I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?Originally Posted by Terrapin
It has already been shown that time can slow down. Time slows down as velocity increases. The best way I can illustrate this is imagine a spacecraft sitting in the hangar with an atomic clock on it. The particle (cessium) occilates back and forth like such:
Crude drawing, but basically it oscillates between the two and the particle also oscillates (that part isn't too important here).Code:---------- / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \/ -----------
When the spacecraft is in space flying along, we'll assume it can exceed the speed of light if it wants, just below the speed of light. The particle has a much larger distance to travel.
Because the particle can not speed up to cover this same amount of distance. Time must slow down to accomodate it. I do not fully understand this concept myself, but this is how it was taught to me.Code:------------ ------------------- ------------------- \ / \ / \ / \ / ------------ ----------------- -------------------
Now ... as to this. I find it amusing that on a science forum you blindly believe in destiny, yet have no faith in theoretical physics. Physics, even theoretical physics, are backed by proven principles and logical hypotheses.I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?
This appears to be an impact of motion on matter, not really true time in the sense of past and present. Slowing down of an atomic particle doesn't prove time it just proves something can be slowed or have a longer distance to travel. Will the egg cook slower, sure. Will I be able to go back in time before the egg existed, no.Because the particle can not speed up to cover this same amount of distance. Time must slow down to accomodate it. I do not fully understand this concept myself, but this is how it was taught to me.
I'm very open to theories, I just don't see this one proving a true sense of time.Now ... as to this. I find it amusing that on a science forum you blindly believe in destiny, yet have no faith in theoretical physics. Physics, even theoretical physics, are backed by proven principles and logical hypotheses.
Ahh ... I got so caught up in the first part. I forgot the rest. The part about time slowing down has been shown to be true. I believe the most famoust way was using two swiss watches and a supersonic jet. But anyways ,,,, theoretically when you reach the speed of light the time would stop, and as you move past time would be reversed. Now no one can prove this yet. And there is only one place in the universe where the speed of light is broken, and that is around the edges of black holes. I believe some professor is trying to recreate this by firing photons around a curve (?). But if he succeeds, then theoretically particles will begin to appera a fraction of a second before he fires them. This would create matter, for that fraction of a second, until the particle is fired and disappears.
I can 100% believe that the processes of matter can be slowed to the point of stopping, this is not however time, it is simply slowing of matter. The fact is the entire rest of the universe is still beating along at it's normal rate.Ahh ... I got so caught up in the first part. I forgot the rest. The part about time slowing down has been shown to be true. I believe the most famoust way was using two swiss watches and a supersonic jet. But anyways ,,,, theoretically when you reach the speed of light the time would stop, and as you move past time would be reversed.
Think of it this way, if I build a watch that moves slower then the rest of the watches, that watch doesn't alter time, it's simply not in tune with the rest of the watches that exist. Slowing down matter has the same effect, if you traveled in a spaceship moving close to the speed of light, you may be able to live longer then your fellow humans back on earth and one day return to what you would consider the future. Did you travel in time? No, you simply slowed down matter to allow for a longer existence.
If you are traveling at the speed of light and all matter within your spaceship somehow stops, it's not really stopped, it's moving at the speed of light in a direction. The bad part here is nothing is left to navigate your ship or reverse it's course to return home. You become a photon
Time is a measurement based on mechanical motion, stopping or slowing the mechanics changes nothing. Now if you could travel in time forward and backwards at will, that would be a bit more interesting. It is impossible however based on logic.
If I stand in the street in front of my house, most of the time nothing happens. Other times I would be hit by a car. Why would I be hit by a car sometimes, and not other times if time did not exist?
Time is a word, it is also a measurement of passage based on mechanical action, even if it's an oscillation of an atom.
If you can prove to me that we can travel back in time with sound theories then I'll begin to believe in time being something other then a man made way to measure the span of existence. Time passes translates into mechanical action, even if it's at a sub atomic level. We can recreate what was, however we did not travel back in time, we simply manipulated matter to appear as it once was.
TIme:
A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
The concept of time helps us better grasp the universe as a whole. In reality it's all just matter being transformed based on mechanical movement.
Mechanical movement in this case being anything that impacts the state of matter. Not to be taken as the only form of manipulation.
If all matter including ourselves stopped moving, we would never know it at all. A duration would have in fact expired, we simply would have no reference to measure it by and it would go unnoticed.
Time is used as a dimension to measure the state of things. If we removed time as the 4th dimension of being, there would be no progress from one state to another. All matter would remain in exactly the same state, however as we have no control over the passage of time at current speeds this is theoretical only. The fact that time slows as speed increases, has been measured experimentally but the possibility of stopping time does not practically exist as nothing we know exceeds the speed of light theoretcially and practically nothing we can attach ourselves to comes anywhere near this speed. The passage of time in its current state creates the 'cause precedes effect' phenomenom. As Alice in Wonderland found in another dimension she could experience the blood before the pinprick, however there was still the passage of time - backwards.
The 3 dimensions of space allow us to see things in '3D' , if we lived in a 2 dimensional state plus time, we would not experience something like 'depth' and would be in a single plane with length and breadth but without a dimension of depth, would exist like a microscope crossection. The reason why we are unable to concieve of more than 4 dimensions is because we have no practical experience of this. String theorists are positing up to 11 dimensions in order to try and explain the universal physical laws.
Regarding the earlier comment about the state at or before the big bang. The current laws of physics only apply to what existed subsequent to the big bang. We currently have no way of describing the state that existed at or before (we cannot even describe it as 'before' since the dimension of time cannot be proven to exist at this point).
It is seen as a point of singularity with no dimensions or laws of physics as we define them today. We cannot concieve of this in a knowing way because our perceptions are also defined by our environment post big bang, and this (for us) is 4 dimensional. Just as we cannot hear outside certain bandwidths and cannot see the UV and infrared ends of the spectrum, without the assistance of tools like infrared glasses, we can only be theoretically aware of these other realms.
Presumably there could be other realms that are beyond our theoretical and practical perceptions. For men, this is the world of women (oops, wrong forum).
So what did they use to measure time to determine it slows down with an increase in speed? If they used anything based on physical matter or energy I consider this flawed. It still only proves matter slows with the increase in speed, time as it does not exist without matter has not changed at all. Time and motion being one.The fact that time slows as speed increases, has been measured experimentally but the possibility of stopping time does not practically exist as nothing we know exceeds the speed of light theoretcially and practically nothing we can attach ourselves to comes anywhere near this speed.
Einsteins perspective changed Newtonian thought that everywhere in the universe a second of time was the same. That is, time existed as an absolute. Einstein claimed that time slowed the faster one travelled, meaning that the passage of time depends upon your perspective and there is no point of absolute constancy. One proving of this was in October 1971, when American physicists took four super-accurate atomic clocks, kept two on the ground and put two on commercial jets flying at 1000 kmh in opposite directions around Earth.
When the planes landed, the scientists found what they were hoping for: The clocks on the high-speed journeys were ticking a few billionths of a second behind their stationary friends.
Do you think that the above proving is flawed because they used clocks that consist of matter? Your comment that time and motion are one flies in the face of Einstein who held that space and time are indivisible. If you can argue your case coherently you will upset of a lot of physicists that generally still believe that despite his rejection of quantum physics, Einstein's theories of relativity are fundamentally right and still being unravelled today. Go for it, you have nothing to lose.
I actually had started a thread a while back on this. I wasn't however trying to disprove anyone, I'm pretty sure I could with enough writing.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/What+is+time-61t.php
Hi (In)Sanity,
I read the thread referred to and suggest you do some more reading on the Newtonian concept of time and Einstein. Not that I am saying they are correct, but they hold the logical high ground at present.
If I understand your view correctly, you say that time is man made and if all matter did not move then time would not exist in a way that man can measure and define. However you think that time itself would still somehow continue, just that without changing states of matter humans would not be able to measure it.
