We only count in Millenia?

[the_aphid]

During a conversation with some friends recently, I was caught searching for a term that meant a period of time equal to 1 million years. I figured it was one of those things that I would remember at some random moment like while washing the dishes or meditating. But I've been thinking about it more and more, and finally broke down and attempted to find the answer online, but yet again I could find no answers! A year is a year, 365 days, a decade is 10 years, a century is 100 years, a millennium is 1000 years...but then what? Was the English language founded on the belief that 1000 year periods were large enough? I mean, sure I could just say 'mya' or 'a million years ago', but I want a more poetic term and I feel like this is something that should have already been resolved!

Searching the wiki, I found the entry on millennium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium) which is derived from Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) mille, thousand, and annum, year. So then I looked at annum and found one answer, the megaannum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaannum). Blah, the 'megaannum', I demand a better term! I can just picture it in a poem; "And for many megaannums his spirit wandered the earth aimlessly..." :lol:

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it weird we don't have a term for a million year, or even a billion year period. Era, Aeon, etc, are all indeterminate periods of time, often referring to very large periods of time, but still not defined.

:think:

[j000han]

The Afid:


Is it just me, or does anyone else find it weird we don't have a term for a million year, or even a billion year period. Era, Aeon, etc, are all indeterminate periods of time, often referring to very large periods of time, but still not defined.
J:here is the wiki entry for kalpa:
Buddhism In Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism), there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long, and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or 1.28 trillion years.
The Buddha had not spoken about the exact length of the kalpa in number of years. However, he had given several astounding analogies to understand it.
1. Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately 16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard seed into the cube. According to buddha, the huge cube will be fuller even before the kalpa ends.
2. Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa, approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfs the Everest!). You take a small piece of cloth and wipe the mountain once every 100 years. According to buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even before the kalpa ends.
In one situation, some monks wanted to know how many kalpas had passed away so far. The buddha gave the shocking analogy:
1. If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.[1]:loveyou: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_%28time_unit%29#_note-0)

[scameter]

Not really, since people rarely occupy such a time period.

[schrodinger]

Searching the wiki, I found the entry on millennium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium) which is derived from Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) mille, thousand, and annum, year. --the aphid--

I can’t say that this has ever really bothered me, but I have wondered why a period of one thousand years is referred to as a millennium when the prefix “milli” refers to one thousandth. The proper prefix for one thousand is “kilo” so one thousand years should be properly called a “kiloannum” in my humble opinion. But if I really want to confuse people I refer to dendrochronological cycles or to the Milankovitch cycles. No need to use “millinenium” at all!
If someone asks you what you do for a living, how would you like to reply “ I am a dendrochronologist"?:D

[sonrisa]

I thought milli was Latin for 1000 while kilo was Greek for 1000

[Thomas Knierim]

the_aphid: A year is a year, 365 days, a decade is 10 years, a century is 100 years, a millennium is 1000 years...but then what?

Well, there's the geological time scale of eons, eras, periods, and epochs, but of course these are quite elastic terms.

the_aphid: Was the English language founded on the belief that 1000 year periods were large enough?

Reminds me of the Thai National Bank's policy who seems to think that 1000 Baht bank notes are "enough". Since there is no higher denomination than 1000 THB (roughly $32.50 USD) , you have to bring a suitcase when you want to pay for your new car in cash.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Well, as I said no one has ever lived over a thousand years, and yet a thousand year period is often a short enough time in history where things that happened near the beginning of that millennia could be remembered through tradition and with a more vivid history than previous time, by those at the end of the millennia. For instance, I know more about the Middle Ages, the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment and the 19th and 20th centuries than I do about the Dark Ages and the ancient times, not from study, but just from people talking about it. You can still go to many sites from the last millennia that haven't really changed much over that time period, but I'm sure Athens, Greece, is entirely different now than it was then.

[lbz]

the_aphid: A year is a year, 365 days, a decade is 10 years, a century is 100 years, a millennium is 1000 years...but then what?

Well, there's the geological time scale of eons, eras, periods, and epochs, but of course these are quite elastic terms.

the_aphid: Was the English language founded on the belief that 1000 year periods were large enough?

Reminds me of the Thai National Bank's policy who seems to think that 1000 Baht bank notes are "enough". Since there is no higher denomination than 1000 THB (roughly $32.50 USD) , you have to bring a suitcase when you want to pay for your new car in cash.

Cheers, Thomas

thnx for sharing your thoughts but ultimately what does that fact mean for you thats what id realy like to know

[Thomas Knierim]

lbz: what does that fact mean for you?

Exactly which fact are you referring to?

The one about the lack of terms for large time periods in the English language? That can be fixed easily. In appreciation of the words "century" and "millennium", may I suggest "megary" for a million years and "giganium" for a billion years? :lol: In fact scientists already use abbreviations such as "mya" and "bya" - meaning million/billion years ago.

