Time

Perfect Teeth:

Just because time doesn't exist doesn't

Why do you say that? Better yet, with all the scientific knowledge surrounding time, how can you say that?

Time is nothing. I don't understand how these scientists can't understand that. We created it. If someone can prove time exists, I'd like to know.

Time is a measurement. And yes, it is necessary, I'll never deny that. But it's not intrinsic to the universe.

Wikipedia:

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

That's what Wiki says, and it explains it better than I could. It's what people perceive time to be, that makes it hard for them to see how it doesn't exist. Change the perception of time, and it's obvious that it's not real.

Perfect Teeth:

Time is nothing. I don't understand how these scientists can't understand that. We created it. If someone can prove time exists, I'd like to know.

Time is a measurement. And yes, it is necessary, I'll never deny that. But it's not intrinsic to the universe.

I think you're mixing up two different concepts.

The time we use to measure things and the physical entity of time are two completely, totally different things. You're confusing two separate things. Things like hours, minutes or years have nothing to do with the space-time continuum in science.

Except that the space part of the space-time continuum is still theoretical, isn't it?

Perfect Teeth:

Except that the space part of the space-time continuum is still theoretical, isn't it?

What do you mean?

Shes right

Mater is just a theory.

Its a widely accepted theory, but atoms and molecules only work the way we think they do if all the experiments they have thought up show they do, actually show what we think they do.

physics is all theory.

MAD:

Shes right

Mater is just a theory.

Its a widely accepted theory, but atoms and molecules only work the way we think they do if all the experiments they have thought up show they do, actually show what we think they do.

physics is all theory.

But can you prove that physics are wrong?

Can you prove it right?

Who does the burdon of proof really lay on here?

Certainly not me, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, least of all myself.

No, there is no way to prove any of the physical properties used in science conclusively without making leaps of faith.

Thats a fact.

Things like Mater and Gravity, all just theories.

kafka.:

But can you prove that physics are wrong?

Nope. It's rather difficult to discuss anything scientific when someone is caught up on the word theory. Any proposed explanation for any natural phenomena will always be a theory, regardless of the mountains of evidence in support of it or the consensus from the scientific community.

MAD:

Things like Mater and Gravity, all just theories.

Actually that's incorrect. Universal gravitation is a law, not a theory. You seem to be confusing the two.

MAD:

Can you prove it right?

In the case of time, Albert Einstein already did.

His constants are incomplete and leave a margin of error.

And no even the "laws" are all just parts of theories. just because they call them laws does not make them fact.

Strong nuclear force, gravity, weak nuclear force, all just theories. nothing can be proven absolutely.

Of course we could just assume things the way physicists do, just for the sake of argument... but where would be the fun in that?

MAD:

And no even the "laws" are all just parts of theories

No they aren't. If a law were part of a theory it wouldn't be a law. I don't think you understand what a theory is and what a law is. A law summarizes something that happens in nature, we can observe it constantly, it is indisputably fact. A law doesn't explain anything, it simply tells what is happening, such as the laws of inertia.
A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force
That always is true. That law doesn't explain why that happens or how, because then it wouldn't be a law. It just tells what happens to make way for someone to try and explain it. Theories explain laws. The theory of special relativity helps us to understand the law of inertia by offering an explanation.

First you have to prove anything even exists.

Which, you cannot.

"Laws" are based on assumptions made by theories, yes, all of them.

As i mentioned, mater itself is just a theory, inertia is a property of mater.

whoops.

MAD:

First you have to prove anything even exists.

Which, you cannot.

"Laws" are based on assumptions made by theories, yes, all of them.

As i mentioned, mater itself is just a theory, inertia is a property of mater.

whoops.

I have no idea what mater is, unless you actually mean matter? :shifty If you mean matter, seeing as how it's defined as something that has volume and mass, I don't see how that's a theory. It's fact and constant, you see and touch and feel matter every day.

So how can you be certain that what you touch really exists? Or that you yourself exist?

And yes, sorry matter, all just theory.

Existence is assumption.

I don't agree with Kurtni on the time thing, but, sorry MAD, you don't make any sense to me.

The gravitational time dilation, to me, just shows that change occurs at a slower rate when things are going faster. That, to me, doesn't mean that time exists. Just that speed affects change. Which isn't at all illogical. But time is still just a measurement of the change that happens.

It's okay if you don't agree with me, its a lot easier to accept what you see as real, and what people tell you as true.

MAD:

So how can you be certain that what you touch really exists? Or that you yourself exist?

And yes, sorry matter, all just theory.

Existence is assumption.

Ah, now I see your point. This has nothing to do with science, you're talking about solipsism philosophy, which I find to be completely ridiculous. I don't really think that's an approperiate discussion for this thread, but perhaps we could move it to the philosophy thread?

Perfect Teeth:

I don't agree with Kurtni on the time thing, but, sorry MAD, you don't make any sense to me.

The gravitational time dilation, to me, just shows that change occurs at a slower rate when things are going faster. That, to me, doesn't mean that time exists. Just that speed affects change. Which isn't at all illogical. But time is still just a measurement of the change that happens.

What is change? What's changing? You're simply replacing time with another word.

I like to think that dark enerhy could just be the physical entity of time itself (I call it Chronon Energy because of this) but then again I have no proof of that. Still, the answer to dark matter and energy lies in caves, not the skies.

So, yes. I believe time is the fourth dimension which makes a physical imprint on this polyverse with dark energy because it constitutes around 70-75% of the polyverse, yes? Could be time. Mind you, if it was time then the amount of energy surely would increase as time progresses. Because it's not a straight line, time. Maybe it only inceases by a percent every decade or millennium.

Kurtni Von Teese:

MAD:

So how can you be certain that what you touch really exists? Or that you yourself exist?

And yes, sorry matter, all just theory.

Existence is assumption.

Ah, now I see your point. This has nothing to do with science, you're talking about solipsism philosophy, which I find to be completely ridiculous. I don't really think that's an approperiate discussion for this thread, but perhaps we could move it to the philosophy thread?

not entirely.

Ask someone with a doctorate in physics if gravity is a certainty and they may well tell you no. All these theories are something that is still somewhat debatable.