Gents,

I watched a documentary a few days ago which described the development of the early universe in terms of current scientific thinking.

Once the documentary started, I took a pen and paper and began to note certain points which I intend to re discuss with you both in terms of our arguments regarding the nature of time. Well right now, i dont have much time [ ], and so I will just drop two of the points I noted: I am hoping you will see the issues right away.

In terms of current scientific thinking on the nature of time, I noted these two statements.

1. "Within a few minutes after the big bang, 380, 000 years passed"

And

2. "After formation, the earth was spinning so fast that each day only consisted of 6 hours. With the stabilization of the moon, the earth slowed down and each day eventually consisted of 24 hours."

Do you see how each of these statements proves that the current scientific notion of time is wrong and contradictory, or do I need to explain further. Please note that with regard to the second statement, my interest lies not with the fact that less speed leads to greater duration for the completion of one cycle of rotation, but in the experience of duration: i.e: would the experience of duration change.

Discuss.

Thanks.

Deep Sight: Gents,

I watched a documentary a few days ago which described the development of the early universe in terms of current scientific thinking.

Once the documentary started, I took a pen and paper and began to note certain points which I intend to re discuss with you both in terms of our arguments regarding the nature of time. Well right now, i dont have much time [ ], and so I will just drop two of the points I noted: I am hoping you will see the issues right away.

In terms of current scientific thinking on the nature of time, I noted these two statements.

1. "Within a few minutes after the big bang, 380, 000 years passed"

And

2. "After formation, the earth was spinning so fast that each day only consisted of 6 hours. With the stabilization of the moon, the earth slowed down and each day eventually consisted of 24 hours."

Do you see how each of these statements proves that the current scientific notion of time is wrong and contradictory, or do I need to explain further.

Discuss.

Thanks.

I really did not get you.
Time is relative to motion. Time and motion are inseperable.
Time is a property of motion.

If the scientific notion of time is wrong, which notion of time is right?
If we can conceive of a perfect vacuum where there is no motion, no movement of mass, then time, would, in theory , not exist.

It is not possible to conceive of time pre or outside of the universe.

plaetton:

I really did not get you.
Time is relative to motion. Time and motion are inseperable.
Time is a property of motion.

If the scientific notion of time is wrong, which notion of time is right?
If we can conceive of a perfect vacuum where there is no motion, no movement of mass, then time, would, in theory , not exist.

It is not possible to conceive of time pre or outside of the universe.

Address yourself to the two statements I quoted.

Deep Sight:

Address yourself to the two statements I quoted.

I perfectly understand the statements. One does not need to think very far to understand.
For example a year in jupiter is 263 or so years.
It simply means that a complete rotation around the sun takes 263yrs for jupiter as opposed to 364 days for the earth.

Your first statement implies that equivalent of a few minutes of our conscious time yielded 386,000yrs of real time after the big bang.
Remember, time is a duration of consciousness.

Your second statement is even clearer. It means that it took the earth only 6hrs to to achieve a complete rotation of its axis.

plaetton:

I perfectly understand the statements. One does not need to think very far to understand.
For example a year in jupiter is 263 or so years.
It simply means that a complete rotation around the sun takes 263yrs for jupiter as opposed to 364 days for the earth.

Your first statement implies that equivalent of a few minutes of our conscious time yielded 386,000yrs of real time after the big bang.
Remember, time is a duration of consciousness.

Your second statement is even clearer. It means that it took the earth only 6hrs to to achieve a complete rotation of its axis.

I'm not sure you've got the posers that disturb me yet. I am pressed for time now. Please look more closely at the term "experience of duration" in the OP: will be back tmro. I added a sentence. Thanks.

Deep Sight: Gents,

I watched a documentary a few days ago which described the development of the early universe in terms of current scientific thinking.

Once the documentary started, I took a pen and paper and began to note certain points which I intend to re discuss with you both in terms of our arguments regarding the nature of time. Well right now, i dont have much time [ ], and so I will just drop two of the points I noted: I am hoping you will see the issues right away.

In terms of current scientific thinking on the nature of time, I noted these two statements.

1. "Within a few minutes after the big bang, 380, 000 years passed"

And

2. "After formation, the earth was spinning so fast that each day only consisted of 6 hours. With the stabilization of the moon, the earth slowed down and each day eventually consisted of 24 hours."