If I did get it right, the current theory of time from relativity partly agrees with this as a base assumption. It does this by making time and space inseperable, a continuum. Time does measure changes in states of the other 3 dimensions, however with our current knowledge of physics, the states do change, so time does pass, and so it can be measured. The possibility of a frozen state would change the laws of physics and time might also not exist as we know it. Time only exists because the states of matter do change, cause precedes effect and so on. Matter is 3 dimensional as we percieve it, if you removed matter from the equation, the 3 dimensions would disappear and according to relativity if 3D (space) went then so would time, and we are back with the pre big bang singularity where our laws of physics fail. So according to this we each carry a measure of time with us, each particle in the universe, but because most of what we are familiar with is so much slower than light speed, the changes are infinitesimal and not noticed.
Newtons view was different, he proposed that time was constant (this looks like part of what you say, some kind of passage of time behind everything).
As I said before, have a go at unseating Einstein, but study relativity carefully before you try, although politics rule outcomes more often than logic, you will need to offer reason first. Even today physicists are still coming to terms with the implications of relativity. This is not my field of expertise, but I think with some study of relativity you will get the answers to your questions.
Well considering the only basis we have for time is the movement of matter, I have to conclude that we really can't prove beyond a doubt that time is being impacted at all by higher speeds and not just matter itself. Even the test of the two atomic clocks only proves that matter is impacted by speed, it doesn't prove time changes or for that matter even exists.
I go back to my original statement that time is a man made concept to measure the movement of matter in the universe. In an environment truly void of matter and energy time would not exist. Time is a concept, not something to be taken as a physical object.
Look at it another way, what is a billion years to the universe? Before man placed a definition on the word year it had no meaning at all to the universe as a whole.
Another problem we run into, if matter really does slow it's process with speed then traveling great distances becomes irrelevant. The ship we would travel in would age less, as would the crew on board. This is an old concept I know. Has time changed because the crew does not age at the same rate as they would have back on earth? No, it's still the same old measurement it has always been, the man made way to measure movement.
Interesting idea, the crew on the ISS should in theory age slower then the rest of the people back on earth. They are in fact traveling a little bit faster then the rest of us.
One has to ask, why does matter slow down when accelerated, clearly there is an outside force pushing on the very atoms causing this slow down. I'm sure some day we'll figure it out. For now we can just keep debating about it and perhaps broaden our understanding.
Hi (In)Sanity,
I do not see the connection between the assumption in the first part of your sentence with the conclusion. Can you explain how the possibility that changing states of matter measures the passage of time and therefore, there is no way we can prove that time is impacted by higher speeds? The theoretical proving of time being slowed by speed is simple, but it makes the assumption that the speed of light cannot change.Well considering the only basis we have for time is the movement of matter, I have to conclude that we really can't prove beyond a doubt that time is being impacted at all by higher speeds and not just matter itself
Imagine an observer outside of a train, in which there is a light source in the floor, an opposing mirror and a person. The outside observer is fixed in position relative to the train, and the train is travelling at the speed of light. The person inside the train will see the light beam emitted and be reflected inside the train. The beam will have travelled twice the height of the train. To the observer outside the train, not only will they have seen the light travel from the floor to the roof and back, but as the train is travelling at the speed of light, they will have seen the light beam move laterally. That is, by the time the light reached the ceiling the train had moved the same distance laterally. Likewise for the reflection of the light. The fact that the outside observer saw the light cover a greater distance than the person inside the carriage, and if light speed is constant, then only time itself can be the variable. The conclusion is that time was slower for the person inside the train. Similary there is impact upon the mass and size of the train. It tends to shorten and become more dense as it increases speed.
Why is light speed constant? Good question, I have taken Einsteins word on this and not studied the proofs closely. Based upon your post and my response I will return to it and see if I can make sense of it.
No problem with this statement, this is the supposed state prior to the big bang. The problem comes with describing the state in terms that are meaninful to us.In an environment truly void of matter and energy time would not exist
Time being a concept does not preclude it from being a physical object. However do not confuse an object with a dimension. Space, 3 dimensional, defines objects. Time defines the change in the state of these dimensions, becoming a 4th dimension, but it is not described as an object.Time is a concept, not something to be taken as a physical object.
Man has defined metrics to describe the passage of time, like second, year, etc. However man has not created them, this passage of time did exist before we described just as matter did. I am well aware of the solipsistic arguments questioning the existence of matter, but I have made the assumption that matter does exist for the sake of our discussions.Look at it another way, what is a billion years to the universe? Before man placed a definition on the word year it had no meaning at all to the universe as a whole.
You might have a case here if you an an absolute point of reference, but you do not. To the people inside the spacecraft they will judge by theirs, just as those outside will have a different reference. Time becomes relative to your speed relative to a constant point. Since there is no constant point in the universe, all objects are speeding away from each other at accelerating speeds, time will get very rubbery. This is not something I have looked at, but once again, thanks to your post, I now will.Another problem we run into, if matter really does slow it's process with speed then traveling great distances becomes irrelevant. The ship we would travel in would age less, as would the crew on board. This is an old concept I know. Has time changed because the crew does not age at the same rate as they would have back on earth? No, it's still the same old measurement it has always been, the man made way to measure movement.
Matter does not slow down as it accelerates, time does. Matter speeds up, hence the use of the word 'accelerate', something we have predefined. The fact that it becomes smaller and more dense might be caused by an 'outside force', something I have not considered.One has to ask, why does matter slow down when accelerated, clearly there is an outside force pushing on the very atoms causing this slow down
Once again, I recommend some reading of relativity, it is suprisingly simple and saves lots of dead end debates when you see that many of the questions we debate here, have been plumbed by greater minds than ours. Our exchanges have forced me to question how well I understand these concepts and raised aspects I had not even seen. Thankyou for that.I'm sure some day we'll figure it out. For now we can just keep debating about it and perhaps broaden our understanding
Still I find it impossible to believe in the true existence of time, other then as a concept we have created.
Let's look at it from another prospective.
If no intelligent life existed in the universe, what we call time would still continue to move forward. What this really translates into is changes in the physical state of mater to create a measurable outcome.
The speed of light being a constant to the best of our knowledge could be used as a reference point to measure the time elapsed throughout the universe.
We assume the speed of light is a constant, yet living in our very very small spec of the universe we really have no absolute way to determine beyond a doubt that light moves at the same exact speed throughout the universe, we can do all the math over and over again and conclude that it must. We really don't know this for absolute fact. I realize the general consensus is that it is an absolute constant. History has a way of proving so many things wrong in the end, I can't commit to the idea it's absolute. Some unknown force may impact it.
Time, the concept we use to determine how long it will take for a physical change to happen. How long it takes light to travel a distance, how long it takes to cook an egg. Time as the concept of measuring the change in matter is very real in our minds, we have a hard time thinking of our existence without it. Unlike matter and energy it serves no purpose in the universe, it doesn't regulate how fast light travels, the movement of the stars, the planets, or anything else in the universe. These things happen at a rate that we then measure and label with time. Based on this information without man time would never have come about. The universe would still move and change and do what it has always done without time.
I realize I'm splinting hairs here, I simply can't accept the when science says anything that claims to impact time, it can't impact time, only matter. So when I hear time slows, or speeds up, it's illogical.
So if Einsteins theory is correct traveling at the speed of light would cause matter to slow down at a sub atomic level. It would have nothing at all to do with time. Remove the concept of time from all your thought at think only about changes in matter, it all still works.
Science sometimes makes the very simple things in life appear very complex.
Hi (In)Sanity,
You seem to be returning to the same starting point every time in this discussion.
One of your perceptions stands out each time here
andTime as the concept of measuring the change in matter is very real in our minds, we have a hard time thinking of our existence without it. Unlike matter and energy it serves no purpose in the universe, it doesn't regulate how fast light travels, the movement of the stars, the planets, or anything else in the universe. These things happen at a rate that we then measure and label with time. Based on this information without man time would never have come about. The universe would still move and change and do what it has always done without time.
and againI simply can't accept the when science says anything that claims to impact time, it can't impact time, only matter. So when I hear time slows, or speeds up, it's illogical.
