- The appearance of the paper can change without my hand moving (ie. from other sources.)

Although one may affect the other, they are mutually exclusive and one can exist and change without the other. The fact that one sometimes changes the other does not make them equal or dependent on each other.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Saurus]

time = the perception of motion/change

and

Time is measured by observing a motion.

Again I disagree...

Time can pass when there is no motion.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Saurus]

Originally posted by Saurus
ie. It moves that last infinitessimal distance in zero time, which is why it is able to 'defy' the paradox.

ie. It changes position spontaneously, (without time) meaning that it does not have to first travel half the remaining distance.

I think I understand what your saying.
I'd have to think more about that before I could respond fully. I'll give it a shot though.
If it is correct, that it changes position instantly, then it would follow that motion could take place without time.
I'd say thats not the case.
I'll need to think on your statements a little more though.

I still say Zeno's paradox isnt much of a scientific paradox at all.
Zeno's paradox basically says motion is impossible. but it isnt.

I think it shows a paradox of logic.. not reality.

Originally posted by Saurus
Time can pass when there is no motion.

I agree.

Originally posted by Saurus
The motion of a pen in my hand can change the appearance of a piece of paper (when I write on it.)

However:

- I can change the motion of my hand without affecting the appearance of the paper.

- The appearance of the paper can change without my hand moving (ie. from other sources.)

'Other sources' that must move to change the appearance of the paper.
I think that would be obvious though, and that I missed you point alltogether. oh well

-G

I think that would be obvious though, and that I missed you point alltogether. oh well

I was replying to Blitzkrieger's thread where he said:

I think I would have to agree that motion=time seeing as that the motion of objects and light can change, affect, and stop time

He is referring to the phenomeneon that time slows down as we speed up, and stops as we approach the speed of light. I was trying to illustrate that the fact that one thing affects another, does not make them equal.

Originally posted by Saurus
...He is referring to the phenomeneon that time slows down as we speed up, and stops as we approach the speed of light. I was trying to illustrate that the fact that one thing affects another, does not make them equal.

Ahh ok. I knew you were responding to that post but, again, I missed the main point. Consider the point no longer missed by me.

-G