English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Could we just always be in the present. Im not talking about a body aging because to me that is not at all time. Im not talking about events that have taken place before because that is not time either to me.

2007-09-21 18:50:32 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

The moon revolves around the earth and the earth rotates on its axis and the earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around a cluster of stars in our galaxy. Then our galaxy is moving. I do not see this as time either because what if the earth suddenly stopped revolving and rotating around the sun. Does time stop? I cant see this as time.

2007-09-21 19:08:27 · update #1

cattbarf I know the calender and clocks are not fraud silly. It is a good measurment of the earth turning and rotating around the sun but what if they hypothetically stopped suddenly. Would you need the clocks and calenders anymore cattbarf? Thanks for you question.

2007-09-21 19:23:39 · update #2

The reason I asked this is because I am trying to understand why we age. I am just uncertain about why I am dying ever sense I was born and why cant we live forever? I understand when you get hit by a bus you die but what is this aging thing that makes us old and frail then we dry up like an old leaf.

2007-09-21 19:31:46 · update #3

23 answers

Your question makes no sense. Actually the question is ok, but the evidence that scientists, mathematicians, and everyone else uses seems not to be good enough for you. Aging, or specifically the temperal sequence of events, is exactly how Einstein came up with his special theory of relativity.

If the entire universe consisted of a two-chamber box with an electron in it, and the electron moved from one chamber to the other and then back to the first, you could say it is impossible to tell if time continued to move forward or if time moved backwards when the electron returned to the first chamber; but the fact that the electron moved at all is evidence of time. And throw a second electron and there's no question.

Aging and sequence of events ARE the physical definition of time.

2007-09-29 15:56:19 · answer #1 · answered by ZenPenguin 7 · 0 0

Time as we know it is a man-made phenomenon invented to make some sense of our world.
Entropy is a natural state; (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

Time is a way of measuring Entropy, with the Big Bang at one end and the heat death of the Universe at the other. It's real and it's a natural phenomenon. The best description I've read of the purpose it serves is, "To keep everything from happening at once."

However, Time isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Near as I can make out of what the physics boys are saying all of Time exists simultaneously, making it the 4th perceived dimension.
Sequential time is a perceptual illusion caused by the fact that human consciousness moves in the direction of entropy at the rate of one second per second--although subjective time may vary according to what you are doing and how fast you are travelling.

One of my favourite Einstein quotes to describe the theory of relativity is that time is perceived subjectively

"Kissing a pretty girl for a minute can seem like a second. Sitting on a hot plate for a minute can seem like an hour."-- Albert Einstein

2007-09-22 02:43:28 · answer #2 · answered by Devil's Advocate 3 · 1 0

Since you have negated the usual suspects, there is no evidence. In fact, in your world, the calender can just be a fraud.

In response to your additional details, if you accept the notion that the earth is doing some type of motion (rythme not intended), that would be the admission of time, since time measures the progress of these actions. If they stopped, no one would need anything because the "jig would be up" on earth. But that gets to another problem- if earth disappeared, would there be time? I think I'll just go to the forest and listen for the trees to fall.

2007-09-22 01:59:33 · answer #3 · answered by cattbarf 7 · 0 0

Time isn't Just about motion... it is also about distance.

The laws of physics indicate that every object in the Universe is constantly in motion. You can no more "stop the Earth from rotating" than you can stop gravity from working. Even if you pretend the Earth as standing still, everything else is still moving relatively to that still point.

Time has been demonstrated as being tied to the concepts of distance and relative speed. Experiments have shown that the faster you speed an object's motion, the slower that object's relative time will run. Radioactively decaying materials, for example, for which we know exact schedules for their decay rates, will decay more slowly, the closer they approach the speed of light.

Read more about General relativity-- (way higher than my pay grade, btw) and you'll understand time a lot better.

Also Stephen Hawking.

2007-09-29 10:07:53 · answer #4 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0 0

Time is defined as an interval between events, events are the result of movement, no movement, no time. We don't move through time, we move with it, and it is always. now. An aircraft moving through the air is a seamless chain of events. and time is also seamless. It can be dilated, slowed, when an object moves at relativistic speeds because at those speeds movement of the particles within the moving object is slowed due to increased mass, so time and movement are both slowed, this relates only to the moving object, time and events elsewhere continue as normal. Post a question on the biology section for an answer to your ageing body.

2007-09-25 11:53:36 · answer #5 · answered by johnandeileen2000 7 · 0 0

I agree that we can generally say that we are always in the present. If that's so, then "time" is an unending string of connected "nows". When we think back to "nows" that have already occurred, we called that "the past". "Nows" that have not yet occurred are called "the future". Our perception of the past and future will be dependent on the speed we are traveling, but our perception of the existence of "time passed", or "time not yet occurring" will not change. It is nearly impossible for humans to perceive of life without time. And unlike an unquantifiable entity, such as love, or God, or happiness, we can measure time...which provides us with proof that time exists.

Update: In response to your last update, you might want to check-out something called "telomeres". Each cell has them and they are like wicks on a candle. When they burn out, the cell dies. When they all burn out, the body dies. It's a fascinating discovery. Learning how to prolong the life of the telomeres, would lead to slowing down the aging process and it is believed that this can be done. You may find your answer there and here's a link to get you started:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/features/telomeres/

2007-09-22 02:47:36 · answer #6 · answered by ridge50 3 · 1 0

I you were always in the present, then you would never have any knowledge of the past.
If events that have already happened are not evidence of time to you, then perhaps you had better define to the rest of us what time is?
Time is a dimension, just like the three space dimensions, if there was no time would there be any point to you eating? Because if there was no time you would never burn the calories and your body would never metabolise. Most physical concepts involve time in some way shape or form

2007-09-22 01:56:14 · answer #7 · answered by blue_zoo22 3 · 0 0

This is a great question and one I have spent several hours kicking around. This is what all have come up with.....
Time is a physical thing that is governed by several things. Light, relative speed, gravitational influence all play a part in what we call "time". This affects the little dial on your watch.

The eternal "now" is a spiritual phenomenon. It is all we have. Physical rules don't apply to spiritual things. They are two different states of being. Unfortunately while we are here in these bodies we are governed by the rules of time.

2007-09-28 10:39:34 · answer #8 · answered by theproblemisIamalwaysright 2 · 1 0

I really don't understand the logic of the first answer and think it attempts to over-analyze.

Time is simply a subjective unit of measure that a majority of individuals agreed upon, not unlike when we measure detergent or pepper and say that either is 1/2 cup. 1/2 cup is generally agreed upon to be a certain level of content that we can point to as such.

We have natural evidence of what humans call "time" but the inherent difficulty in your question is that you have cancelled out physical signs of aging we can point to, whether it be a human's wrinkling or even tree rings.

2007-09-22 02:13:09 · answer #9 · answered by Does Heaven Have a Sportsbook? 6 · 1 0

We base all time on the days and nights that pass. We would always be in the present, as once anything is done, it moves to the past. The future contains the decisions we have yet to make or actions we have yet to do. Hence, we have no choice but to live in the here and now, which is the present.

2007-09-22 02:00:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers