In absolute terms can time be defined as 'zero'?OR, When did time start ? (Sorry, if the Q looks silly).
475664
Most scientists will tell you that time began with the Big Bang.  Time is a measurement of change, and if nothing changes, time cannot be perceived.  We do not know what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang, so it's a good place to start.  Unlike modern history, where in the West we put an arbitrary zero at the birth of the Common Era, and then have to deal with things that happened BCE, there is no negative cosmological time.  We don't discuss what happened five hours or ten thousand years BBB.
1113546
Time is really comprehended in terms of the individual. Since we all interpret time in about the same way, based on 24 hour earth rotations and 75 year life spans, then we all share the same concept of time. If days lasted 400 hours and people lived 1000 years, then we would all have the same perception of time only it would be different from the way we perceive it now. Time is perfectly comprehend-able and that's why we have terms like the ones you mentioned... it's just relative.
488633
What is time? We tend to measure everything by our learned standards.  Can you even try to imagine the Big Bang?  We as a race (human) know so little.
1011371
The proper time is given by the formula \n\nT0 = T x square root of {1 - (v/c)^2} \n\nThis means a clock moving in any arbitrary manner moves slower than a stationary clock.\n\nIt took me a long time to understand your question. Now I do understand it. \n\nSome shrewd person could have understood sooner than me.\n\nI think time moves slowly for me. That is why it took a long time for me to understand it. \nI got the answer. Time is dilated for me. That is why it took a long time (Slow)
721127
it's the same as infinity plus infinity infinity times, of course.  ;)\n\nnot to be confused with infinity minus infinity infinity times, which would be the opposite.\n\nalso not to be confused with infinity divided by infinity infinity times, which would be a positive number as close to zero as possible w/o reaching zero.
533362
The first thing I, you or anyone else attempting this problem would have to do is come up with a concrete, working definition of Time.  No one knows precisely what it is, much as we talk about it and around it.  Not even Einstein, nor any of hi contemporaries.  We haven't really progressed on that score even now some 90 years later.  Looking at the work by Weinberg, Aharonov, Bondi, Witten, Schroedinger, Penrose, Hawking, or Minkowski.  All of whom are among the foremost of experts in the fields of Time, Relativity, Structure of the Universe.  If you can't define Time in such a fashion as you can then begin to see a means by which to manipulate time, you'll never get anywhere.  Then of course are the forces needed to accomplish that manipulation, what are they?  How do they operate?  How do we recognize them and harness them for use?\n     Nothing is so simple as the machine and concept envisioned by H.G. Wells in "The Time Machine".  The concept of time travel is an awesome thought, that it was as easy as the machine he described was just simplistic.\n     Bottom line, at this point in our history and on into our near future, it will not happen.  Sorry.
125374
this is a sincere question   that  sure opens  more questions.....including  memory functions....there is much  misuse today  and  much misleading  ...how can i  call it  even  information....but  try  any  mathamatical  formula  with  time  in  it  sit  back  and  ponder  the  various  integrations  that  time  takes part  in.......try  many  formulas......time  may not  be  only a clock....check  into  what  physics  calls  a  half life...but  also  wonder  what  produced that  to  get  it  there.....interesting   spell  time  backwards...you get?.....as far  as  travel....or  what  is  backwards  or  forewards......remember  the  guy  who  jumped  out  of  his  bath  and  ran down  the street   yelling    i have  found  it......thats  what  happens to  most  of  us  ...when  we  reach  a degree  of  exploratory  freedom....good  luck...hope  this  helps
45760
Time is currently one of the few fundamental quantities (quantities which cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present). Thus, similar to definition of other fundamental quantities (like space and mass), time is defined via measurement. Currently, the standard time interval (called conventional second, or simply second) is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133Cs atom.
1033398
1. Time is a variable and not a constant. It ran backward only in Harry Potter's Vol 3 using Time Machine\n2.The perpendicular distance is the shortest distance\n3.Why not\n4.The variable nature of time can be felf only with objects moving with a velocity that approaches that of light. The theory of Relativity cannot be proved wrong because no one has understood it completely
949405
Judge for yourself based on this: Time is a MAN MADE construction. That is, it is not a natural element in life. For those of you who would argue, please answer how it can be set back and set forward (daylight's saving time). If it were natural you wouldn't be able to limit it to the watches you wear or the clocks on the wall. It would be beyond any human control and it would be very hard for anyone to grasp the concept and explain it. As it is, we CAN explain it and grasp it, therefore, it is not natural.\n\nSo my answer is no.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n.
