Meaning of time

[Pineapple]

I haven't been to the forums in a while. I thought Arum is trolling as well, but I don't know him, and didn't want to offend him, so I didn't accuse him of trolling. If he is trolling though... I'm disappointed.

Actually, Arum never really came to me as the trolling sort. *checks Humor and past posts*

[AnonymousRevival]

Actually, time is a genuine and perceptive thing at the same time.

Perceptive: Because as we go on through life, we are used to time as to how it works, as we grow older, we view time as moving faster. This is why childhood seems to be an eternity whereas in adulthood a year seems like a few months. There is a formula infact: √ √ X/10, where X is one's age. (This only applies when one is around 10 years old, don't ask me why).
This formula determines the speed at which we perceive time. So when you're ten years old, 1 second that your perceive really is 1 second.
But as you reach adulthood, you will view time as being 1.2x faster than you were ten years old (21/10 = 2.1, sqrt 2.1 twice and you get ~1.2)
As when you're 60 years old, time is around 1.56x faster than when you were ten years old.

Genuine:  always increases. This increase disorder, this distributes energy more evenly throughout the universe. The even distribution of energy, increase time, due to equations in relativity which show mass energy equivalence (E =mc^2 or E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 if you're really intelligent.) This results in an increase in mass in the universe, and more mass means more , and more means more time quickening because  influences  .

So whichever way,  is increasing both genuinely and perceptively. It is inevitable.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Let me say some things both as a physicist and an Elements player:

1) Arun is NOT trolling at all. The existence of time has troubled a lot of philosophers or scientists and it still troubles them even today.

2) Arun's opinion that something must has an opposite in order to exists is against our common sense, but it is a respected opinion in scientific social circles. Most theoretical scientists believe in dark-matter and dark-energy, which are somewhat the opposites of normal matter and energy (note: dark-matter shouldn't be confused with anti-matter, though anti-matter is also somewhat the opposite of normal matter). The number "zero" (0) has no opposite (it is neither positive or negative number) and that's a reason it describes the "lack of existence" of a value. Zero kilogrammes is nothing, zero miles is nothing, zero acceleration is nothing etc. Other theories go as far as to support the existence of a universe parallel to ours, which is either exactly the same or exactly the opposite,.

3) The problem with time is that it is considered a dimension (like width, length and height) and, as a dimension, must has two directions (like width alone has two directions, like length alone has two directions, like height alone has two directions). Alone here means without combining it with another dimension, because the directions would be infinite then (e.g. width and length together have two-dimensional infinite directions, width and length and height together have three-dimensinal infinite directions etc.). So, if time goes forward and it is indeed the fourth dimension, that means it can go backwards too. However, let aside time-traveling science-fiction, the scientific community hasn't detected any signs of time flowing backwards, so it is either a special 4th dimension which doesn't follow all the rules the rest of the dimensions follow or time is not a dimension at all.

4) Many scientists and philosophers believe that time is just an "illusion". That means it doesn't literally exists, but it is used to describe the action/re-action of the objects in the universe, which would be totally chaotic otherwise. Like mathematics and numbers, time is a human foundation in order to be able to count things with greater accurasy and ease.

5) However, we all know that has an opposite; ! And if anyone defies its existence shall be devoured by Scarab swarms!!

A few useful links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

[Absol]

1) Arun is NOT trolling at all.

Except that he posted in chat that he was.

[Mathematistic]

That's pretty awkward, because time actually does exist. And, as it just so happens, the existence of time is pretty integral to modern physics and our understanding of the universe.

You say that everything has an opposite, but don't say why. Why must everything have an opposite? Why is death the opposite of life? Why is hate the opposite of love? Why is stasis the opposite of time? It seems that your pattern for choosing an opposite is ill-defined and fairly arbitrary. What if the opposite of life is non-life (different to death) and the opposite of love is apathy?

Re-quote of the old post. Really, this is awesome.
Scientists don't ask why. They ask how.

If you are asking why, get the heck out of the Science page. Go to philosophy.

[ARTHANASIOS]

That's pretty awkward, because time actually does exist. And, as it just so happens, the existence of time is pretty integral to modern physics and our understanding of the universe.

You say that everything has an opposite, but don't say why. Why must everything have an opposite? Why is death the opposite of life? Why is hate the opposite of love? Why is stasis the opposite of time? It seems that your pattern for choosing an opposite is ill-defined and fairly arbitrary. What if the opposite of life is non-life (different to death) and the opposite of love is apathy?

Re-quote of the old post. Really, this is awesome.
Scientists don't ask why. They ask how.

If you are asking why, get the heck out of the Science page. Go to philosophy.

 Both scientist and philosophers ask both how and why. The questions "How gravity works?" and "Why the pencil moves toward the floor instead of reaching the ceiling?" are both valid in Physics, thought "how" is easier to study than "why".
 Furthermore, there is something people often don't know or forget and that is the following fact: "Scientists came out from Philosophy, especially Physics". Actually, Physics in its theory thinks and behaves much like Philosophy. The existence or non-existence of multiverse, dark-matter, big bang, time etc. are yet to be proven completely. Only "laws" have been proven completely (that's why they're called "laws") while "theories" are still... theories. If a theory is proven 100% true, then it will be renamed to "law". So, if the general theory of relativity is found as a 100% correct physical system, it will probably be renamed to general law of relativity.
 

