[Type R]

After Walk 1: Pair 1 were separated by x distance, and Pair 2 were separated by 2x.

After Walk 2: Pair 1 were separated by 2x distance, and Pair 2 were separated by 4x.

After Walk 3, we can safely assume (our intellect is built on safe fundamental assumptions) that Pair 1 will be separated by 3x. However, Pair 2 pose a problem in terms of determining a pattern. The distance could either: -

* be doubling: 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, etc, or
* incrementing by 2: 2x, 4x, 6x, 8x, 10x, ....

Hmm. To determine, a third walk would be necessary. (To be expanded later).

Ancient Man noticed physical semi-predictable change patterns -- weather, rainy seasons, dry seasons, human age, animal age, sun rise and set, moon full-half-dark, etc -- and began to realize that he could predict that when x amount of Change A happened, y amount of Change B corresponded. The most predictable change patterns were sun rise/sun set, and - as astronomy, the most ancient science alongside maths, grew - earth's revolution around the sun. These eventually became the ultimate reference point.

"Time" was born.

Human beings have patterns of behaviour but these are easy to change/stop. For a fixed and constant patterns, Man adopted the sun, moon and earth (rotation on axis, revolution around sun). All these are regular physical changes, patterns.

However, physics teaches us that moving objects lose momentum if not continually propelled. Our adopted reference points for "time" measurement - earth's rotation and revolution - ARE NOT CONSTANT. They're slowing down, even if microscopically. Momentum from the "Big Bang" is dying. What took one year (a complete revolution of the sun in orbit) will take 2 years. We'll eventually have 7 year old kids undergoing puberty!!! Days and nights will last "longer."

This is not just a conjecture, but is provable. BUT HOW DO YOU MEASURE A REFERENCE POINT? If a dictionary says that word x means something, do you go to another dictionary to cross-check the first dictionary's proposal for a meaning?

YOU LOOK FOR A MORE CONSISTENT REFERENCE POINT. That is why scientists use ATOMIC CLOCKS.

That brings about confusion, of course. Look, "year" came from the earth's rotation. If you pick a particular year, say 2007, and use an atomic clock to measure the time - in atomic terms - it took for the earth to get back to "where it was this time last year" (a problem itself, since orbit fluctuates), the subsequent year will definitely NOT measure up to such precision. So what is the use of an atomic clock?

Which is the "right" year? A more precise atomic one. Or a slowing earth revolution one?

"Leap seconds are necessary because time is measured using stable atomic clocks (TAI or International Atomic Time), whereas the rotation of Earth slows down constantly, though at a slightly variable rate."

The extreme consistency of the atomic clock may be useful in some fields of science and technology (space travel), but in calendar date measurement, it is necessary to add usually around 0.6 - 0.9 sec to an atomic year to synchronize atomic clocks with the slower astronomical (earth) year.

So we actually have TWO reference points for consistent change patterns, (solar & atom) like having TWO dictionaries at home, just to make sure... We use the convenient one depending on our needs as humans.

Time = the relative change of everything/anything else against a fixed cyclical change. (Let me think a bit about the "cyclical" part -- I'm not sure). As you know, "fixed" is relative because everything fluctuates to some degree. "Time" is thus essentially a shaky concept.

Side question, why don't the elements of an atom slow down at the same rate as the earth's revolution around the sun? Do they slow down at all? Or even, do they vary - speed then slow, etc? Physicists, speak up!

[Type R]

The use of 2 different consistent cycles as a basis for "time" is illustrated by: -

* International Atomic Time (TAI = Temps Internationale Atomique). Measurement techniques keep getting refined as the years go by (talk about "consistent"). Hundreds of clocks are used worldwide for this standard.

* Coordinated Universal Time (UTC = Universelle Temps Coordinee, I suppose). Follows earth's movements, and equals TAI plus all collective leap seconds.

Of course, at one point they were equal, the year that the TAI was established (1958). But the TAI's extreme perfection means that as of 2007, it is now 33 seconds ahead of UTC. Rotations and revolutions of the earth are slowing down.

Civil Aviation & the Internet use UTC.

Thanks to Mashada, you now know that the world has TWO "times." The title of this thread is now, "Do TIMES exists?"

[youngben]

The existence of time is irrefutable but not provable, it seems here we are caught up in defining the meaning time and not the concept time, It has been mentioned that time is relative. Approaching things simply for the simple mwananchi we need to understand one thing,

If everything froze would time exist?? the answer is both yes and no

Time would exist of course because even as everything froze, there is a period of that freezing that is time. We froze for 2 days, 3 weeks etc

Time would not exist because there would be no one to notice that it did freeze, and because we don’t have that measure, as humans we are limited to believing that it did not freeze, because once we “unfreeze” we would not notice the gap, our time measurement gadgets would also freeze so would every living thing, no growth would be recorded.

