It makes we wonder what it would be like to ride an electron around the orbit of an atom.

But in time, there is nothing stable, or enduring. I can now rephrase the question that I began with: Whether there is one time, or many times, it is clear that the word “time” means something, and that there is something that a thing must be, in order to be a “time.” My question, then, is – what is that thing? For it is evident that the future is something separate from the present, and that the present is something separate from the past. is not a proper question according to the use of the word "time." For, if the present was not a moment, then the present would have to have parts. "? Further, since there have been many present moments, it is also clear that there have been many moments which have been a part of time. Gravity is the bending of space and time but what is time? Hence, for both of these reasons, the present does not have parts.

Perhaps not now, but in the future will we be able to manipulate time? If you want to really understand this, you need to learn classical first. Les réponses sont soit simples mais fausses, ou complexes mais vraies ... et les questions .

For, the past is every part of time that was once the present. That is, it is simply a number that describes either when, or where something is. Time is the inescapable presence of consciousness. But it is possible that there are actually many separate times, and many separate spaces. Rather, this universe would have its time, in which its own events would be ordered, just as that universe would have its own time, in which its own events would be arranged. For by its very nature, time is something vast, empty, and flowing. But neither of these are, in this moment. What is the nature, or the essence, of time? Here though, I do not mean that, but rather something that is truly without any parts of any kind – an “instant,” in the sense of “instantaneous.”.

What exactly is time? Hence, there would still be Time. What is most obvious about time is that it is always flowing, and that we are never in the same moment twice. For it is logically possible for time to exist, and for one moment to come after another, without any of these moments having any content of any kind – without there being a single thing that “happens” inside of this flow of time. (2) Now, that which has length must be divisible. Not a likely event, of course – but a conceivable one. Here is my attempt: Time is a measure of the separation between events that occur at the same location (in a spatial frame of reference). This is a shameless plug for my favorite blog, pretty interesting little over my head but interesting. You need three spacial coordinates, and the time coordinate for the time that the ball was at that point in space. (5) But, that which does not have any length cannot be a part of that which does have a length. You need exactly four numbers to describe the motion of the ball. If I were to travel into space with a clock on board my ship and I were to look back at earth - at differing distances I would see earth moving in and out of daylight hours at differing frequencies. Hey there! Hence, in order to be the present, a part of time must be a moment. Time is passing non-stop, and we follow it with clocks and calendars. We are all part of time as we are all part of consciousness. Time remembers the moments in our lives that we forgot, and now is where the moments are given back to us to teach us the value of life in our life-time. But then, this would mean that, when the first part of the present came to be present, the rest of the present would not actually be in the present – which is absurd! Strictly speaking, the present is the only part of time that exists.

Not to be confused with the the fourth spacial dimension (tetraspace). We say: “Time,” and “Space.” In saying these words, we speak as if there is only one time, and only one space. For just as space could exist even if there were no bodies in the world, so could time exist, even if it was the only thing in existence. By this I mean: if x was a part of the past, then either x as a whole was once the present (all at once), or else each part of x was once the present – this part as a whole, and then that part as a whole, and then that part – until each of the parts of x had been the present. Bringing a power tool from math into quantum computing, Researchers synthesize room temperature superconducting material, Temperature evolution of impurities in a quantum gas. It is sort of like saying that the there are no spatial, time, etc... types of dimensions; there are simply dimensions and time might not be different from the 3 spatial dimensions...simply that we are unable to perceive 4 spatial dimensions, so any dimension after 3 is a different experience. But whenever there are a multiplicity of moments in some sequence or order, then there is also time. The direction of Time is shown in thermodynamics by the increase in entropy.. Time could simply be our perception of the 4th dimension. Likewise, just as the whole material world exists in space, while being other than space, so does the whole world exist in time, while being other than time. Unfortunately, that's the way it is. 12 réponses. qu'est-ce que l'essentiel ? First, there cannot be any change without time. It is defined by "recording the rate of change of matter and space.". Time is both something and nothing at once, it is here and everywhere always.

For the exact same reasons, every part of the future will be a moment, or a group of moments. For it has no parts.

Inscrivez-vous à Yahoo Questions/Réponses et recevez 100 points aujourd’hui. The laws of Physics dont prevent time travel.

Thus, the future is wholly composed of moments. If I were to travel into space with a clock on board my ship and I were to look back at earth - at differing distances I would see earth moving in and out of daylight hours at differing frequencies. It is only a matter of bringing that awareness out into the open, and making that idea as clear and as distinct as possible.,, For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. Instead, “now” never refers to the same thing twice, and what it does refer to is always passing out of being, and being replaced by something wholly new; “this moment” does not change, but merely ceases-to-be, as “this moment” now comes to replace it. Obtenez des réponses en posant vos questions maintenant. If the regularity of that flicker could be seen as say, every 10 minutes on my clock, but each flicker relates to an advance of 24 hours time on earth then my distance from earth could be calculated. The past is the part of time that came before the present. We believe that the speed of light is c in every inertial refrence frame.
I thought the General Reletivity says that an observer traveling near the speed of light would not agree with the time though. Space and time bind in such a fashion that allows for synchronisation of existence and events. For the reasons above, time is not the same as our measurements of time, or as our thoughts about time. Thanks for your comment, and glad that you enjoyed the article. If the regularity of that flicker could be seen as say, every 10 minutes on my clock, but each flicker relates to an advance of 24 hours time on earth then my distance from earth could be calculated. Time is a coordinate. Vous pouvez ouvrir une session pour attribuer un vote à la réponse. Time is mind-made change, it is condensed thought. (6) Hence, the moment cannot be a part of time. We just cannot say what exactly happens when time passes. For there is no “now” which endures throughout the flow, and which could change from “this,” into “that.”.

Time as specified in SR is what governs all processes, while proper time is what we can actually use as a coordinate system, they are not the same. So photon does not have time and no aging -- which is quite different from us. The thing we call "time" is only a human invention that we use to distinguish past events from present, dont worry, the earth would still spin with out it. For, since motion is just the change of the position of a body in space, time is not the same as motion, since time is not the same as change. Que pensez-vous des réponses? Likewise, and for the same reasons, time is not the same as motion. Or, put differently – what is the nature, or the essence, of a “time”? It's as if everything has it's own time frame. And the moment is something void and empty, and the world-state is the content of the moment. So the frequency of that transition in and out of daylight would depend on the distance I am away from earth. Pertinence. Yet we cannot study it with a microscope or experiment with it.