Meaning of time

[blarp]

still science fiction. Don't think a wikipedia article on something makes it less fictional. They're wikipedia articles on stargates as well.

[Bloodshadow]

still science fiction. Don't think a wikipedia article on something makes it less fictional. They're wikipedia articles on stargates as well.

Do you think I'm stupid or something? Actually read the article before saying things like that.

From the article:

There is no observational evidence for wormholes, but on a theoretical level there are valid solutions to the equations of the theory of general relativity which contain wormholes. Because of its robust theoretical strength, a wormhole is also known as one of the great physics metaphors for teaching general relativity.

It's an article on physics, not science fiction. I'm not saying the article is perfectly valid, but it does cite a large number of sources from peer-reviewed academic sources, which boosts its credibility significantly. There are physics-savvy people looking over articles like these, so chances are any inaccuracies and mistakes will be corrected sooner rather than later.

[Absol]

Chatlog.

Spoiler for okay, so not outright "trolling", just "blow out your mind":

[08/03/2012 08:19:26 PM] Arum: i think imma blow everyones mind with "The meaning of Time"
[08/03/2012 08:19:31 PM] Intense Power: ‹@bjessee› Is that is goal?
[08/03/2012 08:20:12 PM] Intense Power: his
[08/03/2012 08:20:29 PM] bjessee: ‹@Arum› My mind is uninterested in your advances.
[08/03/2012 08:20:44 PM] Vineroz: what
[08/03/2012 08:20:46 PM] Arum: ...
[08/03/2012 08:20:56 PM] Intense Power: ‹@Arum› I didnt understand that
[08/03/2012 08:21:05 PM] Jenkar: ‹@Intense Power› Yep.
[08/03/2012 08:21:10 PM] Arum: You're saying i'm a dummy and you are the albert einstein of the century?
[08/03/2012 08:21:19 PM] Arum: Just read it
[08/03/2012 08:21:26 PM] Intense Power: ‹@Jenkar› Gl
[08/03/2012 08:22:17 PM] Intense Power: well... i recently had a think about time... what do u think it is the
[08/03/2012 08:22:50 PM] bjessee: ‹@Arum› I was making a childish joke on your choice of wording. No insult intended.
[08/03/2012 08:23:05 PM] Arum: ‹@bjessee› yeah, duh
[08/03/2012 08:23:27 PM] Arum: I'm more interested with people seeing the topic than about jokes
[08/03/2012 08:24:57 PM] Intense Power: ‹@Arum› no offense but... WRONG! if everything has an opposite what is the opposite of say.... a football?
[08/03/2012 08:25:33 PM] Jenkar: ‹@Intense Power› :ninja:
[08/03/2012 08:25:44 PM] Arum: ‹@Intense Power› a handball
[08/03/2012 08:25:52 PM] Arum: :3
[08/03/2012 08:25:57 PM] bjessee: ‹@Intense Power› Title IX would say a volleyball.
[08/03/2012 08:26:20 PM] Intense Power: ‹@Arum› ‹@bjessee› no... they are both balls therfore not opposites but similar things...
[08/03/2012 08:26:41 PM] Intense Power: I shall win this arguement!
[08/03/2012 08:27:33 PM] bjessee: My poor attempts at humor are falling flat. Returning to lurk mode.
[08/03/2012 08:27:46 PM] Arum: ‹@Intense Power› They are both balls, yes, inducing link, whilist they are opposites, thus causing the opposition
[08/03/2012 08:28:15 PM] Intense Power: ‹@bjessee› I think it was funny
[08/03/2012 08:28:43 PM] Calindu: And Romania is in the final
[08/03/2012 08:29:09 PM] Intense Power: ‹@Arum› And... that doesnt really make sense...they are both spheres, both balls, both mediumly squidgy so not really COMPLETE opposites

Has your mind been blown?

@OP maker
Answer these  2 questions.

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.

[AnonymousRevival]

Q1: That is philosophy.

Q2: Relativity talks about physics in astronomical scales and light. EM waves are radiation which travel at light speed. So this is the discipline which special relativity covers.

[OldTrees]

Q1: That is philosophy.

Q2: Relativity talks about physics in astronomical scales and light. EM waves are radiation which travel at light speed. So this is the discipline which special relativity covers.

Q1 was a skeptical question aimed at a premise in the OP.
It is relevant to this thread even if not to this forum.

