It's an odd thing, isn't it? You can have time, you can lose time, you can run out of time, you can watch time. From this, one gathers you can own time. What are your thoughts on time? Is it troublesome? Can it be avoided? How can you even own it?
Time is just a phase, I call it a molecule of actions in which transcend ideas,movements and vibrations which is then recylced into the next time/phase via light. There is no seeing nor sound no movements without gravity. It is a form of action which is allowed by giratory movement established by gravity. Time does not progress nor transfer into anything if there was no gravity. In other words there will no sound nor movement if gravity did not exist.
Hmm. Gravity would not work without time would it? For certain time must pass for something to move or fall. Odd that.
Time means movement. Think seconds ticking. Without gravity you would not could not establish a distinctive perfect ticking of the second. Harmony of sound is a movement that in perfect position with light. without gravity there is no harmony, no alignement therefore no distinctive movement no synthesors of sounds. Everything would be distorted. It is clear gravituy plays a role in stabiltiy hence harmony. Garvity synchronises sounds and movements otherwise it would random chaos of sounds and movement hence the existence of time. without garvity there is no time. It is a simple as that.
I consider time as something made up by humans to make our lives easier. How long it takes for something to happen in relation to something else - that is where the units come from. In regards to the physics one, I interpret what is considered as time as change. How one reacts with or affects the other. And then there are those that affect how they affect each other, as the effect of gravity. To me it's simply an illusion, a misinterpretation.
Time is the 4th dimension - and one of the most amazing things about Time is it bends with bends in the Space/Time continuum.
Without gravity or time, there would be nothing. It would not be distorted, there wouldn't be anything. One cannot exist without the other, and if neither exist, nothing does
Time is the single most important unit in post-Fordist economics. Without time, you can't have labour or leisure--there can be no work without time. It's the primary organising principle of any economically developed civilisation.
Very interesting say indeed. One would wonder why we are moving so fast against the speed of time. The more we move onto the future the faster our needs seem to become. Slowind must be the only way otherwise time will own us as you say.
I could never grasp that concept. Time does not exist as a force or energy or a particular anything. It can't bend or be so simple as flowing forward or back. If there was a thing such as time, how did it begin? If time exists then at the first second, there was a second before it as well as a second ahead meaning that time would be, at this moment, going both infinitely into the future and into the past at the same time. Two entire existences, entire creations, would exist at the same time. But then that thoughts just going to lead me to a whooole basement full of other questions...
Didn't Evolution or Creationism elaborate on time? Time is just a notion something to talk you could compare it to the weather. Time is an entity of light and energy ..it is not a separate. When it is morning/midafternoon/night light changes which helps man direct himslef and use something called time to organise his or herslef. The weather is the same it is an energy and it is again part light. It is cold/hot/snowing all these phases are light related too.
I think you're complicating matters for yourself by thinking of time as seconds, minutes and hours. Think of time simply as change. When there was no matter there could be no change, and once matter came to be a change was happening and thus you have time. The continual change of matter is the continual progress of time. A second is merely a unit devised for measuring change, and there was no seconds before there was change. Matter and the change in it are naturally linked. You don't need a second universe going backwards, like you don't need one car going reverse for another to go forward.
But time is seconds, minutes, and all that. I can understand the fact that time is linked to matter as a form of measuring the change in matter from one point to the next, but what I meant was it's mot an active force in anything. Time, as a thing, does not effect anything and cannot be effected by anything. For the two universes thing, that's just a thought I had. If time goes one way, why not the other way. If you said everything began here, then what happened before that? Think of the, which came first, the chicken or the egg thing. One had to come before the other, but neither could have been the first. Whatever point you start at, something came before that, so there could not be a beginning. Therefore, it seemed to me that the past goes back as infinitely as the future would go forward. Especially since, if you rely completely on Einstein to explain everything, matter can not be created or destroyed. That means there could never have been a time when matter didn't exist. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but they must have always existed in one form or the other in order to be present now...I think. I may still have that confused.
(I'm going to stay clear of the creation paradox here, since it only complicates things even further, and essentially is pointless to try and make sense of.) A second is time the same way a pint is water. Thinking about it in measurements doesn't help to understand what it is. You say "time, as a thing" yet dismiss it as an active force. This to me suggests a conflicting understanding of the concept, so it's no wonder if you're having trouble accepting it. I'll say again, try to think of it as change - nothing more, nothing less. When something changes (and everything changes constantly) it not simply progresses through time, the change is time. If there were nothing to be changed, there could be no time, either. I'm not sure how I could say it so it made more sense. Maybe it's just one of those things that you need to meditate on and then they kinda make sense.
The seconds, minutes, hours are only for making our lives easier, they come from observation. Change is constant, you cannot divide it. What we perceive as time is change, how things move in relation to each other. If there were nothing then, yes, there would be no time, because there would be nothing that would cause change (time). There was the "Big Bang", that is where the things (particles of all kind) came from, and started to affect each other, meaning change started to occur.
time is a abstract concept, not a tangible thing... how we measure it is an artificial, man-designed technique, with not all humans agreeing on how that should be done... here's one take on it that i wrote some 'time' ago: Have You Got the Right Time? by maia If all the threads of time were cut and we but left to dangle here in bits and pieces of now and then, tomorrow and forever... what difference would it make? Forsaking clocks, denying calendars’ ruling power to hold us in thrall, all we could do then, is live one moment at a time. What crime of universal impact would we commit by doing such a dastardly deed as to kill time and all its accomplices... what difference would it make? By taking days, weeks, months and years in their own time’s space, whatever pace they tread, all we would do then, is give each moment at a time... sublime importance.
