[Guille]

Actually Antonio,

If we take in that there is time, let's say only one half-life time, then our life would be 72/2=36 years. (72 is just an avarage age I have estimated).

[Guille]

About the incompability of the definitions of time:

It can be said that there are two main definitions or meanings of the concept of time. Exluding the ideas of time as not being real but human creation or just something that humans measure.

The first definition is that time is a dimension. What basically determines something of being a dimension is that it must have two directions (or two degrees of freedom) and be esential for existence. For me to exist, I need space. Space standing for the three spatial dimensions. But I also need time, because if not there is no existence for proving my existence. Thus, to exist we need space and time (space-time). I want to note that these are the regulations to existence and existence only. To live or others there are additional conditions, but this isn't the apropiate thread.

The second definition of time is that it is motion. Although in many ocasions this is not completely an exact answer: some say that it is caused by motion, other that it causes motion..... But the agreement is that there is a conection or relationship between time and motion. Motion is the change in points of space.

The major point, I think, between these two definitions of the concept of time, that makes them incopatible is that: The first one concludes that time and space are obligatory and mutual dependent. Whiles the first one states that only space is needed for existence because time is just the difference in points of the first one, and there is no need for having a change in space to exist, justo to "be" or occupy space.

Conclusion: Time as a dimension and time as motion can't and should not be dualised to explain or define the abstract concept that time is. Space and time are needed for existence. There can be existence without change/difference in space.

Extension: We should try, now that it is clear and proved that time can't have both definitions, to decide on which is the best definition of time. But I have a very good point after this.

The actual meaning of this thread and all my posts on time is to make the ones that have followed them, come into the conclusion that I have come into. Although I think that if you trully follow my posts, or you have already dedicated to investigate about time, you will have already come into the conclusion that I came to.

ps: I will post the conclusion in this thread.

[AntonioLao]

the life span of a free neutron is about 15 minutes. But the life span of a proton is greater than years.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...protondec.html

[subversion]

to avoid accusations of being brain-sucked, I have decided to weigh in on your time paradox. First allow me to simplify the paradox if I may. Basically, you are looking for an irrefutable scientific definition of what time is. Well I think, if that is what you're looking for, then I have solved the paradox.

Time is the universe, simply put. If time and motion were to stop, the universe would cease to be. Time began when the universe began (scientifically speaking), and when the universe ends time will end as well. It must be then that the two are inextricable, and therefore synonymous. So I would say that time is the universe, they are the same thing. Perhaps that is why the Hopi did not have a word for time, because it was meaningless to describe, and irrelevant. However, I am interested to see what your conclusion is. Kudos

[SinJin]

I'm not sure if this goes along with what subversion was saying, but I thought the illusion of time, the passing of events, was created from the one-way flow of entropy. Of course disorder and motion are connected, and so motion is connected with the flow of time. But I don't see how time is a seperate dimension, except when referencing it in relation to directions.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion to avoid accusations of being brain-sucked, I have decided to weigh in on your time paradox. First allow me to simplify the paradox if I may. Basically, you are looking for an irrefutable scientific definition of what time is. Well I think, if that is what you're looking for, then I have solved the paradox. Time is the universe, simply put. If time and motion were to stop, the universe would cease to be. Time began when the universe began (scientifically speaking), and when the universe ends time will end as well. It must be then that the two are inextricable, and therefore synonymous. So I would say that time is the universe, they are the same thing. Perhaps that is why the Hopi did not have a word for time, because it was meaningless to describe, and irrelevant. However, I am interested to see what your conclusion is. Kudos

This is very similar to what I posted on post 22. I stated that time is (with space) requierd for existence.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin I'm not sure if this goes along with what subversion was saying, but I thought the illusion of time, the passing of events, was created from the one-way flow of entropy. Of course disorder and motion are connected, and so motion is connected with the flow of time. But I don't see how time is a seperate dimension, except when referencing it in relation to directions.

That, for me, is another big misunderstanding of what the concept of time is. The statement that the direction of time is determined by the entropy increasing impplies that time is a dimension. If time is a dimension, it would have two possible directions (which is the very first and most impotant property of dimensions). We are used to say "time goes so fast" or "time passes very fast" or similar things, in our day-to-day talking..... Well this is scientifically wrong. Time is a diemension, it doesn't "move" in any of it's two directions, because it IS the collection of it's two directions. Objects in time do go in directions of time. So I move in time. I travell in time. And you, and him and the other. Do we say that "3d moves so forward!"? or "2d moves so high"??? NO. We don't. Because dimensions don't advance. The objects in them advance in directions.

I hope this explenation helped you and whoever reads it to understand that time doesn't have a direction and thus, that nothing determines it's direction (nor entropy or whatever).

[subversion]

actually it's a little different than what you said in post #22. Again, you said that time and space are necessary for existence. Time and space are not the only things required for existence, infact, if space were the only thing besides time, then there would be no time and no existence. That's because time requires matter and space, so that motion can occurr. Thus it is space and matter that are the main requirements for existence, and time is only a byproduct of those two. If you didn't have time as a byproduct, then the matter and the space must not have really existed, or they are at absolute zero which means they also cease to exist. So time is the fundamental characteristic of the universe which encloses both matter and space. Therefore the best definition of time is that it is the same thing as the universe.

As far as time being a dimension, you never defined what the two directions are. If and only if we can move forward and backwards in time can we then consider time as a true dimension. I agree with Sinjin that the direction of time is aligned with the progression of entropy. So we need to know that entropy can flow both ways in some higher context before we can accept time as a true dimension!

time does have a flow or direction, and entropy is what determines it.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE ...to understand that time doesn't have a direction and thus, that nothing determines it's direction (nor entropy or whatever).

Time has infinite numbers of direction and if dimension is direction then time truly has infinite dimensions. But if these dimensions are grouped into a multiple of 3's then a level of existence can have at most 3 dimensions analogous to peeling an onion where each layer is 3-dimensional and this type of onion has infinite layers.

Using Hadamard matrices, only 2 dimensions can be represented and the 3rd dimension of each level of existence becomes the product or the sum of these Hadamard matrices. Products give mass and sums give space charges.

[Guille]

Antonio,

Maybe it's the not-very-exact transaltion of my dictionaries, but for me the word direction is a possible "way". If time is 1 dimension then it ahs 2 ways (back and forward) i.e. 2 directions. If time has 2d then trully, it has infinite possible directions.