The "force" behind time?
89650
This may be answerable through an appeal to philosophy.  Assume that all Matter is composed of intelligent organisms.  Each organism experiences inputs and makes decisions in the process of interacting with the Universe around it.  There are three "forces" behind this phenomena:\n\nThe latter force (meaning the second of two presentations):  Each organism must experience inputs one at a time; one of them must occurr after the other as the organism experiences a Choice.\n\nThe later force:  The organism may chose the first of the inputs it experiences; then the other input is delayed by the choice.  The organism may chose the last of the inputs it experiences; then the processing of the other input is delayed by the choice.\n\nThe ladder force:  This is the bit maker force: the organism must forever execute these choices one at a time as it experiences the Universe.\n\nIn physical formula, the process of choice is abstracted away and only timeless probabilities remain; so in a physical sense, time does not exist.  Time is a moral and ethical phenomena, not a physical phenomena.
93773
well force is measured in kg*m/s^2 so, force will cause a function of time and distance to increase exponentially over the interval of the force applied.\n\nFor example, an object dropped from 100 meters will go 5 meters in the first second, 20 meters in the 2nd second, and  25 meters after 3 seconds, etc.
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.
519456
There are some strange solutions to Einsteins field equations which some theorists claim to offer the possibilty to travel backwards in time but these are pure hypothesis.\n\nFor one of these possibilties you would need a huge amount of "strange matter" which we yet even don't know what it is exactly, other of these hyothesis would allow to travel back in time, but not past the invetion of the thime machine, since this time machine is the "exit" on the other side of the "time tunnel".\n\nOther scientists say it will never be possible, for varios reasons, one of the most mentioned is the problem with causality (althogh there are again theories that that would't be a problem) another very funny one is by Stephen Hawking: There never will be time machines, becaus if it would we would see tourists from the future all the time.\n\nSo, seriuosly, don't expect to see a working time machine during your lifetime.
270366
In a sense, time may be relative to size.  If you look at a time dilation equation, t' = t*(1/(1-(v^2)/(c^2))^(1/2)) you can see that time is related to velocity.  The larger (i.e. more massive) an object it, the more space it displaces and the greater the gavitational (velocity) effect.\n\n---EDIT---\n\nThe more massive an object the greater it's gravitational force.  From experimental fact, the speed of gravity is much faster than light. (Yes, I know, this contradicts Special Relativity, but that's another discussion.)\n\nAdditionally, the mass-square of the electron neutrino, measured from tritium beta decay experiments, has been found to be negative. (Yes, this too contradicts Special Relativity.)\n\nSo, from one extreme to the other, time is only relevent for a object that is moving, not for a stationary object.\n\nThat being said, there is nothing that tells us how time flows for a "moving" observer, only for a "fixed" observer.  Therefore, time must actually a constant.
803113
Time- and who knows where it goes- don't know where it came from- D
234240
Because if it went counterclockwise time would be going in reverse? :)
68749
Rabid_Scientist is entirely correct.  Both you and your home see time in the other place as speeding up.  I do have something to add to that though.  If you maintain a constant velocity, it can only be measured relative to some other point of reference, so there is no way to determine which is faster, and consequenty it cannot be determined whose time is actually going faster.  However, if you are accelerating it's a whole different story.  As you speed up to that super fast speed where the time differental starts to be noticable, you will see time on your home planet speed up and they will see your time slow down. (Sorry, I'm not going to try to explain this, I'm not sure I entirely understand it myself).  If you were to go back to your home planet, far more time would have passed for them than for you.  This effect will be greater with greater acceleration and greater speed so in that regard time will pass on your home planet more quickly the faster you go.
728817
Time is relative.  It doesn't really exist.  Time is effected by the speed of motion, and is not an object.