Do you see how each of these statements proves that the current scientific notion of time is wrong and contradictory, or do I need to explain further. Please note that with regard to the second statement, my interest lies not with the fact that less speed leads to greater duration for the completion of one cycle of rotation, but in the experience of duration: i.e: would the experience of duration change.

Discuss.

Thanks.

O great, here we go again. . .

*rolls eyes*

1. "Within a few minutes after the big slam, 380, 000 years passed" And 2. "After formation, the earth was spinning so fast that each day only consisted of 6 hours. With the stabilization of the moon, the earth slowed down and each day eventually consisted of 24 hours."Do you see how each of these statements proves that the current scientific notion of time is wrong and contradictory, or do I need to explain further. Please note that with regard to the second statement, my interest lies not with the fact that less speed leads to greater duration for the completion of one cycle of rotation, but in the experience of duration: i.e: would
the experience of duration change.

The experience of the duration of time is relative no? Twin Paradox? The question of time may not be fully understand until a unification theory is arrived at as Quantum Time and Relative Time are all useful...Anyway Time's duration and perception through scientific study have pointed to the fact that time is indeed an illusion (A construct of the brain) e.g Kappa Effect...Einstein's theory point to the fact that time(bieng fourth dimensonal) slows down with motion so timelessness can be reached...but studying Quantum Time and Einstein/Feyman/Hawking against each other show a glaring contradiction against time perfection as bieng held today...

@OP
First of all, you shouldn't be learning science from TV shows. TV is almost always dumbed down for mass consumption. That means the science gets changed in subtle, but important ways.that make it inaccurate.

Secondly, the standard unit of time is the second. Measuring time in years is stúpid because the length of a year is not constant. The revolution of the earth has been gradually slowing down since the earth was formed. That means this year will be slightly longer than last year, and a lot longer than one 4 billion years ago. The same thing applies to days. We only use them because of tradition and because the rate of change is very small relative to the length of a human lifetime. But on an astronomical scale, measuring time in years is seriously rétarded.

Before you can start poking holes in any scientific theory, you need to first.clarify all your definitions like what is a year, how long is a day and so on.

And if you want to learn real physics, you need to start reading books. Forget all this TV documentary nonsense.

time is a complex phenomenon. understanding its concept is a difficulty in itself. time comes in two forms: chronos and kairos
chronos is a sequential time....it has a definite order.
but the most confusing concept of time is TIME as 'kairos'.... it will definitely sound unreasonable but dats why its more confusing.
time in the kairos has no order. e g in a matter of less than ten seconds, a person can play a scene in his own head whereby he left his home, queued to enter a plane, d plane passed d runway and shot into tha air taking him to wherever he believes he went. in ten seconds, the whole travelling episode is over. but in actual sense, its imposible. thats time in kairos...

the universe with its rules it never change the planet earth in its long journey it never change people that change the time

Deep Sight: Gents,

I watched a documentary a few days ago which described the development of the early universe in terms of current scientific thinking.

Once the documentary started, I took a pen and paper and began to note certain points which I intend to re discuss with you both in terms of our arguments regarding the nature of time. Well right now, i dont have much time [ ], and so I will just drop two of the points I noted: I am hoping you will see the issues right away.

In terms of current scientific thinking on the nature of time, I noted these two statements.

1. "Within a few minutes after the big bang, 380, 000 years passed"

And

Which documentary was this? Is it available somewhere maybe YouTube? If I don't have the appropriate context, then it would be difficult for me to reasonably respond to what you're saying.

Deep Sight:
2. "After formation, the earth was spinning so fast that each day only consisted of 6 hours. With the stabilization of the moon, the earth slowed down and each day eventually consisted of 24 hours."

Do you see how each of these statements proves that the current scientific notion of time is wrong and contradictory, or do I need to explain further. Please note that with regard to the second statement, my interest lies not with the fact that less speed leads to greater duration for the completion of one cycle of rotation, but in the experience of duration: i.e: would the experience of duration change.

Discuss.

Thanks.

There is nothing strange about the second statement. A day is defined by how long it takes the earth to spin on its axis. This can change and is different for different planets. The experience you're talking about depends on the external world. And there are places where for months at a time, the sun remains in the sky this doesn't change the definition of a second which is what is used to measure time.

