2006-11-20 14:09:29 · 7 answers · asked by Matthew R 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I am here. You are there. Your question was posted before I answered it. Ergo: TIME.
People divided time up into segments, but the planets did the round and round bit - therefore you might say that movement is the construct. Not a very logical thinker, me. But interesting to ponder.
You know who does the best explaining of these things? Isaac Asimov. He can make complex stuff enter my mind, stay for about a minute while I read the next page, and then it is gone. But for a minute, I had it understood.
2006-11-20 14:17:59 · answer #1 · answered by thisbrit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a cat 'exists,' or time 'eixsts:' right here the comparable be conscious 'exist' is used to characteristic the matters in the two situations, yet needless to say there are some transformations between a 'cat' and a 'time,' or to be very particular what a be conscious 'cat' denotes isn't the comparable what what 'time' denotes. So in asserting time exists, this existence must be understood in any different case. in case you're saying time does no longer exist, then there is now no longer a room for relativity concept. i won't be able to truly assure that relativity concept is the evidence of the existence of time, yet presented that the belief is right, then what may be mentioned is that element is relative to the observer. In a manner, while no person is finding at it, it may no longer 'be' there. a standard question can illustrate my element. WHAT TIME IS IT NOW IN MARS? so far because of the fact the difficulty relies around the observer, time exists. the difficulty arises the 2nd we shift from relativity concept. Photon, on the cost of sunshine, has no time: to a photon, on the time of the huge bang, 2 hundreds of thousands years in the past or according to hazard a million billion years into the destiny is the comparable element. comparable is going with electron. (c.f. Quantum Physics) the ambiguity right that's that think that we take a flight to M 31 nebula (Andromeda) from Earth on a spacecraft which could holiday on the cost of sunshine. it would take 2.25 million years to realize, yet in a spaceship, it may be the case that the spacecraft reaches the trip spot straight away. 2.25 million years of time is such as an infinitesimal 2nd of time? subsequently, it is common to declare that element is an phantasm; in actual it does no longer exist? in a nutshell, all we can do is probable basically say time exists without being waiting to tutor it; however the very fack that we won't be able to furnish the evidence concurrently ability that any attempt to disprove it is no longer powerful.
2016-12-10 12:47:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time does exist. This universe is not possible without the time-space curvature. We and everything else is on the time-space curvature.
2006-11-20 14:21:19 · answer #3 · answered by oskeewow13 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, because without time, you couldn't ask me that question. Time is the 4th dimension, and enables 3 dimensional objects to coexist.
2006-11-20 14:22:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not yet. The math ain't quite there.
2006-11-20 14:11:34 · answer #5 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. time essentially measures decay.
2006-11-20 16:47:18 · answer #6 · answered by alex l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i've wondered the same question.. i think time is a man made creation to measure the space between periods.. i dunno how to explain it.. but society wouldn't function without time
2006-11-20 14:13:45 · answer #7 · answered by .:*k i m*:. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