Taking your last mention of this. You are quite correct if we remove the 'concept' of time as humans measure it, the changes in matter still continue. However, we HAVE observed changes in states of matter, and do not forget that this also applies ot humans. If matter did not change its state, there would be no motion at all from an atomic level through to a cosmic level. In other words even observation would be impossible. No active processes would exist. BUT, life is not like this. The states of matter DO change, there is a past, present and future. We have chosen to call it 'time' and have used delineations like second, minute, year and so on to give some way of tracking to acccording to things that are relevant to human life. Of course it still all works if we remove the concept, we only use the concept BECAUSE states do change, and we as humans are aware of this. The fact that the progression of the changes of these states varies, depending upon the speed you travel at, and since this IS time, it does slow down. That is why, theoretically at least, astronauts travelling at light speed, would age less, relative to those on earth. Age IS the marking of the passage of time over the state of our bodies. One rate for earthlings, another for those at light speed.Remove the concept of time from all your thought at think only about changes in matter, it all still works.
You comment that the speed of light being constant can be used as a reference point. In fact this has hardly ever been so in practical terms for humans. This only emerged when Einstein got into the act. Relativity quite literally upset Newtonian notions that had held for 200+ years. In pre history the most obvious thing we used to measure the changes to states of matter, without any idea that these things were not constant, was changes in the natural world around us. The seasons, day and night, our gestation periods, our longevity and so on. These appear to us to be constant and practically speaking, they are. In fact, the rotation speed of the earth around the sun is not constant, nor the movement of the planets, in fact nothing, except light speed is either theoretically or experimentally constant.
You comment that you do not accept that we are ABSOLUTELY sure that light speed is constant. I agree we are sure of absolutely nothing anywhere in the universe, if indeed the universe exists. This debate about an objective reality has absorbed people for many lifetimes. Descartes resolved it to 'I think, therefore I am' as being the only point of certainty. Even this I could question. Can we be sure that Descartes really said this? Even that Descartes existed? Am I sure that I do think? If I did perhaps that is just an illusion.
At the end of the day we can have no certainty about the existence of anything, which should be OK because we might not really be here to question it.
Despite the above, regarding your scepticism about what we can prove about the speed of light. As far as we know, as far as logical theory has gone, given the with experiments that verify the theory, we think that light speed is constant. I cannot offer a better theory or experimental proof that changes this assumption. I do not imagine you are able to do so either. In fact no-one is apparently able to prove that light speed is not constant. Tomorrow that might change, and everything we know about light speed, or time could be different. The sun might not rise in the east, or it might not rise at all. The earth might turn out to be a flat disk, or fall into the sun.
However, if I were a betting man, I know where I would put my money.
I think my main point on time is that so many think of it as an object, something that can be manipulated, changed or otherwise looked upon. In reality it is just a concept we use to measure movement of matter. In this case it can not be altered, only matter can. Time travel is out of the question unless of course you change all matter to resemble what it once was or what you think it will be, still this would not be true time travel. You so often hear the term "space and time" as if time were a physical thing.
I think we are both on the same page on this subject. I think we can let this one rest and move on to some other interesting subject
Hi (in)Sanity,
The steadfast loyalty, in the face of logic and evidence to the contrary, you have to your ideas on this topic is admirable. By contrast I am fickle changing my views on this topic like I change my underwear. Fittingly, your view is Newtonian, frozen in time.
As you suggested I would have offered a new topic - something along these lines "Given the transition from Newtonian views of fixed time and space to the Einsteinian continuum of curved time and space, now of superstring theory with QM as its core and the variables of the time/space continuum, can we explain why time only moves in one direction?"
However given the preceding debate, what about - "logic is proudly held as the golden standard for human beings, almost a moral right, yet we are seen to be emotive and instinctive in behaviour. I am aware of countless deepseated prejudices and opinions I hold, that no amount of logic or evidence will shake. Why do we maintain a stance that we are logical, rational beings? Very little of what I know is based upon an independent assessment of the evidence or logic, but is taken secondhand, at face value, from others. This is faith, not reason. I hold the view of a spherical earth and one that rotates around the sun, but if pressed I doubt I could present a watertight case. If I had been in Galileo's time I would have believed in an earth centric world, or in a flat earth prior to that. This is not about flawed theories, it is flawed thinking. A theroy can always be changed, how do you deal with how we think?
Would anyone care to debate this with me?
I'm still looking for the flaw in my logic. Time being solely based on the movement of matter would only be allowed to move forward. Time passing without the existence of matter would be impossible to measure. It would be for all purposes on pause.
When I feel a bit better I'll write more. Caught yet another cold running around Vegas in the rain.
We really should start some new threads.
I agree that time is based upon the existence of matter, this arises from the view that time and matter, which as far as we know are inseparable came into being at the time of the Big Bang.
However, time only moving forward based upon the movement of matter can be logically challenged. Just as time slows down as we approach the speed of light, equations have been formulated that at speeds greater than light speed, time could move in reverse. Since there is no rationale for anything travelling at this speed, it does not seem possible.
However the practical implications of time moving backward have been argued as 'effect preceding cause', just as in our current dimension the cause of something occurs before it's effect. This is illustrated in 'Alice in Wonderlands' view of the bleeding finger happening before it is pricked by a pin. So far it just makes good fiction, but it can be mathematically argued.
Does your suggestion to start another thread involve my suggestion of exploring flat-earth-mentality?
This is where we see things totally different. Math alone is not evidence enough for me, I'm pretty sure given enough time math could be applied in such a way to prove a certain food tastes better then a certain other food.However, time only moving forward based upon the movement of matter can be logically challenged. Just as time slows down as we approach the speed of light, equations have been formulated that at speeds greater than light speed, time could move in reverse. Since there is no rationale for anything traveling at this speed, it does not seem possible.
Let me try something a little different. I realize this debate is just going on and on, I don't think we are at risk of filling the hard drive up with it
Time in my view is a measurement, just like height, weight, temperature, length, mass, density, volume, etc. What these things all have in common is man made reference points.
Time is based on the rotation of the earth, 1 day = 1 rotation.
height is based on inch, yards, meters, etc 1 foot = 12 inches..etc
weight is based on the pound, kilogram, etc
etc..etc.
Another thing the above things all have in common is that they are used by man to measure the state of matter. For the earth to rotate one full circle we placed a measurement on it and called it a "day". Now is this a precise measurement, not really. For our purposes of life it's pretty accurate for most things.
We also have divided up this term we call a day into smaller pieces in order to better express it. Just as we have divided other forms of measurement the same way.
Now we have certain laws that apply to these measurements.
Something can not be so small that we can no longer give it a height, width and length. These numbers will never be negative.
An objects weight is based on gravity, so the two always intermingle, less gravity less weight. In a vacuum something can not weight a negative number. It can however weigh zero.
Something can not be so cold that it starts to become warm, the scale of temperature can not reverse once it reaches some extreme.
Time can be zero but never a negative. It can not take you -3 seconds to complete a task.
I think time becomes confusing as it is also associated with history, much like a yard stick that has been marked off at certain points to indicate specific points along the way. Much like that yard stick time also has a point at which it begins, time unlike the yard stick has no apparent end that we are yet aware of. Both the yard stick and time can be extended by adding more units of measure to them, allowing them to stretch onward seemingly forever.
I think some of the problem here is that you feel I'm trying to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm really not, I'm simply trying to refine the terms used to dispel some fantasy that it has created with mankind.
As experiments have proven to a very small degree Einstein's theory appears to be correct. The terminology used is where I find fault. The whole concept of space-time. Why not space-temperature or space-inches. Space is a physical object, time is a measurement. Based on how long it takes for the earth to rotate one time around we then measure how long it takes for other things in the universe to occur, how long it takes for light to travel a given distance, how long it takes for the earth to rotate around the sun. This is time.