Or do you mean the factoid about the Central Bank of Thailand's note issuing policies?

Scameter: You can still go to many sites from the last millennia that haven't really changed much over that time period.

Not surprising. Since it is 2008, almost anything you see was built in the last millennium. :p

Cheers, Thomas

[Michael]

Thomas, what I find seriously weird is all the words we have for time.

Tell me, what is the difference between a nanosecond and a billion light years when all is contained in the instant?

[Thomas Knierim]

Michael: Tell me, what is the difference between a nanosecond and a billion light years when all is contained in the instant?

According to relativity theory the flow of time is indeed bound to individual reference frames and therefore the expression "a million years" doesn't have any universal meaning. But it is still meaningful to us humans as basic instrument of conceptualisation , since we share the same reference frame.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thomas:Not surprising. Since it is 2008, almost anything you see was built in the last millennium.

:P True.

Michael:Tell me, what is the difference between a nanosecond and a billion light years when all is contained in the instant?

Well, as I have stated elsewhere I think, I don't believe in time as a real thing. To me, physical existence, the combination of energy and matter in space, is it; time is merely the occurrance of change within existence, which of course occurs because of the interaction between space, matter and energy. But, to me, this is also why the concept of time travel is ridiculous, and I don't mean because of what relativity teaches. To me it is ridiculous because to manipulate time, which would essentially be manipulating the occurrance of change in existence, it would require (somehow) having the tools necessary that could literally alter the very fabric of existence and in fact, would would not be going back in time, one would be altering existence to be exactly like it was in a previous time period, whether a second ago or billions of years ago. While it would seem that though time travel is impossible, this method might could help us understand the past, that is also flawed, because for us to be able to exactly change a specific area of existence to resemble a certain time in the past, we would have to already know what that period was like, thus making the alteration have only experiencial value. Using the test for the future would be flawed in the same way; unless we simply sped up the occurrance of change in a specific area so that it could resemble itself in the future, which could be applicable. But, in truth, time does not exist. The only reason we consider time is because of memory. I may actually start another topic on this. Is there already one?

[Michael]

According to relativity theory the flow of time is indeed bound to individual reference frames and therefore the expression "a million years" doesn't have any universal meaning. But it is still meaningful to us humans as basic instrument of conceptualisation , since we share the same reference frame.



My point is that it only has meaning because we give it meaning. The concept becomes the reality. Which I think is what you're saying.

[Akamu]

Scameter: But, in truth, time does not exist. The only reason we consider time is because of memory. I may actually start another topic on this. Is there already one?

Einstein and countless other physicists would disagree with you, I believe. Sure, humans conceptualize time. We have our watches and clocks telling us the hour of the day, but just because humans utilize time in a way that is illusory, doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Time and space are interwoven into the the fabric of the universe. The universe, in essence, is of a time bi weave material. We know that as we move through space at an increased rate, our experience of time slows down. If time doesn't exist, why then do we experiencing it passing at a different rate as we move through space? What changes if not time? I think what is happening here is that people discuss different definitions of time. First, there is time as the human concept of measuring change in their surroundings; which can be extended to measuring changes in the universe. Then there is time in the physical sense; it's correlation with space, forming spacetime, time as the 4th dimension of motion, etc. The latter of which can't be explained away as "illusion" because illusions don't generally cause measurable anomalies that supply support for it's correlation with space.

[Michael]

The key in your position, Akamu, is, 'What changes if not time?'

Your thought processes are all based on the concept of cause and effect.

That being so, you must consider the possibility of you being the cause and the effect, at least in reference to the quantum universe.

Is it so impossible to consider what we are so marvelous?

[Akamu]

The key in your position, Akamu, is, 'What changes if not time?'

Your thought processes are all based on the concept of cause and effect.

That being so, you must consider the possibility of you being the cause and the effect, at least in reference to the quantum universe.

Is it so impossible to consider what we are so marvelous?

I don't doubt the power of the human mind. But, I was trying to argue through the lens of our conception of physics...and leaving such other extraordinary things out.

[scameter]

Akamu:Einstein and countless other physicists would disagree with you, I believe.

Einstein also disagreed with the first theory of the Big Bang.

Akamu:What changes if not time?

Honestly, I don't think it's time that is changing. I think it is something else; what, I'm not sure. Perhaps something that we haven't detected yet. But, I just can't see how time can exist. Sure there might be a boundary to existence that makes the occurrance of change in life stable, but I don't think that is time.

Akamu:Then there is time in the physical sense; it's correlation with space, forming spacetime, time as the 4th dimension of motion, etc.