Bump

I really hate long arguments on the big bang and the universe.


No one wins because most of us here arent physcists or cosmologists or whatever. Just copying and pasting stuff we have half baked knowledge of.


Anyway, Deepsight, I want to challenge your deist belief on a new thread. I'm tired of you walking about with your head held up high like some world class intellectual!

Do you agree?

Logicboy03: I really hate long arguments on the big bang and the universe.

Anyway, Deepsight, I want to challenge your deist belief on a new thread.

I am always happy to discuss that: so please go right ahead.

I'm tired of you walking about with your head held up high like some world class intellectual!

Lol: A GOLDFISH CANNOT HIDE ITS HEAD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LIVE WITH IT!

Deep Sight:

I am always happy to discuss that: so please go right ahead.



Lol: A GOLDFISH CANNOT HIDE ITS HEAD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LIVE WITH IT!

Are you a man or a woman?


Sorry, I cant do the thread now, I am quite busy. But please answe my question

This is what i learnt from a scientist concerning time:
1. Time is relative to where you are. i.e one second here on earth is different from one second on the moon or elsewhere.
2. The universe is constantly expanding, and as the universe expands, time prolongs also. This means that 1 second when earth was created and the entire universe was very small is shorter than 1 second now that the universe is expanded.
3. The scientist used this to explain why the biblical age of the earth and the scientific ages are different.
Science says: 4.54 billion years. According to biblical tracings: 40,000 years. - which is correct - both. You can take a look at this - http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

Logicboy03:


Are you a man or a woman?

Are you a stalker?

Sorry, I cant do the thread now, I am quite busy. But please answe my question

You are welcome anytime.

Deep Sight:

Are you a stalker?



You are welcome anytime.

Why would I stalk you?


You dont impress me.

Stalker and stalkee/stalked, please stop distracting the thread and carry your romance out of this thread. World is about to end, better wake up.

thehomer:

Which documentary was this? Is it available somewhere maybe YouTube?

I have tried to find it on You Tube but it has been blocked as infringing Intellectual Property rights of the makers.

If I don't have the appropriate context, then it would be difficult for me to reasonably respond to what you're saying.

Fair enough: however are you saying that you have never heard of such a statement regarding time in the early universe?

There is nothing strange about the second statement. A day is defined by how long it takes the earth to spin on its axis. This can change and is different for different planets. The experience you're talking about depends on the external world. And there are places where for months at a time, the sun remains in the sky this doesn't change the definition of a second which is what is used to measure time.

Exactly, and this shows that you are wrong in your perception of time as being contingent on motion.

Can you tell me what the unit of measurement of time - the second - is contingent on?

Evil Brain: @OP
First of all, you shouldn't be learning science from TV shows. TV is almost always dumbed down for mass consumption. That means the science gets changed in subtle, but important ways.that make it inaccurate.

Fair comment, but no, I do not make a practice of learning science from TV shows. I am an avid reader and I do enjoy researching subjects that interest me. That said, this documentary was put together by front-line leading scientists and researchers at the world's leading universities and NASA. It was quite interesting, notwithstanding the fact that I do not agree with the conception of time delivered therein; which I find to be contradictory.

Secondly, the standard unit of time is the second. Measuring time in years is stúpid because the length of a year is not constant. The revolution of the earth has been gradually slowing down since the earth was formed. That means this year will be slightly longer than last year, and a lot longer than one 4 billion years ago. The same thing applies to days. We only use them because of tradition and because the rate of change is very small relative to the length of a human lifetime. But on an astronomical scale, measuring time in years is seriously rétarded.

There's no problem here, I agree entirely with you. Nevertheless we should consider that the presenters are probably referring to the total amount of seconds in a present day year on earth - when they refer to years: probably because the numerical figure for the age of the universe in seconds, would be far too vast to present intelligibly.

Now, haven said this: I should note that this measurement of time in seconds in itself verily proves exactly the point I have labored over the years to convey to Martian and thehomer: namely that the current scientific notions of time are mis-footed.

Plaetton, martian and thehomer all contend that time is a function of motion. I say no: that time is an absolute: and there is time as an eternal constant even if there is no motion.

The frame of time captured within one second is not a function of motion.