I may have to devote my life to prove that time is just a measurement and nothing more. Somehow man has created this fantasy about it, we've made movies about it, wrote books about it. It's a measurement, it's not magic. It's no better then the inch, yard, meter, degree centigrade, or the pound. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Edit:
Hey I'm going to ask our moderator if he wouldn't mind moving all this time related stuff to another thread. It really has little to do with the Big Bang at this point.
This is your first comment where I feel I can add something relevant. Space-inches would mean remaining in 3 dimensions of legth, breadth and width. You have not added the dimension of time that tracks the changes in state.The terminology used is where I find fault. The whole concept of space-time. Why not space-temperature or space-inches
Take an example of a photograph. This is 2 dimensional representation of something, and it is frozen in time. ie. we have excluded time as a dimension. Now consider a video or film, this is still 2 dimensional in space, because it is flat, but we have added the dimension of time and presto! we have movement. Add the 4th dimension of depth and you have a facsimile of our universe, 4 dimensional to our senses.
If you do not want to use space-time, of what use is space temperature? A frozen in time 3 dimensional space with changes in temperature. OK so what? Is our universe like that? No. Things move. Its called time when we track the changes in states. If we added temperature to space-time you have a 5 dimensional universe, this is correct, we do have ranges of temperature. Time and temperature are quite different to the 3 spatial dimensions. Looked at in this way, we have added a 5th dimension, superstring looks at 10 dimensions (only 3 spatial) and time. I have no idea what these are. Perhaps I should do some more reading.
Ahhh, I think your still missing what I'm trying to convey. Clearly I must be writing something incorrectly. I'm going to chill on it for now and see if anyone else is brave enough to join the discussion.
It's all cool
Ahem. Except of course temperature is not really a dimension, but merely a sign of how much molecules likes to dance around per second.
Personally, I'm puzzled with the concept of time. It's like my brain is like a small plastic bag, and time a baseball too big to fit. I keep trying, but if I try too hard, I get a splitting headache.
Mr U
And time is how far they have traveledAhem. Except of course temperature is not really a dimension, but merely a sign of how much molecules likes to dance around per second Wink.
I think the fact that time has been identified as a dimension has made it sound and appear far more complex then it really is. Time is just a way to measure change. It's not something we can alter. We can however alter space.
Changes in space can impact the measurements we get back from time. For example traveling close to the speed of light may impact matter in such a way that when we measure it's change we perceive the value of time has changed. Time here is still just a measurement. The real thing that has changed is matter.
It's all so simple.
Hi Mr U,
Your say
Throat clearing aside, why is temperature not a dimension? In its broadest sense dimenson is defined as anything that can be measured, such as mass, temperature, time and the 3 spatial dimensions of length, breadth and width. In this case a measure of molecular agitation.Ahem. Except of course temperature is not really a dimension, but merely a sign of how much molecules likes to dance around per second .
It is affected by the dimension of time, without the change in states given by the passage of time, temperature is static. However, since this aspect has just dawned on me, I am not sure what effect this has upon temp as a measurable dimension.
Hi (In)Sanity,
Are you sure about this? Does it measure change in temperature, mass, space?Time is just a way to measure change
You have offered this a few times, and it flies in the face of mainstream theoretical physics. I am interested in how you would prove this idea.It's not something we can alter
How can we do this? If space is infinite and curved, I struggle to see how we are able to affect this. If anything is affecting it, I suspect the laws of nature are doing so. If we posit that the Big Bang arose from a point of singularity and preceded time and space, these are both then contingent on the force that defines singularity. It seems that whatever this force is, it was able, at that point, to alter space (and time). Some theorise that black hole horizons also do this.We can however alter space
It might be simple, but it certainly is not easy.It's all so simple
All of the above, all forms of matter and energy that result in a change. If we have another source of change around we can even measure the lack of change based on the one thing that does change.Are you sure about this? Does it measure change in temperature, mass, space?
If we had absolutely no form of change in the universe one could argue that time still passes, but how much time passed, without changes in matter or energy we have no basis of time at all. We have nothing to measure, look at and determine passage of time. Time is a man made concept. The universe could care less about it. To the universe it doesn't matter if a supernova happens in 1 seconds or 5 billion years, we only care because we have items we have based this measure of time on to compare to the cycle of other things in the universe.
Theoretical being the key word. What I keep trying to get at is so simple if you finally understood what I was saying you would be amazed at just how simple the concept is. The problem appears to be that your convinced the complex solution is the only correct one.You have offered this a few times, and it flies in the face of mainstream theoretical physics. I am interested in how you would prove this idea.
Well let's see, anything we introduce into space changes it, this would include satellites, space shuttles, etc. We could also explode something in space adding lots of extra debris and energy to space. What I should have said the first post was matter, and not space.How can we do this? If space is infinite and curved, I struggle to see how we are able to affect this. If anything is affecting it, I suspect the laws of nature are doing so. If we posit that the Big Bang arose from a point of singularity and preceded time and space, these are both then contingent on the force that defines singularity. It seems that whatever this force is, it was able, at that point, to alter space (and time). Some theories that black hole horizons also do this.
It really is very very simple and easy. Somehow our imaginations have just made a mess of it.It might be simple, but it certainly is not easy.
Matter, energy, and such things as mass, temperature, velocity, these are all things that can be changed by us, some of them will impact the measurements we get using the scale of time, time however still being that man made way to measure change in matter or energy still can not be changed. Time is just our method to express change, it has no real substance in the physical universe.
How would one warp space when space is void of everything, what exactly would we measure to determine space has been warped? Also without matter or energy present in this warped space how would we measure the passage of time? Let me guess, someone has a formula that says it can happen, therefore it must be so...lol.
Temperature is not a dimension because it is a reference to movement. Sure, you can see it as a dimension in a graph, but our galaxy is not a spacetimetemperature galaxy, because temperature is already embedded within spacetime.
Temperature is the mere movement of molecules in an amount of time. Thus it contains merely time and space, not another true dimension.
Of course I agree with you that it can be seen as a dimension in a graph, but basically everything can be seen as a dimension that way.
If there is no time, there is no temperature. If something is 0 kelvin, time stops
Mr U
(In)Sanity,
Surely what you mean is that the measurement of time is man made, but time itself, as defined by change in the states of matter is not?Time is a man made concept
I have never said the solution is complex. I think it is simple but not easy for people to grasp. The difference between simple and easy, is like the advice for people who need to lose weight. The solution is simple, just do things that cut weight, and avoid those things that make you gain it. These various behaviours are well understood, but people do not find them easy to act upon.The problem appears to be that your convinced the complex solution is the only correct one.
You are correct, there is a formula that predicts a warping of time. This is Einsteins theory of general relativity published in 1916. And, sorry to disappoint you but they proved it experimentally three years later during an eclipse as to how the sun warped light from a star.How would one warp space when space is void of everything, what exactly would we measure to determine space has been warped? Also without matter or energy present in this warped space how would we measure the passage of time? Let me guess, someone has a formula that says it can happen, therefore it must be so...lol.
You seem to have an issue with the 'theoretical' physicists. Do not be misled by the title, much time is spent experimentally trying to prove the 'equations'. Most of Einsteins work (excluding the e=m c-squared) was explained with simple diagrams and not formulas. His logical intuition allowed him to create a scenario in his mind that was able to address the questions of physics.
Hi Mr U,
You say
Well put, that makes logical sense to me and was not how I had looked at this.Temperature is not a dimension because it is a reference to movement. Sure, you can see it as a dimension in a graph, but our galaxy is not a spacetimetemperature galaxy, because temperature is already embedded within spacetime.
Temperature is the mere movement of molecules in an amount of time. Thus it contains merely time and space, not another true dimension.
Of course I agree with you that it can be seen as a dimension in a graph, but basically everything can be seen as a dimension that way.
You also said
I accept the first part. However surely the second premise is that at AZero all movement in matter stops, does that mean time stops. If by definition, time only exists because it measures changes in states of matter, and if nothing is moving, then time stops?? I need to think about this one, my internal opinion engine and ego will have to sleep on this before I take it onboard. Well said.If there is no time, there is no temperature. If something is 0 kelvin, time stops
Ok, so this proves that light can be bent, does it prove space can be bent? I don't think so.You are correct, there is a formula that predicts a warping of time. This is Einsteins theory of general relativity published in 1916. And, sorry to disappoint you but they proved it experimentally three years later during an eclipse as to how the sun warped light from a star.
