Meaning of time

[memimemi]

[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.

Ah, but Relativity isn't complete, yet - though it has described previously unobserved phenomena, such as gravitational lensing, it still has some internal contradictions to iron out (the Cosmological Constant comes to mind).  Is the universe open, or closed?  Relativity cannot say; it works equally well in both cases.  Is evolution steady or punctuated?  There isn't enough evidence yet to say, though current wisdom is that Stephen J. Gould was misguided on this point.

When more testing is done, the picture should come into sharper focus; when the focus reaches a critical mass, wherein all internal contradictions/paradoxes/ambiguities are removed, then a Theory can be meaningfully spoken of as a Law.

[Bloodshadow]

Ah, but Relativity isn't complete, yet - though it has described previously unobserved phenomena, such as gravitational lensing, it still has some internal contradictions to iron out (the Cosmological Constant comes to mind).  Is the universe open, or closed?  Relativity cannot say; it works equally well in both cases.  Is evolution steady or punctuated?  There isn't enough evidence yet to say, though current wisdom is that Stephen J. Gould was misguided on this point.

When more testing is done, the picture should come into sharper focus; when the focus reaches a critical mass, wherein all internal contradictions/paradoxes/ambiguities are removed, then a Theory can be meaningfully spoken of as a Law.

Newton's laws are inherently incomplete, which is why we now use general relativity. Yet we still call them laws. To me, it's really just arbitrary whether you call something a law or a theory.

[OldTrees]

 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.

Umm.
1) An opposite (your definition) of Time is Length therefore Time can exist.
2) Your definition of opposite is versatile to the point of meaninglessness. Two concepts can be made opposites by classifying one concept in a set of 1 member. Then the two concepts are on opposite sides of the border of the set.

[memimemi]

Ah, but Relativity isn't complete, yet - though it has described previously unobserved phenomena, such as gravitational lensing, it still has some internal contradictions to iron out (the Cosmological Constant comes to mind).  Is the universe open, or closed?  Relativity cannot say; it works equally well in both cases.  Is evolution steady or punctuated?  There isn't enough evidence yet to say, though current wisdom is that Stephen J. Gould was misguided on this point.

When more testing is done, the picture should come into sharper focus; when the focus reaches a critical mass, wherein all internal contradictions/paradoxes/ambiguities are removed, then a Theory can be meaningfully spoken of as a Law.

Newton's laws are inherently incomplete, which is why we now use general relativity. Yet we still call them laws. To me, it's really just arbitrary whether you call something a law or a theory.

This is a pretty good summation of the differences between hypothesis, theory, and law.  Note that I was wrong, too!

[ARTHANASIOS]

This is a pretty good summation of the differences between hypothesis, theory, and law.  Note that I was wrong, too!

 Actually, you were not completely wrong, since Laws have greater value in Physics than a Theory. Laws are either proven 100% correct in scientific community, at least at their time, or they're still the most successful mechanics to describe a great variety of phenomena. Even nowdays, for example, Newton Laws don't exist in extremely high velocities, however there are the best mechanics to describe common physical phenomena (Theory of Relativity, for example, may describe everyday life's phenomena, but it is far too complicated in comparison with Newton laws, so Newton Laws > Relative Theory in everyday life). On the other hand, some theories are powerful but they're still easy to disbelieve them and they're not 100% coorect at their time (Theory of Relativity is a great example here).

[AnonymousRevival]

So is quantum phenomena. At first quantum physics is the opposite of relativity not only because of the study or discipline itself, but of its characteristics. However, Stephen Hawking managed to consolidate them in "Hawking Radiation", the radiation emitted from black holes. This is probably why he is perhaps one of the most well profound scientists in the world today.

This consolidation also explains things like "why gold is yellow" and why the nucleus of an atom is always younger than the electrons at the outer shell, and the heavier the nucleus, the younger the electrons in the nucleus will be.

[Mathematistic]

...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?

I fear that I might be tracked down and assassinated if I post the exact content. After all, it was some absurd discussion which I was forced to be engaged in... oh boy, calculus is not my thing in 3D...
And the guy did not attempt to explain anything. He is trying to prove himself right by tossing out technical things from various aspects, including literature, philosophy, and science.
But after all, he, like all debaters who want to "win" instead of present his stand-point, is not trying to make normal people like me understand...
Btw, I don't like debate people as well. At least, those I've seen. Their debating style is like trying to explain atomic physics to a kid. Their attitude is like, "I am better than you I know about quarks, leptons, bosons and all the stuff".
It was indeed a nightmare. No, more of a Ghostmare.
As for the PDE, it was something from quantum physics IIRC.

[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?

I fear that I might be tracked down and assassinated if I post the exact content. After all, it was some absurd discussion which I was forced to be engaged in... oh boy, calculus is not my thing in 3D...
And the guy did not attempt to explain anything. He is trying to prove himself right by tossing out technical things from various aspects, including literature, philosophy, and science.
But after all, he, like all debaters who want to "win" instead of present his stand-point, is not trying to make normal people like me understand...
Btw, I don't like debate people as well. At least, those I've seen. Their debating style is like trying to explain atomic physics to a kid. Their attitude is like, "I am better than you I know about quarks, leptons, bosons and all the stuff".
It was indeed a nightmare. No, more of a Ghostmare.
As for the PDE, it was something from quantum physics IIRC.

Yeah, I would not consider that jerk to be a philosopher. The philosophers I have encountered were much more interested in discovering wisdom than in convincing others they were wise.
Philosophy is usually discussion rather than debate. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is probably a better example. It uses a thought experiment to investigate one's moral intuitions.

PS: I also have a problem with most debates. I prefer the goal being discovering the truth rather than convincing others of your belief.

[AnonymousRevival]

Well, there really is no need to call people a jerk. It's not like he's trolling or flaming or anything like that.

And if there really is the need to, please be at least euphemistic, like: "A wise person speaks because he has something to say, a fool because he has to say something" or something like that.

[OldTrees]

Well, there really is no need to call people a jerk. It's not like he's trolling or flaming or anything like that.

And if there really is the need to, please be at least euphemistic, like: "A wise person speaks because he has something to say, a fool because he has to say something" or something like that.

The person Mathematistic was referring to was not trolling or flaming but was bullying via obfuscation for the sake of winning an argument. Aka winning an argument by sounding smart despite having a bad argument.
Since I cannot reach that person to correct them I took the second best option of empathizing with Mathematistic. (The use of the word jerk followed by the clarifying euphemism)
/off topic

[AnonymousRevival]

I understand, but even if he/she really is stupefying, there really is room for euphemism you know what I mean?

This is a forum. Even if there are some @$*()*^$#, which I totally get, it is a place to welcome people and communicate.

[OldTrees]

I understand, but even if he/she really is stupefying, there really is room for euphemism you know what I mean?

This is a forum. Even if there are some @$*()*^$#, which I totally get, it is a place to welcome people and communicate.

Um. The person in question is not part of the forum. This was about a past experience IRL.