As I said, I don't think that time in that sense is real. I'm not saying it is illusory; to people, it is entirely real, because our minds have memory and imagination and similar abstract thinking tools that can remember the past and predict the future and measure the time of the present. But, we must remember that clocks only function as they do because we program them to. If we programmed a clock to have, say, 61 seconds in a minute, we could do it and it would entirely comply. But, because of our mathematical designs as to how exactly the passage of change in life should be measured, we give it specific perameters. Like I said, I think it's entirely possible that are parameters to existence that cause existence to be possible at all, considering that it all came from nothing at the Big Bang, whether it is something like the speed of light or some energy that we haven't even discovered yet. But, to me, time is merely the measurement of the passage of change in existence. It is not a real thing. I may be wrong of course. This is merely a theory, based on what I know currently.

Micheal:Is it so impossible to consider what we are so marvelous?

To me, yes. I think that we are marvelous, but not because of anything we did. Whether God made us special, or nature, or whatever, we are special because we exist, like everything else. This is one of my main issues with people, when they ask me, what is the meaning of life? I tell them the only sensible thing, and that goes before anything else: to exist. If not, it wouldn't exist. Again, whether God did it, or nature, or just a random chaotic occurance, existence exists and is here, as are we, and as is any other spiritual or physical aspect of existence. And, I think that our subjective experience of life is definitely special, but in a quieter, subtler since. I don't think it is as grand as us literally causing life to exist or being responsible for a return to this life without the assistance of another force.

[Akamu]

Scameter: But, we must remember that clocks only function as they do because we program them to. If we programmed a clock to have, say, 61 seconds in a minute, we could do it and it would entirely comply. But, because of our mathematical designs as to how exactly the passage of change in life should be measured, we give it specific perameters. Like I said, I think it's entirely possible that are parameters to existence that cause existence to be possible at all, considering that it all came from nothing at the Big Bang, whether it is something like the speed of light or some energy that we haven't even discovered yet. But, to me, time is merely the measurement of the passage of change in existence. It is not a real thing. I may be wrong of course. This is merely a theory, based on what I know currently.

It still sounds to me like you are trying to convince me of the nonexistence of time as we commonly know it here on earth. I already agree with that. Of course how we measure it is completely subjective. An hour is only and hour and a minute is only a minute because we deem it so. But time's relationship with space and gravity etc. is a measurable and observable phenomenon. It is a completely different "time" than the word we throw around on this planet. I may be wrong as well, but there is evidence pointing to the existence of time. Of course, this is all within human perception...so anything is possible. If you want to ask me at the absolute fundamental level "does time exist?" I would most likely say no because it is only our experience of time and of those things affected by time that makes it real. But there is no point going into that because that applies to anything and everything.

[scameter]

Akamu:It still sounds to me like you are trying to convince me of the nonexistence of time as we commonly know it here on earth.

Well, my point about clocks was actually to show that time is nothing more than that, not the phyiscal phenomena scientists claim it is.

Akamu:But time's relationship with space and gravity etc. is a measurable and observable phenomenon. It is a completely different "time" than the word we throw around on this planet.

Which, as I partially explained in my previous post, makes me wonder whether or not time is an appropriate word for the physical phenomena scientists label as time. To me, the thing that scientists observe as time in nature, and this is really just a wild speculation but a speculation indeed, is that when matter accelerates to a certain point, near the speed of light, matter is approaching the boundary between energy and matter that bonds existence together, and that is why it would appear that time is speeding up, because in fact, because of the explanation relativity gives to it, but I don't think that is because of time itself changing. I think it is because of the relative position of matter in space that, when approaching the matter-energy barrier, increases in speed and, in a sense, becomes separated from the matter around it which remains as simply normal matter. I don't think it's time increasing that clocks detect when they move at a high speed. I think it is change increasing, in a sense, as the clock nears the matter-energy barrier, the latter being the entire cause of change in the former. That probably sounds like alot of babble, but I hope it has at least some consistency. :lol:

[scameter]

Not that I presume anyone would, but if anyone is reading the posts in this thread regarding time, please help yourself to my topic, Time, and posts your thoughts. :)

[Michael]

The Wonder of Ourselves

The meanings we give to things
Make no sense
And we know it all the time
Which is why we hurt and weep.

Time and gravity work together
To unfold us
Into that space
In which move
Tears upon our cheeks
In recognition of
our secret knowledge of
What we cannot say.

We cannot reach being ourselves -
We cannot believe;
Even living amidst the astonishing
Architecture of our creation -
Which we make to
Separate ourselves from ourselves.

We are too much our glory
To believe that we might be such -
Blindly we see wonder and fail to see
The wonder of ourselves.

[scameter]

Who wrote that?

[Michael]

I said the sparow

[scameter]

Awesome. :applause:

[Michael]

Thanks, scam. Sometimes we have to take words to a different level to communicate.