True, time has always existed. Without intelligence to place a measurement on it, it has little significance. Not only that, the universe does not count on it to function. Time of course being just a measurement of the change in the state of matter or energy. The universe doesn't care if it was measured or not. It will still keep on doing what it's always done.Surely what you mean is that the measurement of time is man made, but time itself, as defined by change in the states of matter is not?
I have a problem with some of the conclusions people come up with based on these theories. Such as saying time or space can be warped. Time is a measurement, just like temperature and can not be warped. Matter or energy in space can be bent (warped) but not space itself. It would be like saying nothingness can be warped. I myself made the mistake of saying "space" and not "matter" as I intended in a previous post. Now if we said populated space can be warped, I may go for that. Space filled with matter and energy. This could in turn impact the interval it takes for matter and or energy to complete a state change thus impacting the measurement of time. Time still is not warped, only matter and energy.You seem to have an issue with the 'theoretical' physicists. Do not be misled by the title, much time is spent experimentally trying to prove the 'equations'. Most of Einsteins work (excluding the e=m c-squared) was explained with simple diagrams and not formulas. His logical intuition allowed him to create a scenario in his mind that was able to address the questions of physics.
I can't find any awnsers, so let me ask some questions
If there were no humans, would there be time? (there would be noone to experience time)
If there was no change, would there be time?
Yes to both answers, sort of.
If humans did not exist matter would still change in it's normal patterns and in theory could be measured, so yes time would exist.
If nothing changed time still exists yet there is no basis to measure it. It would be like sensory deprivation where people loose track of time. One could not say how much time passed. So yes, it would still pass, yet with no basis of measurement.
and i asked myself what is the stars!...
voice to the side "what is the stars"
abf further more ,
what
isthe moon
same voice to the side "ahh ..what is the moon"
i hope that answeres your questions!
Now this is philosophical discussion like "If nobody can experience something is it really exist?"
Philosophically, it would depend on the definition of existence. "What does a tree sound when it falls, and there is no one to hear it?"
Do you define existence by your sensory input? Do you say that there are in fact two realities, the absolute reality, that which is the cause of my sensory input, and the relative reality (this is unrelated to Einstein's relativity), that which is my interpretation of that sensory input.
There are some that deal from Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum", I know thus I am, believing that because there is some process of thought, there is something thinking, and that something is me. In this case, the only existence, is the existence of 'self'. Whether or not the sensory input actually portrays reality is unknown (perhaps we are living in the Matrix).
Another method is simply accepting the flawed nature of our relative reality, and being unable to proof that it even remotely resembles absolute reality, and dealing from there. Basing oneself upon relative reality and concluding that relative reality is 'real'.
Now, the question is, in my view, one of 'arrogance' (no offense
Something exists not because we have seen it, but rather because it has existed, free of purpose or meaning.
Now, I completely agree that this is a tricky problem. We are making assumptions, and pretty big ones too, however, in these problems it's trying to find the most reasonable explanation, Occam's razor if you will. True, it might not be the most accurate logical device, but it serves it's purpose.
What is more likely? That I am a human being typing a message here, or that I am a green alien using this website to implant you with biological devices so I can take over the world?
Both are possibilities, but most of us (well, the non-paranoid schizophrenic lot
Mr U
you're right but as you said we cannot exclude this possibility, but I also don't believe in it.
Don't think it is a bane, it is the most enjoying aspect of science :wink:
Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.
This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.
We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,” and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation” for phase non-existence, etc.)
Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".
Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.
This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.
Gee, someone that understands what I've been trying to say.
Check out Peter Lynds homepage, he has made some waves recently so to speak.
Are you saying matter\energy is not affected by space?Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.
What is space? Last I checked it was nothing filled with matter and energy. Without the matter and energy it would not even be known. So I think his statement is pretty safe. One can not fill a jar with space, one can however have space in the jar or a jar in space.Are you saying matter\energy is not affected by space?
And would matter and energy be known without space?Without the matter and energy it would not even be known.
If space does not warp, how do we explain time dialation?
Uggg, where do people come up with this crap....If space does not warp, how do we explain time dialation
Space is a vessel and time is a measurement, Matter and energy in space can be manipulated (Warped). The amount of time passed is still just a measurement, that measurement may change but it's still a measurement. You can't put time in a cup. You can't cut time, heat time, smash time, you can however measure time based on the movement of matter.
You also can't piss on space, but you can piss in space
Space = Void, Time = Measurement. Space/Time = The amount of time it takes matter or energy to travel through space. Time of course being based on the movements of know matter like that Casio watch on your wrist.
Thank you for such a condescending postUggg, where do...
Can you point out to me where I implied time is anything other than an arbitrary measure of the rate of change in state? All I asked for was your explaination of time dialation. I believe it is because space (as we know it) warps. You appear to believe it is because matter warps.
Space is not an object so therefore it can not warp. The matter and energy contained within space can be manipulated. Please, send me a box of space, I would love to have some. I can send you a box of air, or a box of cereal.You appear to believe it is because matter warps.
Tell me how to warp space that is 100% void of matter and energy?
InSanity,
So. You dispute General Relativity then?
“Matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move.” --Einstein
And I'm not prepared to get into Relativity, that's not my field. But, what you are saying flies in the face of accepted theory as I understand it.
You're calling space a void. But that's not quite true. There's no such thing as void. Matter creates space. No matter. No space.
How is then that space is expanding? According to you that is not possible!
Many people do, I'm not going to toss it out yet but I will argue on some points. Space and time being one of them.So. You dispute General Relativity then?
Can you or anyone else prove this? Somehow I doubt it.You're calling space a void. But that's not quite true. There's no such thing as void. Matter creates space. No matter. No space.
How do we know space is expanding at all, and not just matter traveling outward? Also if we go back to the big bang theory what was around this concentration of matter before it exploded, my guess is space aka "The Void".How is then that space is expanding? According to you that is not possible!
What do we call the place between atoms?
Well, the standard proof would be the cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift, which are fairly difficult to explain otherwise.How do we know space is expanding at all, and not just matter traveling outward?
I guess I forgot to say Matter and Energy. I don't argue that everything is expanding just that space is. Unless of course we are grouping the term space to mean anything not on a large body such as a planet, star, etc.
Space would have to of pre-existed void of all things in order for the Big Bang to have had a place to exist. The endless empty dark room with a bomb in the center.
Well that's one way to look at it, not the proven correct way. Then again unless we can fly to the edge of space and die after reaching some void that can hold no matter then we'll never know.
Also I find a lot of contradictions in theory. How can one theory say a void can not exist while another theory says space is expanding, so what is beyond space, a void ? Major loop in logic. I think space exists everywhere to an infinite degree, matter and energy are what is expanding and filling it. Where is the loop in logic here?
In the bread theory Space is the inside of the oven, matter and energy are the bread
May 14th, 2005, 11:41 PM
It becomes increasingly evident that time is a product of mass (up quarks and down quarks) and space. Theory states that the vibration of (string) quarks effects space by causing space to vibrate at upper cosmic frequencies. This space vibration theoretically induces temporal state to exist. This is where I begin to get lost in the theory, hope to not drag you into my lostness via confusion which happens to be my normal state!!!, attlewi
May 14th, 2005, 11:45 PM
No offense, but if your goal was to take something as simple as time and make it sound highly complex then you've succeeded. I assume you were just trying to be funny ?
:?
There is no such thing as space that is 100% devoid of matter and energy.
By definition or by practice? Can you prove this? The very process of proving it would contaminate the concept. Space, a place to put something, it doesn't have to be filled. Outer space, a little different. I for one would not be willing to bet that nowhere in existence does absolute nothing exist. It may only be one square millimeter in size and it may only exist in that state for a nanosecond.There is no such thing as space that is 100% devoid of matter and energy.
