Meaning of time

[ARTHANASIOS]

^Just to say something before I go to bed. The opposite of H (and any kind of "H") is the anti-H or the dark-H. "H" is either matter or energy in order to exists, so its anti-matter or dark-matter and its dark-energy are its opposites. However, according to some theories, the opposite of H is another H which exists in a mirror/parallel universe of ours.

[memimemi]

^Just to say something before I go to bed. The opposite of H (and any kind of "H") is the anti-H or the dark-H. "H" is either matter or energy in order to exists, so its anti-matter or dark-matter and its dark-energy are its opposites. However, according to some theories, the opposite of H is another H which exists in a mirror/parallel universe of ours.

[nitpick] Dark Matter is not considered to be in opposition to normal matter; it's 'Dark' because we can't see it, and it doesn't interact with ordinary matter.  It is very different from Antimatter, which DOES interact, and violently at that, with ordinary matter.  Basically, you seem to be saying that a Neutralino = a Positron, in opposition to an Electron.  This is patently false; were it true, the universe, both local and distant, would have annihilated all ordinary matter, long ago.[/nitpick]

[Bloodshadow]

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.

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.

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.

OldTrees is handling this part pretty well, so I'll not repeat everything he said. You are still being extremely ambiguous and inconsistent.

3. Stasis is also like time. Stasis freezes everything, including the movement of time, and the dimension of time.

You cannot "freeze" the dimension of time. Otherwise, it's like you can "freeze" length, which makes absolutely no sense.

The cancellation means practically nothing except as a signifier of an opposite

So to be opposite means to cancel, but to cancel means to be opposite. You're using a circular definition here.

7.I am not saying inequality is opposition, but rather a cancellation is a opposition.

I don't see how a book cancels out a movie. Reading is not equal to writing, so the inequality relation holds. But reading does not cancel out writing.

Then again, this question is entirely meaningless, as you've basically defined cancellation in a completely tautological way that contains no useful information, as I said above.

8. The only properties that matter is a relation and a cancellation.

Then you cannot reach the conclusion that time doesn't exist outside human perception, because the property of being a part of human perception is not relevant when opposites are concerned.

Again, you did not respond to the two most important points that totally shut down your entire argument.

1. Why does everything have to have an opposite?

2. It has already been shown through countless experiments that the theory of special relativity is an accurate description of the physical world. According to special relativity, time is a real, physical thing, not just a part of human perception. It is required for electromagnetic waves to exist.

[blarp]

Well I wouldn't call time a real, physical thing. Not going to spend a day reading through this thread so I'm not entirely sure what ya'll are arguing on about, but time is just a byproduct of cause of effect. something causes something else to happen, but that reaction will never be instantaneous, and therefore there is a perceived order of events which we describe as time.

Kinda just bullshitted all that off the top of my head, but makes sense to me.

[OldTrees]

2. It has already been shown through countless experiments that the theory of special relativity is an accurate description of the physical world. According to special relativity, time is a real, physical thing, not just a part of human perception. It is required for electromagnetic waves to exist.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Isn't relatively stating that our perception of something* affects the observer as if it were what existed. So 2 observers can observe 2 events happen in opposite orders. Both will be affected as if their perception was accurate. However if you know the relation between the 2 observer frames of reference you would be able to determine which event happened first from the objective reference.

*Things that behave according to relativity.

Well I wouldn't call time a real, physical thing. Not going to spend a day reading through this thread so I'm not entirely sure what ya'll are arguing on about, but time is just a byproduct of cause of effect. something causes something else to happen, but that reaction will never be instantaneous, and therefore there is a perceived order of events which we describe as time.

Kinda just bullshitted all that off the top of my head, but makes sense to me.

Time may not be a physical object. However whether dimensions exist or not is a question of metaphysics(Specificically the philosopical question of "What does being mean?").

[blarp]

I'm all for additional dimensions, but alternate time realities is a no go if there's infinite universes, sure, maybe some turned out exactly the same and are in a different time atm, but that isn't relevant to time travel stuff. Different thing.

You can make time a dimension simply by defining what the object was at a particular time or something like that.

and what does existence mean is a boring question.

