TIME vs. TENSE : Is there a difference?

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
I think there is, and I think it is a fundamental difference that may lead to so many arguments about what TIME really is, and how we might be able to control or modify TIME.

It is my belief that TENSE is actually an internalized interpretation of TIME by our limited human perspective. In this sense, I believe our perceptions transform TIME, which is actually a 3-dimensional metric, into a cognitive representation of TIME called TENSE. In our minds, TENSE is 1-dimensional such that we perceive TIME as linear, flowing from Past through Present to Future.

Any thoughts about this?
RMT
 
Dang, the Sun came up again! It's another day on this Planet!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm

>>>>Although the laws of physics seem to permit temporal gymnastics, the concept is laden with uncomfortable contradictions.
The main headache stems from the idea that if you went back in time you could, theoretically, do something to change the present; and that possibility messes up the whole theory of time travel.
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.
So either time travel is not possible, or something is actually acting to prevent any backward movement from changing the present.
For most of us, the former option might seem most likely, but Einstein's general theory of relativity leads some physicists to suspect the latter.
According to Einstein, space-time can curve back on itself, theoretically allowing travellers to double back and meet younger versions of themselves.
And now a team of physicists from the US and Austria says this situation can only be the case if there are physical constraints acting to protect the present from changes in the past.<<<<


Not the entire article though, so who knows?


/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
 
Say that, time being just an infinite number of different dimensions, we find a way to break through these walls. Would we be able to find a place at any time to just jump into that dimention? Or would we be constricted to our own time, as in we would not be able to pinpoint the time we would jump in, it would have to be wherever the dimention happens to be alongside our own time?

Also, because every little action, inflection, cough, ect. creates another dimension, that would mean that I myself have an infinite number of dimensions dedicated to whatever I might do... I was thinking, whenever time travel does become commonplace, would it be improper etiquete to barge into someone elses timeline? I have to laugh to myself thinking of what the 'unwritten rules' of time travel might just be...
 
I just actually read the article, haha, should have done that before I posted before!

This is a pretty old theory, first stated by a russian physicist who said that: time travel is not going against the laws of nature, you could say that you could do everything now, but I can't walk up these walls, nature is still dictating what I do. If I were to go back in time I would still be under the controll of natural law and everything I did would have to be in accordance with that.
He later explained that this would be completely involuntary and we wouldnt be able to realize it, much like not being able to walk on walls... do you notice daily that you can't?

I should also point out as an avid 'Twilight Zone' fan that there was an episode from somewhere in the late 50's or 60's ... I don't know when, where a man goes back in time and attempts to kill hitler, but he can't because at first he haas a thought, then the gun jams and nazi troops storm in to arrest him. At the end they have a little snippet about how you couldn't change the past because of altogether too many reasons.
 
RMT

It is my belief that TENSE is actually an internalized interpretation of TIME by our limited human perspective.
Click to expand...

I've spent a lot of time contemplating time. It always seem to be associated with change. But change is not always present. Like time is actually something defineable but still intangeable. By observation, it appears that the flow of time is not universal. It has been shown to be relative. I've had the thought if time was two dimensional, we would see dual outcomes to an event. And it has occurred to me that it is possible that dual outcomes do occur, but our minds are capable of just choosing one event for us experience. The flow of time seems to accompany the application of force. A force field defines a reference frame. And the flow of time is always associated with a reference frame. Is it possible to shield against the flow of time? That I don't know yet. But I feel a shield would be necessary if we should learn to harness the time force. Personally I believe the time force can be harnessed. By controlling a force fields intensity levels. But still there remains more experimentation to be done. The harnessing of the flow of time would require the creation of an additonal dimension of time. It isn't known yet how to create dimensions. So I still believe it will take more heads than one to solve the riddle of time.
 
Tense is just a way to describe different moments of now that still exist, but that you are no longer perceiving [or are yet to preceive] as present.

I do think there is a difference between Tense and Time, in that in time itself, there is no place for tense. I think tense measures time in a very artificial way. In the same way we (as RMT has rightly said) dont measure time, rather, Matter in motion. We are measuring the effects of time, rather then the actual dimension(S) of time itself

'Tense' is yet another artificial way of measuring a dimentional energy system that we still dont understand anything about (at least those of us in the mainstream, anyway).

kind regards,
Olly
 
Might as well ask, is there something other than the usual concept of just claiming that "time" is a measurement?

Time is a speed also, if one only uses the measurement of time?

Light moves at a speed, so can time only move that fast also? (you can make the measurement of time any interval you want to -- perhaps only -- up to the speed of light then?

Why that speed limit? What is holding back light from occuring all at once or even being faster?
(Please no experiments here about light speed at this time -- it detracts from the thought process!)