Could it be that time exist's as energy, seeing as 'time' requires a perciever to be experianced, and everything measured by the perciever (including him/herself) is energy at different vibrational levels, time isnt something you can grab and say, 'look at this piece of time I have', its a manifestation from observation of interactions between different energies that we percieve as matter, EM waves, and more obscure effects like gravity.I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?
Hasnt it been proven that vaccum isnt inert..? and that 'dark energy' or 'zero point energy' is what made the big bang possible.. otherwise the big bang doesnt make sense, because if you concieve an inert vaccum then the big bang violates the laws of conservation of energy.. without 'dark energy' or the 'seething vaccum' its a hypocritical theory.
What if infact our percievable universe was born out of the unpercievable activity in another dimension on a completely different vibrational level, there are indicators of this in the quantum realm, electrons (potentials) that havnt been seen but must exist to explain the behaviour of atoms and the exisitance of matter itself...
Perhaps a good example would be to imagine our universe as a segment of a long string .. who knows where it starts and ends. The vibrational frequencies that occupy our section of the string are what we are atuned to so we are able to see and experiance it respectively (our percievable universe)... however when you study along the extremity of our segment of string via the effects you visably observe (quantum realm), you can see that it continues on somewhere else that you cannot see, but that unseen segment is essential to the behaviour of your percievable segment, they are connected as one, the vibrations are just different.
You would have to read all my other posts about time, my recent ones make a little more sense then my older ones. Time is not an object, a substance or a thing. Time is just an concept and is shown by a measurement. It has as much substance as the tooth fairy, actually less.Could it be that time exist's as energy, seeing as 'time' requires a perciever to be experianced, and everything measured by the perciever (including him/herself) is energy at different vibrational levels, time isnt something you can grab and say, 'look at this piece of time I have', its a manifestation from observation of interactions between different energies that we percieve as matter, EM waves, and more obscure effects like gravity.
Does time exist, well sort of. Time exists as a concept and a measurement. You can't however bottle it up or put it in a device to analyse it.
I totally agree, time in the broadest sense is the continually changing interactions within this universe... time is everything and everything is energy, our perception of it is directly related to what we are atuned to detect, and light is just one aspect that can change our perticular perception of everything else, but light's speed still cant effect time in the sense of the rate that you think or feel.
Of course it is importnat to have a shared definition of what space "is", so that we can recognize its application in practice. What kind of proof do you anticipate?
A bet would be safe, as it would be difficult to provide proof that you would have to accept as definitive. What might it possibly mean to speak of the existence of that which does not exist?I for one would not be willing to bet that nowhere in existence does absolute nothing exist. It may only be one square millimeter in size and it may only exist in that state for a nanosecond.
Can you name another aspect?
I think that it can. If the rate of motion of light were slower, then the rate of interaction in the universe would be slower.but light's speed still cant effect time in the sense of the rate that you think or feel.
well think of it this way, we dont just percieve time through the medium of light, we can feel, close your eyes and run you hand up your arm, you dont need light to determine that interaction only feeling.Can you name another aspect?
I think that it can. If the rate of motion of light were slower, then the rate of interaction in the universe would be slower.but light's speed still cant effect time in the sense of the rate that you think or feel.
If light slowed down yes everything would visually seem to go slower because of the lag between the eye and the environment, but would that change the flow of time when thinking or feeling something. the slowing of light would simply create a visual illusion, for instance.. just look at some of the stars thousands of light years away, if you where in the local vacinity of them today it would look different to the delayed picture we see.
Some stars that have just gone supernova to us will infact be well into their collapsing into neutron stars at this present time... the same goes for anyone who may be on the otherside of the universe, observing back, to them our section of the galaxy looks different , they see us in the past as we see them, but respectively the two are both in the 'now' and experiancing that observation at the same time.
I think that this is also based on the flow of light. If there were no light flow, you would not be able to move your arms, etc. I do agree that the eyes are not required to experience time, as blind people can attest to.
I do not agree with this. If light slowed down, so would our ability to perceive it.If light slowed down yes everything would visually seem to go slower
i dont see light speed having anything with time,relitivly,if a rocket goes past another rocket and both going 3/4 the speed of lite,they just past each other at 1 1/2 the speed of light,light is just a speed like sound,i dont see it worping time,maybe i look at it like a recording wheel,find how to reverse the recording=memory,everything has memory i think,every action has reaction so the reaction mathematicly has memory,how to manitulate the memory if another science,but all math can be mastered/manipulated,just some of the book thoughts,not that deep :wink:
If you would look around at scientists, I doubt that you could possibly find a single one who would agree with this statement. as your statement completely violates the concept of relativity.
How can you make your claim with such conviction? You did not get your idea from scientists. Did you just make it up and now believe it? If you could learn more about the nature of light, you would perhaps be able to understand that the speed of light is not additive in the way that the speed of sound is.
i did make it up as i said= with out deep thought, if you had read my post, and ofcourse sound if not as fast,im just saying its speed,perhaps i dont follow all scientist as if they went the wrong way as many do then we all follow the wrong way an get stuck in a dead end,like our schools and so on,i still think light is a reaction and has nothing to do with time,perhaps i need to read up on your science to better explain and comunicate and understand what and where your comming from,but i dont agree with every thing i read by far,i intentionaly dont read much to stay away from general programed thinking,
anyway it was an answer the the dispute of sertain destiny from the first post,you still dint answer the 1 1/2 speed of light in reletivity or/and il add what i call the loto syndrome lol,
if you were to travel back and it said the loto was going to be 1101 the next day after traveling back, but the loto system was riged to choose a none winning number,
how would it be certain destiny?how would it be posible to predict even if you new the future with this senerio
:? help me with this one please my brain cant handle it right now lol
anyway part of science is throwing invisable ideas not just what we see,and something might give,i was just thowing stuff,cuz it seems we still lost in this feild,sometimes we have to fish :wink:
besides the world was flat 600 years ago according to the scietist then,so yes i question all of your so called scientist/science,just part of moving forward,
when i was young i remember them telling me einstein said you cant go faster then light,i knew that was wrong so i havent read any of his stuff,not being able to go faster then light is nonesence,if i was going 1 mph under light and i through a stone 5 mph your going to tell me that stone is not going faster then light?im not buying that lol,and that stone is not going back in time it will be right there in front of me,the rest is rubbish lol,einstein is just a man no better then you or me,hes subject to error,there were many other scientist that were ahead of him he just Stole the fame,from what ive herd
anyway you got any good links of your science so i can better debate/understand?i know im not by the book so i would like to read some
So if a laser beam goes past another laser beam we would have to say the closure rate is 2C, the speed of each laser however is still just C. The closure rate is the key thing here.
If two spaceships pass each other going 3/4C then the closure rate is in fact 1 1/2 C. The speed of each ship still remains at 3/4C. You are not violating any laws of the speed of light here as nothing ever really is going faster then C, the closure rate is not true speed, it is the combined speed of two object approaching.
Why would anyone dispute this?
na its 1 1/2 depending what your base is,whos to say what the base is,also you can get a rocket going 1 mph under speed of light,keep thrusting thrusters and the speed will keep going no limit 1000000x the speed of light going 1000 light years in seconds== keep them questions comming i got 1000000 answers for every dought
It really would not make any difference what the base was. If there is an upper limit to speed it would still be 1 1/2C at the moment of passing. We of course are assuming both ships are traveling at the same rate at that very moment.na its 1 1/2 depending what your base is,whos to say what the base is,also you can get a rocket going 1 mph under speed of light,keep thrusting thrusters and the speed will keep going no limit 1000000x the speed of light going 1000 light years in seconds== keep them questions comming i got 1000000 answers for every dought
I agree with this last sentence. I wonder where you came up with the phrase "the closure rate", and where you came up with the notion of thinking in terms of speeds greater than c. I think that you are just speculating, and all of this is make up.