713458
I think your question is a good one - and not at all "dumb as why is the sky blue."\n\n"Now" is a point in time between the past and the future. \n\nIt may well be infinitely small (no dimension - like a "point" on a "line" in mathematics) or it may well be a quanta of time - perhaps time isn't the smooth continuum we tend to think it is, but rather exists in small packets or quanta.\n\nI'd rather suspect, that given the relative nature of different rates of time, it is most probably a smooth continuum. \n\nI also believe that "now" is simply a term with no real scientific meaning, but rather just a reference to the term "immediately" - as in, "Do it now."\n\nInterestingly enough, I have never thought about this in the past, but "now" is about the time I should retire and perhaps think more about it in the future.
1121840
Time cannot exist without space.\nTime is something man uses to measure change.\nFor change to take place, there must be somewhere for the change to happen.\nWe need space (no pun intended) for something to exist and to happen.\nSpace is where all things exist.\nWithour space, there would be nothing, and there would be no change, resulting in no time.
310496
The "absolute time" is a hypothetical time that either runs at the same rate for all the observers in the universe or the rate of time of each observer can be scaled to the "absolute time" by multiplying the rate by a constant. The theory of relativity doesn't allow the existence of such time because of non existence of absolute simultaneity.\n\nIn physics, the notion of absolute space says that space is an inert arena on which other physical phenomena take place. The space affects the other phenomena, but the space itself is not affected by those phenomena. Newton's absolute space implies that there is one inertial system out of an infinite number that is unique.\n\nAbsolute space underlies the laws of classical physics of Isaac Newton. In his theories, the idea of the absolute space was superseded by the notion of spacetime in special relativity and especially dynamically curved spacetime in general relativity.
969010
What a debatable query! Very much suited to my interests. :)\n\n            First things first. Doorman proposed a fabrication that amused me. My beloved, time can bear itself in energy, yet memory hold itself solitary in such consideration. Memory is another term one is to consider in terms of biological structures, not energy. Were time to store itself in such energy one to explode by the time they get old XP. Yet your proposition holds itself true in one aspect. We forget. Like we lose energy. Yet memory holds itself in alliance to life, an indescribable, unphysical term.\n\n            Now for my proposal. We bear to our knowledge the sphere of our vision. What we see, we believe. Yet we go on FORWARD in time. Like a fluid. Space-Time-Continuum...\n\n            In accordance to one of Einstein's theory, the time holds itself in a stretch of another dimension all together. We know so much of time, yet in reality we know N-O-T-H-I-N-G.\n\n           Ask me why? The answer bears itself in utmost simplicity. We can only conclude on matters we are able perceive in correct mannerism. We do not bear such a sense organ nor are we able to implement over 4% of our brain, so as to perceive the concept of time in proper ideology. Therefore we cannot forge a concept concrete enough to bear the yoke of your question.\n\n          Yet we can ALWAYS speculate! In such speculations, we can come to many ways to rewind time. Suppose time IS a fabric. A vast expanse of infinite non-molecular material. If we are to possess a way to make a cut in this fabric, we can gain access to two different periods in time.\n\n          Now here's the boomer. What if time DOES repeat itself? Now stick to me while I take you to a psycho flight. Seatbelts on? good.\n\n         So far we have considered time to be a concept in whose relation we all exist. Now imagine this. WHAT if time is relative to every individual? No-one has been able to explain the term 'life'. Maybe this is because life IS time? What we consider time is the fabruication of us mortals. What if time exists independently for everyone? When one perishes, he is actually going to REPEAT his so called 'life'. Perhaps he period from the Big Bang to the collapse of the universe has repeated itself millions of times already!\n\n             Now thats a speculation. No-one can state it correct or incorrect, for one doesnot bear such perception. Perhaps we are just the play-stuff of a larger colossal existence. Then again, what is existence?
991704
If you could get your atoms to stop moving, then you would be at absolute zero, so you'd be frozen, and not caring much.\n\nHaving said that, no. Why would time stand still? Theoretically, if EVERYTHING were to stand still, then time would have no meaning, since time has no definition apart from measurements of the number of events  in the universe.
283842
time is only a relative measure to measure the duration of occarances and relate them....so it is we who define it
14306
when u r measuring time from a given inertial time frame every time-frames are relative to it.Standing at that reference frame u can only calculate the precision of individual events but not the absoluteness of the time-frame itself.\n    U don't need to think about the absoluteness ofcourse to describe any property of universe. U do it relative to u.