[Bloodshadow]

Well I wouldn't call time a real, physical thing. Not going to spend a day reading through this thread so I'm not entirely sure what ya'll are arguing on about, but time is just a byproduct of cause of effect. something causes something else to happen, but that reaction will never be instantaneous, and therefore there is a perceived order of events which we describe as time.

Kinda just bullshitted all that off the top of my head, but makes sense to me.

No, that is not correct. Time is a real, physical thing. If you move at close to the speed of light relative to me, in my frame of reference your time is going forward more slowly. If we both carry clocks, your clock would be slower than mine. This has been experimentally verified countless times. In fact, GPS satellites are designed to take time dilation into effect when measuring position, otherwise they'll be like hundreds of meters off or something.

Isn't relatively stating that our perception of something* affects the observer as if it were what existed. So 2 observers can observe 2 events happen in opposite orders. Both will be affected as if their perception was accurate. However if you know the relation between the 2 observer frames of reference you would be able to determine which event happened first from the objective reference.

*Things that behave according to relativity.

There is no "objective frame of reference". Everything is subjective. In your example, you are looking at the other 2 observers from your own frame of reference.

All special relativity says is that the laws of physics are the same in all non-inertial frames of reference. More specifically, the laws of physics governing electromagnetism. Electromagnetic waves must always travel at the speed of light, regardless of which frame of reference you're in; otherwise the waves cannot exist as they are. From this simple rule, we can derive things like time dilation, length contraction, and even the famous E=mc².

[AnonymousRevival]

Actually travelling through time is possible. Currently, the best method is to travel through a wormhole.
@Blood
Well, technically e= mc^2 is for rest mass. The mass energy equivalence equation while moving is e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2. Where p is momentum.

[OldTrees]

I'm all for additional dimensions, but alternate time realities is a no go if there's infinite universes, sure, maybe some turned out exactly the same and are in a different time atm, but that isn't relevant to time travel stuff. Different thing.

You can make time a dimension simply by defining what the object was at a particular time or something like that.

and what does existence mean is a boring question.

I meant dimensions like length.

I am sorry that you feel "What does being mean?" is boring. Some people like wondering if numbers are real. It is an important question for identifying where the border between where reality ends and non real things that influence reality begin.

[Bloodshadow]

Actually travelling through time is possible. Currently, the best method is to travel through a wormhole.

I thought that part of physics is sketchy and dubious at best. Wormholes involve event horizons and stuff, and need some weird exotic matter to hold them open or something, so they remain purely in the realm of theory.

@Blood
Well, technically e= mc^2 is for rest mass. The mass energy equivalence equation while moving is e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2. Where p is momentum.

Yes, I know that. Mentioning the extra bit will just needlessly complicate things, so I didn't. Nuclear and annihilation reactions are rare as they are, without them moving relative to some frame of reference at near the speed of light.

[blarp]

Actually travelling through time is possible. Currently, the best method is to travel through a wormhole.

I thought that part of physics is sketchy and dubious at best. Wormholes involve event horizons and stuff, and need some weird exotic matter to hold them open or something, so they remain purely in the realm of theory.

@Blood
Well, technically e= mc^2 is for rest mass. The mass energy equivalence equation while moving is e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2. Where p is momentum.

Yes, I know that. Mentioning the extra bit will just needlessly complicate things, so I didn't. Nuclear and annihilation reactions are rare as they are, without them moving relative to some frame of reference at near the speed of light.

lol. You're mixing in WAY too much science fiction in their dude. wormholes and crap is not real life. nuclear reactions aren't rare.... you know how many stars there are in the universe?

[Bloodshadow]

lol. You're mixing in WAY too much science fiction in their dude. wormholes and crap is not real life. nuclear reactions aren't rare.... you know how many stars there are in the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

This is the wormhole I'm talking about. It has little to do with wormholes in science fiction.

And I was talking about nuclear reactions on Earth, obviously. Rare, as you don't see them often in everyday life, unless you work at a nuclear power plant or particle accelerator or something.

Please think twice before laughing at me. Chances are I'm not as ignorant as you think.