Let us assume, as an analogy, that instead of breaking up our earthly day into 24 hours, we had rather measured it as 12 hours - with each hour thus consisting of 120 minutes of the current measure - as opposed to 60 minutes of the current measure. And each minute thus being defined as consisting of 120 seconds of the current measure as opposed to 60 seconds of the current measure.

In this event, you will note that what we would define as one second would be the duration of two seconds of the current measure.

In neither framework does the actual duration of time change.

In other words, time - and by this I refer to duration - is not a function of movement. It is rather that eternal continuum into which events are interpolated: and the experience of duration DOES NOT change with reference to faster or slower movements of the earth. To put this succinctly, what I mean to say is that if the earth were to slow down today in terms of rotation, you will have longer days - BUT time has not slowed down: you will experience those days as actually longer - i.e: you will experience more hours of the current measure before sunset arrives.

Note that it is the time you have to wait before seeing the sunset that is longer: you will however still experience THE SAME hours as you would have otherwise have experienced, if you are not looking at the sunset: i.e: let's say you are locked in a room. Your experience of the duration will remain the same

Thus it is the mere events of sunset and sunrise that have arrived at a further point in the self same time. The event. I repeat, the events. Time itself remains the same.

Whereas if it were true that time were a function of motion, then a slower earth will mean that time on the earth would slow down. This is not about sunsets and sunrises - this is about the experience of duration.

Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

I could flip the question either way. Let's say the earth starts spinning so fast that there is only one hour of currently measured time in each day. Would you age faster? Or better still, would that "day" be a shorter or longer period of time, than the currently measured sixty minutes? - - - Or would it be the same in terms of duration?

lekkie073: time is a complex phenomenon. understanding its concept is a difficulty in itself. time comes in two forms: chronos and kairos
chronos is a sequential time....it has a definite order.
but the most confusing concept of time is TIME as 'kairos'.... it will definitely sound unreasonable but dats why its more confusing.
time in the kairos has no order. e g in a matter of less than ten seconds, a person can play a scene in his own head whereby he left his home, queued to enter a plane, d plane passed d runway and shot into tha air taking him to wherever he believes he went. in ten seconds, the whole travelling episode is over. but in actual sense, its imposible. thats time in kairos...

I would agree that we can experience time differently - for example your experience of time whilst asleep. There are many possible examples and scenarios in which time may be perceived differently. The life of a housefly may seem very long to it, but would appear very short to a human. So that is understood.

What is at issue in this thread is the following -

1. Is time an element which was created by or at the moment of the big bang

2, Is time a function of motion or an absolute

pastormustwacc: Stalker and stalkee/stalked, please stop distracting the thread and carry your romance out of this thread. World is about to end, better wake up.

Deep Sight:

I have tried to find it on You Tube but it has been blocked as infringing Intellectual Property rights of the makers.

Do you know what the title of the documentary is?

Deep Sight:
Fair enough: however are you saying that you have never heard of such a statement regarding time in the early universe?

Can't say I have. I don't even understand what is being said there.

Deep Sight:
Exactly, and this shows that you are wrong in your perception of time as being contingent on motion.

Can you tell me what the unit of measurement of time - the second - is contingent on?

It is contingent upon this.

Wikipedia:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

ARE THESE HUMAN BEINGS TALKING HERE OR ALIENS OR ALUMINATI BECAUSE I DONT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE:

PLEASE SOMEONE SHOULD SUMMARIZE ALL THE FINDINGS INTO PLAIN SIMPLE ENGLISH THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME GO FIT UNDERSTAND!

@Deepsight

You're still saying the same old thing!!!! But I see theHomer has provided you with the wiki on the cesium 133 atom. Here is another one
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-units/si-base-units/the-second

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

The atom can be pictured as a mini solar system, with the heavy nucleus at the centre surrounded by electrons in a variety of different orbits. The orbits correspond to energy levels, and electrons can only move between levels when they absorb or release just the right amount of energy.

This energy is absorbed or released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, the frequency of which depends on the difference in energy between the two levels. By measuring the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation, like counting the number of pendulum swings, we can measure the passage of time.

Time measurement has become a basic part of everyday life and accuracies of the nearest minute or a few seconds are usually good enough for most human activities, but highly accurate timing plays a vital role in many other aspects of the modern world. The Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites broadcast timing signals from onboard atomic clocks, which enable land vehicles, shipping and aircraft to know their location within a few metres.

