I think the idea of time as non existent is really interesting and something I havn’t explored much.  I see this as a good problem for callibrating our skepticism.  The amount of technology and man power required to prove this theory would be on par with that of proving the existence of God.  I think the best way to get started Conquer, is to issolate yourself from those influenced by the concept of time and de-evolve until time wasn’t a factor.

there is no natural law that dictates the length of a second, minute, hour, day, month or year. just observational patterns of orbits and the constructing of time around those patterns. i would say time exists as a construction to measure things, not as an entity in itself, but im sure if anyone can prove me wrong it would be Narwhol. i dont think a star sees itself as experiencing time, but we can certainly use time to see how long our star will live (10 billion years).

on a side note, I want to start a campaign to alleviate the oppression of the poor souls (sic) born on leap year. if they only get to have a birthday every four years that means they cant watch an r-rated movie untill they are technically 72 or buy booze till theyre 84!!!

so, I propose that we take the additional four hours we get each year and break it up amongst every second of the year and free these folks! each second would only be a fraction longer and we wouldnt even notice it!

Do I have to buy a new alarm clock now? 

yes, HD-alarm clock is what we can call it

truthaddict - 17 August 2007 10:44 AM

so, I propose that we take the additional four hours we get each year and break it up amongst every second of the year and free these folks! each second would only be a fraction longer and we wouldnt even notice it!

Of course that means each twenty-four hour period would be just a bit longer so what we call midnight would gradually move forward until it would occur when the sun was high in the sky.  I suppose we could have leap hours to correct that, but then, what happens to those who are born at that time? 

Occam

actually, ive looked at it.  the changes would be so small spread out over the year that it really wouldnt be noticable, especially considering if you are in place that has daylight saving time.

theres a little more than 14,000 seconds in four hours and about 31.5 million seconds in a year. if we distribute each of those 14,000 seconds evenly among the 31.5 million seconds of the year, we are talking about a relatively small difference per day and the larger difference felt over the year could be addressed with a day lights saving time as opposed to a whole new day every four years.

i mean, the whole thing is a farce that came about by me making jokes about the oppression of those born on leap year. but i do think it could be done

T.A., I think your math is wrong.  Just thinking about it without doing any arithmetic, the length of a day is A.  If you break it down into 24 hours or 864,000 seconds or use some small additional factor, it still works out to about 365.248 days.  If you want to increase the length of time you assign to a day from A to A plus some small increment that means the clock you are using will move forward by that increment each day.  You cannot make one cycle ariound the sun come out as an integral number of days. 

Instead of bothering with the clocks and assignment of time values, it seems easier just to speed up the velocity of the earth a smidgen so it traverses a cycle in exactly 360 days.  Of course that would change the orbit of the earth which, I would guess would cause interesting problems that would make global warming look like a walk in the park.  Or, you could slow down the rotation of the earth so it was just a bit longer than 24 hours.  Since I’m not an astronomer, I don’t know what effects this would have.

Occam

ill take your word. but i think i can slow down the earths orbit. superman did it!

retrospy - 17 August 2007 10:21 AM

I think the idea of time as non existent is really interesting and something I havn’t explored much.  I see this as a good problem for callibrating our skepticism.  The amount of technology and man power required to prove this theory would be on par with that of proving the existence of God.  I think the best way to get started Conquer, is to issolate yourself from those influenced by the concept of time and de-evolve until time wasn’t a factor.

What is going on is that the physical existence of time is the idea while its non-physical existence is the fact.

In order to prove the non-physical existence of time it requires basic physics and the level of technology won’t affect the results.

Two questions:

1. Where is this discussion about whether time physically exists propsed to lead us? Could we hear from one or more proponents on this.
2. Why is this discussion being held on a thread about evolution?

PLaClair - 18 August 2007 06:45 PM

Two questions:

1. Where is this discussion about whether time physically exists propsed to lead us? Could we hear from one or more proponents on this.
2. Why is this discussion being held on a thread about evolution?

Maybe because Evolution still partially correct in several aspects and this theory can be part of a greater one which can be called “The Recycling Process of Life theory”. :-0 :-0 :-0

Occam - 17 August 2007 05:43 PM

T.A., I think your math is wrong.  Just thinking about it without doing any arithmetic, the length of a day is A.  If you break it down into 24 hours or 864,000 seconds or use some small additional factor, it still works out to about 365.248 days.  If you want to increase the length of time you assign to a day from A to A plus some small increment that means the clock you are using will move forward by that increment each day.  You cannot make one cycle ariound the sun come out as an integral number of days. 

Instead of bothering with the clocks and assignment of time values, it seems easier just to speed up the velocity of the earth a smidgen so it traverses a cycle in exactly 360 days.  Of course that would change the orbit of the earth which, I would guess would cause interesting problems that would make global warming look like a walk in the park.  Or, you could slow down the rotation of the earth so it was just a bit longer than 24 hours.  Since I’m not an astronomer, I don’t know what effects this would have.

Occam

Take the math out for a minute. Use your position in base of comparing it with the location of “fixed” stars in your view. From this starting point count how many times you pass over the same starting point.

To each pasing by you will call it a “year”, so a year won’t be a number of days or minutes or seconds but solely the complete round around the Sun.

If you are 30 years old, this means that you have completed 30 rounds around the Sun.

And, actually this is a factual method to prove that time is no more than the data of reference obtained by the comparison of motion between things.

If you are 50 years old, this means that you have traveled a lot in space…too bad you were just going around…

PLaClair - 18 August 2007 06:45 PM

Two questions:

1. Where is this discussion about whether time physically exists propsed to lead us? Could we hear from one or more proponents on this.
2. Why is this discussion being held on a thread about evolution?

Good questions. I haven’t really been able to follow where this thread is going for quite awhile now ... in particular, time is one of the four dimensions, together with the three of space; however what that has to do with evolution I haven’t the vaguest idea.

Are you pulling my leg with this “Recycling Process of Life theory”? Seriously, this sounds more like a discussion I would expect in a New Age forum. If you’re really serious, can you provide some respectable links?

By the way and at last report, evolutionary theory is holding its own.

PLaClair - 18 August 2007 10:57 PM

Are you pulling my leg with this “Recycling Process of Life theory”? Seriously, this sounds more like a discussion I would expect in a New Age forum. If you’re really serious, can you provide some respectable links?

By the way and at last report, evolutionary theory is holding its own.

You are correct.

I will start to collect data and I will start a new theory.

This theory about a recycling process in life might become more realistic than evolution, no promises that it will be more popular.

And I think that these last words of mine also respond to your last sentence, because the evolutionary theory still is famous but still is not the correct explanation of what is going on with the species.