[Mathematistic]

Spoiler for Hidden:

That's pretty awkward, because time actually does exist. And, as it just so happens, the existence of time is pretty integral to modern physics and our understanding of the universe.

You say that everything has an opposite, but don't say why. Why must everything have an opposite? Why is death the opposite of life? Why is hate the opposite of love? Why is stasis the opposite of time? It seems that your pattern for choosing an opposite is ill-defined and fairly arbitrary. What if the opposite of life is non-life (different to death) and the opposite of love is apathy?

Re-quote of the old post. Really, this is awesome.
Scientists don't ask why. They ask how.

If you are asking why, get the heck out of the Science page. Go to philosophy.

 Both scientist and philosophers ask both how and why. The questions "How gravity works?" and "Why the pencil moves toward the floor instead of reaching the ceiling?" are both valid in Physics, thought "how" is easier to study than "why".
 Furthermore, there is something people often don't know or forget and that is the following fact: "Scientists came out from Philosophy, especially Physics". Actually, Physics in its theory thinks and behaves much like Philosophy. The existence or non-existence of multiverse, dark-matter, big bang, time etc. are yet to be proven completely. Only "laws" have been proven completely (that's why they're called "laws") while "theories" are still... theories. If a theory is proven 100% true, then it will be renamed to "law". So, if the general theory of relativity is found as a 100% correct physical system, it will probably be renamed to general law of relativity.

Well, in fact, everything comes out from philosophy. The "why?" in philosophy is eventually converted to "how?" in science.
For example, we all know that heat flows from hot objects to cold objects. But why?
And then, scientist though of it. They defined something - entropy - to describe the natural direction. Towards chaos. Towards disorder. Heat flows from hot objects to cold objects because the total entropy increases.
But at the end, why does this happen? Why does entropy always increase (if you want to be picky on this question with Clausius inequality, no, I suck at thermos*)? Why is it defined like this? After all we don't know the fundamental reason why this happens. But we are able to describe it and predict it (or maybe not, particles tend to be unpredictable...). That's where science shine.
As for theories, they are attempts to answer "why?" with certain conditions set, but the condition will almost surely create another "why?". Take the following example:
Why does an apple fall down? Because there is gravity.
Why is there gravity? Because earth has mass.
Why is there mass? Because stuff interact with the Higgs field and stuff. (still a maybe, actually. Higgs boson isn't 5-sigma'd yet IIRC)
Why is there "stuff"? erm... maybe the next question for science after "stuff" get 5-sigma'd. but still, it goes on.
Science answers "why?" by creating "why?"s. But what we can obtain is the practical "how?". The true, fundamental cause is better left for philosophers.

*since ds=dq(reversible)/T, and the Clausius inequality states that ds>=dq/T, dq(reversible)>=dq. As total entropy change is equal to delta s (of system; reversible)+ delta s (of surrounding; irreversible), it is always positive. But why does it happens to be like that? I don't know. Maybe you know, but you have to define so more stuff to verify it. After all I'm just a high-school kid. Don't bully me on science ><

[ARTHANASIOS]

^Don't worry, mathematistic, I don't bully you at all. You're actually very clever already and the answer you gabe me was very well-developed. I actually think you deserve a +1 reputation for this.

[Mathematistic]

^Don't worry, mathematistic, I don't bully you at all. You're actually very clever already and the answer you gabe me was very well-developed. I actually think you deserve a +1 reputation for this.

Oh, really? Thanks for the compliment!
...I have something against philosophy people though. I have some bad experience at school when those people throw terms (philosophers' names, their writings etc, one even threw a partial differential equation at me to prove his philosophical view) at me right away. In fact, the philosophy people here are all very kind.
The "why/how" thing is what I remember most from my physics teacher. IMO it is what defines science; science never solve "why?" but excels in giving descriptions of everything, from particles to chemicals, to organisms, to earth, to the universe, although most of them are yet to be completed.

It looks like I got OT here... but "what's the opposite of time?" is better answered by philosophers than scientists.

[OldTrees]

...I have something against philosophy people though. I have some bad experience at school when those people throw terms (philosophers' names, their writings etc, one even threw a partial differential equation at me to prove his philosophical view) at me right away. In fact, the philosophy people here are all very kind.

Sorry for continuing this off topic discussion but:
Could you give an example of one of these bad experiences?
Was it something like they wanted to describe X's theory or was it something else?
Also what was the partial differential equation used for?

[Arum]

I don't believe in the "arrow of time" thing. Or, at least, my current understanding of physics is not sufficient to convince me that the "arrow of time" concept is worth considering. Time can't be only an indicator of entropy. For one thing, it doesn't reconcile with relativity. For another thing, on a quantum level it is actually possible for entropy to spontaneously decrease, as far as I know; entropy only tends to increase on a macroscopic scale.