630244
No not at all. This concept has been tested on more than one occasion. The faster a body moves the slower time passes relative to that person. This was tested by getting two superbly accurate atomic clocks were taken. One was left on earth and another was taken up in a jet plane. When the plane landed the clock on the plane was observed to be a couple fractions of a second behind the clock on earth. \n\nThe equation for this difference is:\n\ndelta T(stationary)=(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*delta T(moving)\n\nNot to be disrespectful but why are most of your questions concerned with doubting the theories that Einstein has put forth. Almost all of his theories have been tested and confirmed to extremely high degrees of accuracy
867782
Great Question! I have the answer!\n\nImagine you are moving an object from left to right. You will see there is a displacement and a definite time taken to move from one place to the other. \nImagine you are moving faster. Notice that the time reduces.\nNow you are moving in ultrafast speed such that the time taken is nearly zero. \nWhat does this mean? There has been a displacement with no time. \nThis is what is called Yoga! Ancient Saints use to travel in time space exactly by controlling their displacement at no interval of time.\nSo do not confuse yourself with the things which will not happen with our life.\n\nTimelessness would be felt in time machines, where in the the machine travels at a speed equal to infinity. Or atleast close to infinity!\n\nOk! is it possible to have a timelessness?\n\nThis looks like an imaginery thing. Just in fictions!
187337
how can something without a boundary, like the universe,  have a center?\nand yes, time is subjective. basically i think it's only a measurement of life.
679344
Speaking from the vantage point of one with some training in physics...  You are entirely correct.  Astronomers even take advantage of this effect by looking at extremely distant objects to see what the very early universe was like.\nVery intelligent question!  Good observation.\n\nAdditional: Some of the other answers are raising a valid point.  (Good job, Silverskorpious and Johhny!)  Space and time are not rigid and flat, but curved and pliable.  However, the phonomenon still works since any amount of time passing bewteen the emission and perception of light still places the event firmly in the past by the time it's observed.
19485
Actually, according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is not the one J.R. is referring to, time is developed to explain the force of gravity and the curvature of space-time.  A physicist named Godel developed a postulate in which he proves that time was merely developed to explain.  Time does not behave independently in our universe.  Look up "Godel's incompleteness theorem".
10953
well yeah... \nwell we dont have any definitive start or end point, so it's only relative to itself meaning that you can only measure a change in time, not how much of it you actually have. \nyour actual question is a little ambiguous, if this isnt what you meant, you can add some to the question,  are you looking for an explanation of how high velocities distort time or something, because I can explain that if you would like, just add it onto the question or make a new one or something.
1091562
Gravity.  Clocks run slower in a gravitational field. Plus whatever velocity difference there might be.
4398
If you actually care, read "Time Travel In Einstein's Universe" by J. Richard Gott.  It actually proposes multiple ways this is possible.\n\nMy favorite which I learned in physics class is the fact that velocity warps time.  The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time moves for you. I've read this, and it is definately true, we had to derive the formula in physics, and calculate the time, lenghth(which decreases with speed), and mass (which increases with speed) distortion as well. The new time which has passed is equal to the time passed of a stationary observer over one minus the square root of velocity squared over the speed of light squared.  The effects of this are very negligable unless you are moving at speeds very very close to the speed of light, at least over 90% of the speed of light, and we haven't gotten anywhere close yet.  But theoretically if you were traveling very close to the speed of light, you could rotate the earth for what seems like days to you and then have years pass on earth, thus in a way traveling into the future.  Also, it gets slower and slower so that it is thought that time would actually stop if you were moving at the speed of light, and so now what happens if you move even faster? Some think it might cause you to go back in time.  It is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, however in his book, Gott discusses looping around strings(the strings from string theory) which warp space time, and discusses ways to "beat" light and actually show up someplace before you left.\n\nTime definately slows down with velocity, therefore time travel definately occurs, however, i actually have a problem with the time travel of humans.  Because along with time dialating, mass also dialates, and length contracts, if we were to approach speeds significant enough to distort time, our mass would increase and length would decrease.  Now since density is mass over volume, wouldn't that mean that our density would increase dramatically? wouldn't our blood then become so dense and viscous that it prevents blood flow and our cells become deprived of oxygen and we die? Because of this, I find it unlikely that we will ever be able to time travel, but if we can accelerate objects enough, we will probably eventually be able to send other things into the future.