Yes you got it, I never bother to think any of this stuff outI agree with this last sentence. I wonder where you came up with the phrase "the closure rate", and where you came up with the notion of thinking in terms of speeds greater than c. I think that you are just speculating, and all of this is make up.
I understand you better now.Yes you got it, I never bother to think any of this stuff out
yeah really we cant think for our selfs,lol i made it up just like other scientist, so what,you make toast every day did a scientist tell you how to make it or did you make the toast up lol,dont need a scientist to tell me common sense
Although I agree with this statement, I would remind you that a little common sense would not hurt you either, would it?dont need a scientist to tell me common sense
exactly what im trying to tell you,but its ok i understand your game,im a master at psychoanalyzing too :wink:
still more proof for sceptics stuck on einstines old and outdated prehistoric laws
http://www.livescience.com/technolog...fastlight.html
forget einstiene hes dead and so is his science this is the 21st century lets move on to bigger and better things
Its also well known that the speed of light was derived from an average of measurements that varied seasonally. The constant speed is just an assumption it was never a fact, using a constant speed definately makes the math's easier though...
August 24th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Talking about nothing, in particular: if energy comes in indivisible packets called quanta, and these quanta are separated by space, does that mean that NOTHING exists between them? I suppose it depends on whether the quanta are actually separated by space, or really extend in a wavelike manner through space to other quanta - in which case one might surmise that the waves might extend infinitely. Does anyone here know the answer to that?
"Scientists have defined the speed of light in a vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second (about 186,000 miles per second). This definition is possible because since 1983, scientists have known the distance light travels in one second more accurately than the definition of the standard meter. Therefore, in 1983, scientists defined the meter as 1/299,792,458, the distance light travels through a vacuum in one second. This precise measurement is the latest step in a long history of measurement, beginning in the early 1600s with an unsuccessful attempt by Italian scientist Galileo to measure the speed of lantern light from one hilltop to another."
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Take it or leave it.
August 24th, 2005, 12:18 PM
"Speed of light
Much effort has been devoted to measuring the speed of light, beginning with the aforementioned work of Rømer in 1676. Rømer noticed that the orbital period of Jupiter'sfirst moon, Io, is apparently slowed as the Earth and Jupiter move away from each other.The eclipses of Io occur later than expected when Jupiter is at its most remote position. This effect is understandable if light requires a finite time to reach the Earth from Jupiter.From this effect, Rømer calculated the time required for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth as 11 minutes. In 1728 James Bradley, an English astronomer, determined the speed of light from the apparent orbital motion of stars that is produced by the orbital motion of the Earth. He computed the time for light to reach the Earth from the Sun as eight minutes, 12 seconds. The first terrestrial measurements were made in 1849 by Fizeau and a year later by Foucault. Michelson improved on Foucault's method and obtained an accuracy of one part in 100,000.
Any measurement of velocity requires, however, a definition of the measure of length and of time. Current techniques allow a determination of the velocity of electromagneticradiation to a substantially higher degree of precision than permitted by the unit of length that scientists had applied earlier. In 1983 the value of the speed of light was fixed at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, and this value was adopted as a new standard. As a consequence, the metre was redefined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum over a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. Furthermore, thesecond—the international unit of time—has been based on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a cesium-133 atom."
Encyclopedia Britannica 2005
This is an interesting thread although it is sometimes difficult to tell whether someone is serious or whether their comment is a classic example of time elapsed following the consumption of spirtual liquids or intake of other mind altering substances.
Through it all, however, I think (In)Sanity has come as close as anyone to approaching how I see time.
Time on the universal scale is not minutes and hours which we use mostly as an exchange rate to establish value to that which is accomplished during a portion of one revolution of the earth on its axis. That is kind of an artificial concept of time.
Time is more an expression of the relationship of matter and energy using light as the standard.
As (In)Sanity earlier pointed out we have practical application such that we know that the aspect of Relativity which predicts that time slows as speed increases is valid. As a result we can be certain that if mass could be accelerated to the speed of light, time would cease, at least in relationship to that specific mass. That is, using the formula which I have long ago forgotten, when V=C then M=0 and T=0.
If we take the converse, that is we decelerate the speed of light (perhaps as might occur when light is captured by a black hole), as the speed of light slows, mass will increase as will time. Using the same forgotten high school formula from above, if light were to come to a complete stop, both Mass and Time in that relationship would now equal infinity.
Thus we have the expression of a complete time continuum from zero to infinity expressed by the relationship of the speed of light to mass as it might apply to this universe.
I’d like to expand upon this application, but I have neither the time nor the expertise.
November 25th, 2005, 09:03 PM
time, like life, and death, and neutrons, are just thoughts. The mind is just a collection of thoughts, like time, life and death.
Life is just the totality of thoughts called called mind in which the mind dreams that it wakes up every morning until death makes thoughts depart to leave the Reality physics calls its quantum-gaps which is the Reality of dreamless-sleep called Samadhi.
it is all very simple - so simple that there is no mind simple enough to understand it: the quantum-gap which is the Unified Field that is Everything and thoughts/particles are its nothing, fiction.
I dunno, genep, but I think with a few joints of acapulco gold combined with several acid drops over a period of thoughtless time/life, one might be able to simply his mind enough to reach a state of dreamless sleep Samadi. That or a lot of anesthetics.
Here’s the truth of the matter, when we observe the movement of time it is only a temporal view of a system that contains a duality, this duality giving the other its contextual meaning.I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?
What we observe as time and movement between past and future is merely a cognitive movement between the two aspects of time, one of eternity, Were all things are complete whole forms and the temporal state of becoming.
Reality in its final form, does not exist as a prior form, or a future form,
but as an eternal form. A singularity .
-----------------------------------------------If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. --William Blake
Let me approach this from architectural view point. When building a structure using regular geometry, small mistakes in the initial measurements will be amplified as the construction progresses, until a point is reached were the initial small instability surpasses and overwhelms the stability factors causing a catastrophic collapse, destroying the intended design.
Now catastrophe theory combined with embedded phi-wave dynamics and a dissipative physical components creates a link to the singularity and now this is were this scenario happens in reverse.
The instant all the physical and dynamic elements arrive they cause a catastrophic constructive collapse toward a higher ordered state.
This is how things in the universe get more organized over time.
the singularity point is organizing itself from the eternal true elements inherent in the universe. This underlying force creates currents of decay and creativity that we perceive as cycles of time.
Not only in the world but within ourself's.
---------------------------------------------
The creativity we see forming is the result of a force emanating from the singularity [ Were all things are known and formed ]
This is the universal duality that are separated by the event horizon, the information that exist beyond the event horizon can not be known outside of it.
This duality is what keeps the universe perpetually moving in this creative circular motion around the eternal..
Information is composed of order; this order collapses around a preexisting possibility of order.So I walk on the uplands unbound ,
And know that there is hope
For that which Thou didst mold out of dust
To have consort with things eternal.
--- The dead sea scolls
As Pythagoras said “eternal true forms” these eternal true forms exist as inherent inevitabilities…. A singularity……..A basin of attraction.
The driving force in life are dualities, up down, right left, positive negative, past and future.
These dualities create currents between one another to create movement. All these
dualities can be traced to one source, a singularity, A finality.
Cognition, is a exponential flow of information within a biological system around the dual singularities of birth and death, in the context of human awareness this can be thought of as existential angst.
The main driving force’s in one's life is between the known and the unknown. The archetypal current of all human uncertainty is between life and death.
Hamlet ; , act III, William Shakespeare
"But that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied over with a pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents tury awry and lose the name of action."
When Shakespeare writes “ the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns ” he is referring to the event horizon that surrounds the singularity of death, an unknown that cannot be known without a prior irreversible acquiescence. This is what makes Hamlet such a classical story.
Hamlet was driven by the need to resolve his fathers death. The pain he experienced in his “to be are not to be” speech is the embodiment of this existential angst generated between the uncertainty of the past and future. The known and unknown.
This tension is the crux of the play, and embodies this pull of the singularity. This ever present tension he was feeling between resolving past events with the future.