[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.

[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]

 I've never said anti-matter and dark-matter are the same thing, however dark-matter and dark-energy are also viewed as "opposites" of the normal matter and enegry. Anyway, the fact everything must has an opposite in order to exists is a highly theoretical opinion in both scientific and philosophical social circles.
 
 By the way, the theory of relativity has yet to be proven 100%, so it is still a theory. If it is proven 100%, then it will be probably renamed to law of relativity. Though it is the most promising of the theories, there are a few things in relativity which contradict each other and that may prove relativity wrong as a theory.

[Pineapple]

I can't believe you think such a serious question is trolling; the greatest minds of humanity have tried to give an answer here...

We do not believe that it's a silly question. In face, the only reason I thought Arum was trolling was because the answer he gave in the opening post seemed logically invalid.

Q1: That is philosophy.

No. It is extremely unscientific to claim "something exists iff it has an opposite" without providing conclusive evidence.
We are asking for the aforementioned conclusive evidence.

[Bloodshadow]

 By the way, the theory of relativity has yet to be proven 100%, so it is still a theory. If it is proven 100%, then it will be probably renamed to law of relativity. Though it is the most promising of the theories, there are a few things in relativity which contradict each other and that may prove relativity wrong as a theory.

Gravity is a theory. When normal people say theory, they usually mean hypothesis. As far as I remember, there aren't really any differences between a scientific theory and scientific law; they're used pretty much interchangeably.

I know that relativity isn't 100% correct yet. Special relativity is mostly good, but we've yet to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. We still have lots of kinks to work out.

[Arum]

 By the way, the theory of relativity has yet to be proven 100%, so it is still a theory. If it is proven 100%, then it will be probably renamed to law of relativity. Though it is the most promising of the theories, there are a few things in relativity which contradict each other and that may prove relativity wrong as a theory.

Gravity is a theory. When normal people say theory, they usually mean hypothesis. As far as I remember, there aren't really any differences between a scientific theory and scientific law; they're used pretty much interchangeably.

I know that relativity isn't 100% correct yet. Special relativity is mostly good, but we've yet to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. We still have lots of kinks to work out.

And thus is also the problem at hand here. Time exists, yet it cannot.

[Bloodshadow]

And thus is also the problem at hand here. Time exists, yet it cannot.

You are ignoring my points. Specifically, these:

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.

The logic you used to derive the conclusion "time cannot exist" is faulty, as said here:

No. It is extremely unscientific to claim "something exists iff it has an opposite" without providing conclusive evidence.
We are asking for the aforementioned conclusive evidence.

[memimemi]

Gravity is a theory. When normal people say theory, they usually mean hypothesis. As far as I remember, there aren't really any differences between a scientific theory and scientific law; they're used pretty much interchangeably.

I know that relativity isn't 100% correct yet. Special relativity is mostly good, but we've yet to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. We still have lots of kinks to work out.

[nitpick] There are differences between a scientific Theory (such as evolution, relativity, abiogenesis, etc) and Law (such as the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Gravity, etc).

Basically, a Theory (in the scientific sense) is a set of postulates that provide a 'best fit' explanation of a given set of observations; a Law, on the other hand, is a Theory that has withstood repeated testing, from various angles, and has shown itself to be an extremely good fit for observed facts - and can provide predictions as to the makeup of yet to be discovered phenomena.

Theory is proto-law, if you will.
[/nitpick]

[Bloodshadow]

[nitpick] There are differences between a scientific Theory (such as evolution, relativity, abiogenesis, etc) and Law (such as the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Gravity, etc).

Basically, a Theory (in the scientific sense) is a set of postulates that provide a 'best fit' explanation of a given set of observations; a Law, on the other hand, is a Theory that has withstood repeated testing, from various angles, and has shown itself to be an extremely good fit for observed facts - and can provide predictions as to the makeup of yet to be discovered phenomena.

Theory is proto-law, if you will.
[/nitpick]

Evolution and relativity have understood repeated testing, from various angles, and have shown themselves to be extremely good fits for observed facts, and can provide predictions as to the makeup of yet to be discovered phenomena. There is no reason to call general relativity a theory, but classical mechanics as a law (i.e. Newton's laws), especially since relativity is actually a better description of gravity compared to Newtonian mechanics.