You know what? I'm going to point out all logical fallacies in this thread. I don't mean to offend anyone with this post. So if you think I'm sounding condescending, deal with it.

The most prominent logical fallacies in this thread are ambiguity, and the lack of internal consistency. A number of hidden assumptions have also been made, but not explicitly stated, making the ambiguities worse.

Time has a problem. It can't logically exist.

Here, look at it this way. Everything has an opposite that it exists with. Life has death. Love has hate. Time has stasis, but where is stasis shown?
Stasis only appears in our perception of time, yet it doesn't affect anything else. This means that Time is only a part of perception, and not a real event or thing. It is only an abstract word for an experience that happens during our life.

This means we can perceive time however we like, with a second being forever or an hour being a very short length of experience in the world.

1. You assume that everything has an opposite. You have not stated why this is so, and you have not stated clearly just exactly what it means to be opposite.

2. You assume that if an object possesses some property, its opposite also possesses that property. You then concluded that if "stasis" has the property "is a part of human perception", its opposite, "time", has that property as well. You have not stated why this is so.

3. You have not distinguished between time itself, the dimension, and movement through time. "Stasis", the lack of movement through time, is only the opposite of movement through time, not time itself. This is one of your many ambiguities.

Everything has an opposite that it exists with.

What's the opposite of a book.

Journal or movie.

As long as there is a defined line, something can have many opposites.

4. You are being very ambiguous here. How many opposites can an object have? Why?

5. In #2 you assume that if the opposite of an object has some property, then the object has that property as well. But what if one of the object's opposites has some property, but another of the object's opposites doesn't have that property? A journal has the property of being composed of words, but a movie has the property of being not composed of words; they're supposedly both opposites of a book. When you have conflicting properties like this, which one takes precedence? Why?

Opposite: Adj. A term used to describe a cancellation of each other in some way or form.

6. This definition is highly ambiguous. What does it mean for two objects to cancel each other? What remains after the cancellation? What are the limitations to "some way or form"?

.... then you have to explain how a journal/movie cancels a book, in any way or form.

A book you read. It is physical.
A movie you watch. It is more static.

Physical movement=/=automative movement

A journal you write.
A book you read.

Read=/=write

7. Here, you're speaking as though inequality is the same thing as cancellation. No, they are not the same thing. 1 is not equal to 2, but they do not cancel each other in any way, as far as I know, assuming that we're operating in the system of mathematics accepted by the general populace.

8. Here, you've violated your assumption #2. Back then, you assumed that if an object possesses some property, its opposite also possesses the same property. A book is a physical object, but a movie is not. If only certain properties are shared between opposites, you have not clearly defined what these properties are.

It depends on what height. If it is general height, then height will cancel itself out.

9. You are stating that some objects are their own opposites, but haven't clarified when, how, or why. You are also not being clear exactly what you mean by "general" height.

Hmph. I guess you're right.

10. You are admitting that your opponent is correct. You are not continuing to defend your position. Does this mean you surrender?

Why do you guys have to find opposites for everything that other people have made?

Granted, every push has the opportunity for a pull, but how can you pull the push of, say, moss?

WAT.

Well, you guys were talking about opposites. In fact, you started out talking about opposites.
So I found the flaw in your argument. That's how debating goes, right?

I meant to say that what you said makes no sense to me.

11. Your inability to understand your opponent does not necessarily make your opponent's argument incorrect or invalid.

1. An opposite is something that contradicts something. Like heat contradicts cold, life contradicts death.
2. Opposites have a relation between themselves, like life and death are part of existence.
3. Stasis is also like time. Stasis freezes everything, including the movement of time, and the dimension of time.
4. An object can have potentially infinite opposites, as long as they contradict each other in some way or form.
5. As long as they share a similar infliction, like a journal you write, a movie you write then cast.
6. The cancellation means practically nothing except as a signifier of an opposite, and in the case of antimatter, boom goes the matter. They both remain after the cancellation, but in the case of antimatter, well, you get that. The some way or form means that it needs a relation, and a cancellation.
7.I am not saying inequality is opposition, but rather a cancellation is a opposition.
8. The only properties that matter is a relation and a cancellation.
9. Some objects have their own opposites, because they cancel themselves out. General height means all kinds of height, which can be cancelled out by all types of height or depth.
10. No.
11. Of course it doesn't. I'm just asking for clarification, if you're wonder in that post.

P.s. I AM NOT FREAKING TROLLING
(looking at you absol). Nowhere in chat did i mention I was trolling. I am only merely pointing something out about time. Thanks ARTHANASIOS for telling others I'm not trolling.

[Arum]

1) Arun is NOT trolling at all.

Except that he posted in chat that he was.

To everyone here:
I saw in chat yesterday that this thread is just "trolling". Or is it joking?
Will search chat history later. The point is, this should be moved to humor section.

I haven't been to the forums in a while. I thought Arum is trolling as well, but I don't know him, and didn't want to offend him, so I didn't accuse him of trolling. If he is trolling though... I'm disappointed.

Listen up. I am not trolling, and if someone really did go on my account and say that, then know it wasn't me.