Peter Lynd was just at Wired.com again in June, and I do think that time does exist, because of sequence of events and because of the speed limit of light! (How anyone publishes anything by him is weird to me!)(I could write nonsense also, I guess!)

So first, time is the movement needed for something to occur, however small a time measurement that becomes! (I guess that depends on how fast --- superstring theory -- just for one theory --- combines or uncombines together -- there is a speed of action there, as with anything.)

So, time needs "space" to allow it to happen, and time needs "movement" to allow it to happen, and time needs "a speed of action" to allow it to happen, as far as measurement to occur, and time needs an "energy" to allow it to happen!

So first, if time was not treated first as a measurement, then perhaps, a different view could take hold on what time really is!

Oh, and perhaps gravity slows down anything, so time also is affected by gravity also!

So, transposing "time" from the bottom of the heap of space, energy, movement, and gravity, perhaps it can also move to the top of the heap, and this is why the Past could not be changed, in one sense of the view, because as soon as the Past is changed, you branch off the current timeline, and cause another timeline to start! (You can imagine the timeline being the same as the original timeline for only briefly, but then the future of that timeline -- for you are no longer further in that original timeline -- can not really be pursued as to what more would happen in the future -- so that future is blocked from your perception.)

The Past was the same up to that point, where the branching action took over, and the time line followed the branching and the rest of the possibilities faded from perception at that point!

Someone said that timelines may converge back together, but that may only occur sometimes, and if it did occur, then there is one broad-based timeline that has to occur. I fail to see where that can happen though, meaning to me it does not happen!

:D

Whoaaaaaa!
So better to say that you can not go back in the Past, and change that point unless one is going off into a different timeline, in which case, the rest of the Past from that point -- did not change!

So perhaps, one could only travel to the Past of something similiar to the Past of one's own happenings, unless one can backtrack all the way to the Big Bang, which is another barrier, that can not actually be surpassed, like the speed of light!

So, time has limits also!
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
 
Time has limits just as space has limits, As the two are connected.

You wont be able to travel back before the Big bang. If you did - i'm pretty certain you would no longer be aware of your body.

Time is a dimension of energy, Not just a measurement. However measuring and using time within the context of tense, is more to do with perception rather then it being what time actually is.

In some dimensions, the material universe began and finished at the same point in time. Everything inbetween happened at once and in Zero time. Thats faster then the speed of light.

Being subject to a lower dimension we don't percieve Zero time. So we link together all the moments and events in sequence and to some degree, separate, so our brains can process that information we need in a systymatic way. As they can't view Zero time.

This is the point where we create 'tense' to describe a moment of now in the 'sequence' of all other moments of now we experience. We need 'tense' to evolve, yet tense is not an accurate or correct description of time.

kind regards,
Olly
 
RMT post> TIME vs. TENSE : Is there a difference?

Cree answers> Yes from the very first day you were here I tried to tell you this?!
 
Time may be perpendicular dimensions. Think of Space as being relatively flat! Einstein then was talking about SpaceTime as something that should be referred to as Space(MeasurementofTimeAccordingtoSpeed). That means that time is relegated to only being seemingly 1-dimensional. (Linear! in Aspect)
Accordingly if Time is perpendicular than everything else (Space, Energy, Gravity) is seemingly 1-dimensional. (Linear! in Aspect)(The expansion of Space is linear then, and energy is also linear, and gravity is also linear, although we usually think of it as 3-dimensional according to our perceptions along with the speed (measurement of time, which is only linear!). (Space can be thought of as an angle and a length - even curved along with anything else in a sense!)
Well, try to think about it!
 
Oh, Dr. Hawking is the one that uses that idea, in a sense. He calls it imaginary time, but since there are some other problems, and why the time arrow is in one direction, as we now perceive time, there can be no definite answer at this time, about whether this imaginary time is actually real time, and what we call time, and artifact of that real (imaginary) time. It depends again on learning more to resolve the questions!

But then if imaginary time is actually real time, then there may be just states of time in which 'tense' does not have the usual meaning of the word, and again is limited to our perceived interpretation of time as it stands now, in which case 'tense' does have the usual meaning!

So there is not a definitive answer as of yet, whether 'time' has a different meaning then 'tense'.

That is all in the book by Dr. Hawking, "A Brief History of Time"!

I knew I got that idea from somewhere and somewhen in 'time'!
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif :oops: :D
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
 
Hi TimeNot_0:
Well, it may seem as if some others think there is also a difference with TENSE and TIME also:
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are referring to on the web link your provided. Can you elaborate, or perhaps provide a specific link to the story you are referring to?

Thanks,
RMT
 
Back
Top