Does time exsist?

[Keanumoreira]

The existence or nonexsistence of time is a very complicated understanding, and although I don't believe in it (And I find my personal use for it everyday amusing as I say, "What time is it?") I understand its proponents extensivly. Time has no meaning to space, matter, or simple creations of nature. So why, then, is it important when we come into the picture? As I have said, "Time is an artifical construct, invented by those who seek to understand and change the world around them". The answer is simple: Time does not exsist.

[Harbringe]

The existence or nonexsistence of time is a very complicated understanding, and although I don't believe in it (And I find my personal use for it everyday amusing as I say, "What time is it?") I understand its proponents extensivly. Time has no meaning to space, matter, or simple creations of nature. So why, then, is it important when we come into the picture? As I have said, "Time is an artifical construct, invented by those who seek to understand and change the world around them". The answer is simple: Time does not exsist.

 

I would say time isn't the artificial construct but the means by which we define it are the artificial construct.Being as we are of the third dimension and time is of the fourth dimension ,we exist within its construct and to reason that the measures by which we define it are artificial (seconds ,minutes,hours etc etc) hence invalidating time itself is flawed.Its like if time is a boat passing in the water ,we perceive and define its wake ,because that's the effect time has on us ,time itself is just the boat moving on and our definitions of its wake are just that ,definitions of its wake.

 

As long as we remain in the third dimension we will never be able to see time for what it is ,right now all we can see are the clues in its wake.So when we meet again in the fourth or fifth dimension we will know the answers of time ,see ya there.

[Mr Ham]

The existence or nonexsistence of time is a very complicated understanding, and although I don't believe in it (And I find my personal use for it everyday amusing as I say, "What time is it?") I understand its proponents extensivly. Time has no meaning to space, matter, or simple creations of nature. So why, then, is it important when we come into the picture? As I have said, "Time is an artifical construct, invented by those who seek to understand and change the world around them". The answer is simple: Time does not exsist.

Hogwash! The means to measure and quantify time is a construct, yes. But time certainly exists! Does one moment differ from another? Of course! So then time exists. Nevermind all this silly dimension stuff and whatnot, as long as there is a progression of events, there is time! To say time doesn't exist because the way its measured is artificial is to say length doesn't exist, or that mass doesn't exist; and these most certainly DO exist.

[Keanumoreira]

The existence or nonexsistence of time is a very complicated understanding, and although I don't believe in it (And I find my personal use for it everyday amusing as I say, "What time is it?") I understand its proponents extensivly. Time has no meaning to space, matter, or simple creations of nature. So why, then, is it important when we come into the picture? As I have said, "Time is an artifical construct, invented by those who seek to understand and change the world around them". The answer is simple: Time does not exsist.

 

I would say time isn't the artificial construct but the means by which we define it are the artificial construct.Being as we are of the third dimension and time is of the fourth dimension ,we exist within its construct and to reason that the measures by which we define it are artificial (seconds ,minutes,hours etc etc) hence invalidating time itself is flawed.Its like if time is a boat passing in the water ,we perceive and define its wake ,because that's the effect time has on us ,time itself is just the boat moving on and our definitions of its wake are just that ,definitions of its wake.

 

As long as we remain in the third dimension we will never be able to see time for what it is ,right now all we can see are the clues in its wake.So when we meet again in the fourth or fifth dimension we will know the answers of time ,see ya there.

 

My theory on time is very complex.

 

I do believe in the ten demsension theory, therefore, I have to believe in time. What I don't believe is in the exsistence of time, as in, our own demension. I do believe it does exsist but in the form of the fourth, that feeds directly into ours but isn't trully "here" if you know what I mean. It's a very complicated thought, but my understanding is exactly like yours, just, a little different. So I guess maybe I do, but in universal terms of the idea, I don't.

[Keanumoreira]

The existence or nonexsistence of time is a very complicated understanding, and although I don't believe in it (And I find my personal use for it everyday amusing as I say, "What time is it?") I understand its proponents extensivly. Time has no meaning to space, matter, or simple creations of nature. So why, then, is it important when we come into the picture? As I have said, "Time is an artifical construct, invented by those who seek to understand and change the world around them". The answer is simple: Time does not exsist.

Hogwash! The means to measure and quantify time is a construct, yes. But time certainly exists! Does one moment differ from another? Of course! So then time exists. Nevermind all this silly dimension stuff and whatnot, as long as there is a progression of events, there is time! To say time doesn't exist because the way its measured is artificial is to say length doesn't exist, or that mass doesn't exist; and these most certainly DO exist.

 

Believe it or not, it's still a long debated theory. The main, leading one is that time exsists in the fourth demension and feeds into ours, which I believe. The old one where time moves our world directly, as in from the third and not the fourth, isn't widely accepted. So, in a tecnical sense, time doesn't exist, at least, not here. If proven correct, however.

[Surenas]

Time not only exists in the 4th dimension - it is the 4th dimension.

But how to explain that to 2-dimensional toons, not even Einstein had an idea.

Mission impossible.

[LadyMilla]

Time is a property attached to existence and derived from the notion/phenomenon of change. Without the concept of time, change would be a paradox because you would be able to make a statement that is both true and false (here I exclude self-referencing and circular statements). Time as an observed phenomenon and as a shared experience depends on the comparability of certain recurring sensations/observations that, in turn, rely on the ability of the consciousness to absorb the changes producing those recurring sensations/observations. So, in my opinion, time exists only in conjunction with 'change'. Without change there is no time. The two concepts are intertwined and inseparable.

[Chaosblade02]

Time is relative, I heard if you got a ship that can go the speed of light, and you were to travel to the nearest star, about 4 light years, only about 1 months time would have passed for the occupants aboard the ship, but 4 years would have passed for people stationary on Earth. So there and back would be 8 years, when the occupants on board only aged roughly 2 months. So you basically traveled in the future, from Earths perspective. Now if lets say everyone had access to the ability to travel at light speed, to and from Earth, time on Earth would basically be irrelevant.

[Surenas]

Time is relative, I heard if you got a ship that can go the speed of light, and you were to travel to the nearest star, about 4 light years, only about 1 months time would have passed for the occupants aboard the ship, but 4 years would have passed for people stationary on Earth. So there and back would be 8 years, when the occupants on board only aged roughly 2 months. So you basically traveled in the future, from Earths perspective. Now if lets say everyone had access to the ability to travel at light speed, to and from Earth, time on Earth would basically be irrelevant.

 

Something warns me that a human wouldn't live long enough to outlive the acceleration phase needed to reach light speed, his time runs out in between ^^

[Chaosblade02]

Time is relative, I heard if you got a ship that can go the speed of light, and you were to travel to the nearest star, about 4 light years, only about 1 months time would have passed for the occupants aboard the ship, but 4 years would have passed for people stationary on Earth. So there and back would be 8 years, when the occupants on board only aged roughly 2 months. So you basically traveled in the future, from Earths perspective. Now if lets say everyone had access to the ability to travel at light speed, to and from Earth, time on Earth would basically be irrelevant.

 

Something warns me that a human wouldn't live long enough to outlive the acceleration phase needed to reach light speed, his time runs out in between ^^

 

 

For light speed or near light speed travel to be feasible, all sorts of problems would have to be solved, not just the amount of energy required. They would have to be able to manipulate gravity, and inertia, and what if you hit something going light speed? Even a piece of space debris would destroy you, what if you plow right into an asteroid? We aren't even close, we would have to master and understand everything about the Universe to be able to do this. Advances would have to be made in the understanding physics also.