(There is a john Travolta, Olivia Newton movie where they freeze time, or Heroes or charmed), when they ‘stop time’ and move stuff, to the affected there is no discernment of the stoppage, if anything was falling it continues to fall, but in that reality there is a gap that existed that was not measurable to the normal world, when they protagonists were moving things, so we can see our understanding of time and measurement is limited by our time measurement tools and our abilities

Now apply this explanation to the concept of taking a photo as ‘frozen in time” what does that statement and that picture mean?

So it really will not matter what clock you will use atomic or otherwise, if everything was to freeze our measurement gadgets would not capture the stoppage but that would not mean that time does not exist

[Type R]

Originally Posted by youngben

If everything froze would time exist?? the answer is both yes and no

Time would exist of course because even as everything froze, there is a period of that freezing that is time. We froze for 2 days, 3 weeks etc

No.

"2 days" is a statement that means "a fraction of 0.005475701574264 of a total revolution of the sun by the earth in its orbit" or 1.97125256674 degrees of said motion, everything else constant. Without earth's motion in orbit, we would need another consistent-change-based reference point. If everything is frozen - including sub-atomic motion, then there is no change and there is thus no "time!" If sub-atomic motion continued, we would have a reference point and we could synchronize certain atomic events (that seem to occur at a fixed rate) with the motion of the earth as it moves 1.97 degrees around the sun. Then when the earth stops, we could use the atomic clock.

If everything in the universe - sub-atomic to astronomic - sped up by a similar rate - eg 5% - in this world, we would never know it. Like two trains next to each other.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Type R

"2 days" is a statement that means "a fraction of 0.005475701574264 of a total revolution of the sun by the earth in its orbit" or 1.97125256674 degrees of said motion, everything else constant. Without earth's motion in orbit, we would need another consistent-change-based reference point. If everything is frozen - including sub-atomic motion, then there is no change and there is thus no "time!" If sub-atomic motion continued, we would have a reference point and we could synchronize certain atomic events (that seem to occur at a fixed rate) with the motion of the earth as it moves 1.97 degrees around the sun. Then when the earth stops, we could use the atomic clock.

So does our ability/inability to measure time affect the existence/inexistence of time?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ndigila

So does our ability/inability to measure time affect the existence/inexistence of time?

Ability vs inability is not the issue. Even if we all became as dumb as George W and couldn't read our watches, let alone observe the sun's constant cyclical behaviour (okaaayyy, it's actually the earth rotating and revolving) or use spectrometers, time (change) would still continue. Ability vs inability is not the issue.

The answer to your question is, No. However, the question itself is misplaced.

[Atabong]

Many people are asking, can such a question validly be asked?

I think it can, and has to be asked because it's a question touching basically every facet of our human nature, it basically questions 'the meaning of life itself' what are we pursuing, are we being chased? Are we sane? Etc Technology is evolving faster than our brains are because every body wants to 'catch up with time', you hear things like I don't want to be 'left behind', 'please don't waste my time' etc But the question we are asking on this forum is, does time exist? We definitely understand that there are some mathematical geniuses here but let's start with the basics.

Can three people, say one in Honolulu, the other in Cairo and the third in Auckland perform a given action at the same moment? Say jump or punch a specific key on the keyboard?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by Atabong

Can three people, say one in Honolulu, the other in Cairo and the third in Auckland perform a given action at the same moment? Say jump?

Yes.

Next?

[ndigila]

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Originally Posted by Type R

If everything is frozen - including sub-atomic motion, then there is no change and there is thus no "time!"

Is time a result of sub-atomic motion, or is sub-atomic motion a means by which we measure time?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Is time a result of sub-atomic motion, or is sub-atomic motion a means by which we measure time?

Back to my 1st posts in this thread: Man only knows physical items (5 senses). That is all we know. There is nothing else apart from the physical that we know or can know. All other things are constructed from the basic knowledge of physical, and are somewhat imaginary/derivative, like numbers. Do numbers exist? "One," "two," ...

FOUND ONLY IN OUR MINDS BUT MENTALLY DERIVED FROM CONCRETE PHYSICAL ITEMS: the equator, numbers, time...

It's like asking whether the equator "exists." OK, tourists stop and take pictures but do they "see" anything?