Clocks for the 21st century based on single cold trapped ions or collections of atoms are being developed. Ions are charged atoms which can be trapped almost indefinitely by electromagnetic fields, and cooled by laser beam close to absolute zero. In this way, certain optical absorptions in the ion can exhibit a very pure frequency. This can also be achieved for atoms trapped by intersecting light beams.

At the National Physical Laboratory, optical clocks are being developed which may have accuracies of around 100 times higher than the best current microwave atomic clocks. That is equivalent to losing no more than one second in the lifetime of the universe.

@Martian, i understand and follow your own side of the story, but deepsight is getting me all confused!

pastormustwacc: @Martian, i understand and follow your own side of the story, but deepsight is getting me all confused!

Deepsight holds on to a discredited view of time because it lets him hold on to this idea about a god creating the universe. The problem we have is that he refuses to accept reality and supporting obersvations and calculations that show time to be a measurement of motion(ie the expansion of spacetime and the physical bodies moving through it) instead of a "void where events are etrapolated" that he came up with based on 18th century physcis.

thehomer:

Do you know what the title of the documentary is?

I think it's titled "The Universe" and I have not been able to find a video of it onlne, but I will try to get a transcript of the text.I actually tried to record it as well but failed to do so and I understand anyway that Icannot transfer a recorded version from Dstv's PVR decoder anyhow.

Can't say I have. I don't even understand what is being said there.

Exactly what was said was that within a few minutes [? ? ?] of the expansion, more than 300, 000 years [? ? ?] passed. ? ? ? ! ! !

It is contingent upon this.

And I hope you recognize that that excellenty shows my case to be correct.

I now understand where deepsight is coming from. I have deleted those beliefs out of my mind, and i believe absolutely in "the expansion of spacetime and the physical bodies moving through it".

I believe science has its place (and cannot be replaced by the various god theories):

In Galileo's time the Catholic Church controlled most of the civilized world. The church said that our Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo argued against that proclamation. He said that the Sun was the center of the universe and that Earth orbited it.
In Gallileo's time, if you disagreed with the church, you were either tortured, executed, jailed, or,in gallileo's case, put on house arrest.

Martian: @Deepsight

You're still saying the same old thing!!!! But I see theHomer has provided you with the wiki on the cesium 133 atom. Here is another one
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-units/si-base-units/the-second

You have provided what I expected: a reference for the measurement of time and not time itself.

As a rough analogy, I would say that this is like thinking that the tailor's tape-rule is the cloth.

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Again, the bold word shows exactly what I am saying: namely that it is that specific DURATION that is measured as described above. All you have shown is the method through which that duration is measured. You have not shown that such a duration would not exist without motion.

The atom can be pictured as a mini solar system, with the heavy nucleus at the centre surrounded by electrons in a variety of different orbits. The orbits correspond to energy levels, and electrons can only move between levels when they absorb or release just the right amount of energy.

This energy is absorbed or released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, the frequency of which depends on the difference in energy between the two levels. By measuring the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation, like counting the number of pendulum swings, we can measure the passage of time.

Time measurement has become a basic part of everyday life and accuracies of the nearest minute or a few seconds are usually good enough for most human activities, but highly accurate timing plays a vital role in many other aspects of the modern world. The Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites broadcast timing signals from onboard atomic clocks, which enable land vehicles, shipping and aircraft to know their location within a few metres.

Clocks for the 21st century based on single cold trapped ions or collections of atoms are being developed. Ions are charged atoms which can be trapped almost indefinitely by electromagnetic fields, and cooled by laser beam close to absolute zero. In this way, certain optical absorptions in the ion can exhibit a very pure frequency. This can also be achieved for atoms trapped by intersecting light beams.

At the National Physical Laboratory, optical clocks are being developed which may have accuracies of around 100 times higher than the best current microwave atomic clocks. That is equivalent to losing no more than one second in the lifetime of the universe.

Same as above. You are simply lecturing on method of measurement. You have said essentially nothing relevant to the concerns of the OP.

As such I would simply ask you to address this simple question I raised earlier:


Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

Answer?

@ thehomer,

Please address also my question in red above.

@thehomer and martian,

Please can you address this question also:

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

Many thanks.