“Something's rotten in the state of Denmark” The same force that was moving creating emotional tension in Hamlet, keeps the ones watching the play pressed into their seats to see the final outcome.....The singularity.....the end.
You ask me what the lobster is weaving down there,
with its golden feet,
I tell you, the ocean knows this.
You say who is the acedia waiting for
in its transparent bell.
I tell you its waiting for time, like you.
You say who does the macrocystis algae hug in its
arms? Study it. Study it at a certain hour in a certain sea I know.
You question me about the wicked tusk of the narwhale,
and I respond by describing to you how the sea unicorn,
with a harpoon in it, dies.
You inquire about the kingfisher's feathers
which tremble in the purest springs of the southern shores.
I want to tell you that the ocean knows this,
That life, in its jewel boxes, as endless as the sand,
impossible to count, pure
And the time among the blood colored grapes
has made the petal hard and shiny,
filled the jellyfish with light, untied its knot, letting its musical threads fall,
from a horn of plenty made of infinite mother of pearl.
I'm nothing but the empty net which has gone on ahead of human eyes,
dead in the darkness', of fingers accustomed to the triangle,
longitudes in the timid globe of an orange.
I walked around like you investigating the endless star,
And in my net during the night I woke up naked.
The only thing caught, a fish, trapped inside the wind.
- 'The Enigmas'
by Pablo Neruda
Oh dear. No I don't understand even this simple sentence. I must be truly thick.
What is the movement of time? Do you mean the passage of time? If you do, why not say so? why confuse the issue by using a familiar word in an unfamiliar setting. This is science, not art. If you mean something else, what is it? How does time move?
Which translates as "when we view the passage of time it is only a view taken from the perspective of the passage of time." Null semantic content. (In English? Certainly. It doesn't mean anything.)When we observe the movement of time it is only a temporal view....
What is the duality? Nowhere, in the passage I quote, or later, do you tell us what the duality is. Is this a guessing game? Can I play too? Can you guess what I'm thinking right now? ........ Very close. You are good at this.....view of a system that contains a duality...
Which duality? As written you have two dualities. That's two pairs of 'things'. I suspect you meant to have only a single one. But what is it? What is its partner?this duality giving the other its contextual meaning
And it gives it 'contextual' meaning. What is the context? You haven't told us? What is the difference between 'meaning' and 'contextual meaning' in the context of your post?
That's just a single sentence Metatron. I have no intention of failing to analyse the rest. I have already wasted several minutes trying to extract meaning from it without success. Perhaps this is my failure: somehow I doubt it. I can comfortably handle everything from James Joyce to Joyce Grenfell, from Bart Simpson to George Gaylord Simpson. The finger is pointing towards you. Please [truly heartfelt plea] learn to express yourself more clearly.
do we have enough time to resolve this issue?
November 29th, 2005, 02:33 PM
Why complicate this subject ?
When light travels it has no time. It cannot otherwise it would have to change (change is time) into something else while it was "traveling" billions of years without ever losing a second. Light has no time, because there is no time.
If light has no time then how can it travel? And yet it travels so fast that it makes everything that supposedly has time (matter)stationary. THESE ARE ALL IMPOSSIBILITIES -- unless time, space, light and matter are what Einstein tells us they are, with his E=MC.C equation… they are all the SAME THING. Energy or light is the same as mass, and mass is the same as everything else in the equation, space and time .
The only way that Einstein’s Equation can make everything the same is if they are thoughts.
So time is nothing but a thought.
I am not sure your first statement even makes sense. It is a bit like saying "I don't believe that there is anything which people don't believe." Time is implicit in everything we do. Time is traversed and matter exists in all times. I can only think that by Hollywood you mean time travel. Traveling into the future is what we do and traveling into past in any way but in our thoughts is not something I believe in either. Any kind of time travel (to the past) that we could manipulate or control leads to logical contradictions, otherwise it is only like time travel and not really time travel at all.
That's funny nearly everything in these posts are words. Time is a measurement of passage of what? Clearly there is time and there are measurements of time. "span of existence"? Are you trying to find some synonym of time to avoid saying what clearly sounds stupid: "that time is nothing other than a man made way to measure time." No, "time passes" does not translate into "mechanical action". We can measure mechanical action and we measure time and the measures are independent. That is you can vary their relative measures by changing the situation.
Oh much more than that. The concept is essential to all of our science and technology.
Time and motion are also two independent measures just like time and mechanical action.
You must be talking about special relativity, but you do not understand it. Neither time nor matter is affected by higher speeds it is only our measure of time and our measure of other things to do with matter which is affected. Nevertheless, these measures are real and real consequences follow. There are particles called muons, which are like heavy electrons. These muons decay at a certain rate. But traveling at high speeds they do not decay as fast as they should and as a result more of these muons created by cosmic rays hitting our upper atmosphere, reach the surface of earth because of this than it would be the case otherwise.
Does naming or defining something change anything but ourselves? clearly not. When we gave time a name and defined it was it made any more real except to us? Do our names and definitions really create anything? If we had no name or definition of time would even our peception of the world be so much different? We experience time and therefore we name it. It is just like everything else we name.
Nonsense, the people on the ship simply measure time and space differently.
More nonsense. Time is in every mathematical equation describing the behavior of things in physics. It "regulates" things no more or less than anything else. What "purpose" does matter serve?
It doesn't claim any such thing. It simply claims that time is not quite as simple as everyday common sense implies. It is both fundamentally similar to space and different. In equations relating the two the time variable is multiplied by the square root of one, the so-called imaginary number.
It has everything to do with time. The point is that time is not absolute but relative. People traveling at different speeds measure time and space differently.
Of course it is a concept - an abstract concept to describe a very real experience like most of our concepts. What? so you cannot put it in your pocket? Can you put your mind in your pocket? Your intellegence? Your health? You are playing games. It is clear that you understand and believe in abstract concepts or you would not be wasting your time here.
If time is measurement then what does it measure? You seem to be saying that you cannot see time unless you measure it and therefore there is only the measure and no time exists. This same false logic can be used on everything. I know you by what my senses tell me, therefore only my senses exist and you don't exist at all. It is better logic to conclude rather that I only know that my senses exist and not that you exist. This is true but it means nothing more than the fact that certainty is itelf is delusion and a hobgoblin of small minds. Knowledge is not based on certainty but on faith. I know that you exist the same way that I know the sun exist because these are consistent with experience of life, and it serves no purpose to doubt the existence of either. This logic creates no certainty. I simply take the existence of both the sun and you on faith.
Break open a bottle of Champagne Mitchell: for once we are on the same page, indeed, almost letter perfect.
Ophiolite wrote;
Ophiolite wrote;What is the duality? Nowhere, in the passage I quote, or later, do you tell us what the duality is. Is this a guessing game? Can I play too? Can you guess what I'm thinking right now? ........ Very close. You are good at this.
Time - singularityWhich duality? As written you have two dualities. That's two pairs of 'things'. I suspect you meant to have only a single one. But what is it? What is its partner?
And it gives it 'contextual' meaning. What is the context? You haven't told us? What is the difference between 'meaning' and 'contextual meaning' in the context of your post?
The duality is between the eternal true form, a singularity point which is outside the movement of time and dualities.
This field of time is where all things are moving around dualities.
Like I said, the universe moves toward a balance between opposing dualities. Basic physics. Think about a point of no time and no movement and no dualities. This point powers all dualities all movement that we experience as time around us.
The eternal true (singularity) form is the inevitable crystallizing point at the core of the time. It is the polar opposite of time.
You may not be familiar with this view point, and not like my wordage
But It is a simple concept.
Which simplifies as The duality is between the eternal true form and dualities. Metatron that is meaningless.
I ask again. If it is simple give me a simple answer:
Duality 1 =
Duality 2 =
Fill in the blanks. As currently defined you have said
Duality 1 = The eternal true form
Duality 2 = dualities
This is a circular definition. I can't even advance to your next line till you clarify this.
Anyone else reading this - am I being thick, or is Metatron being obscure, or both, or am I in purgatory?
Duality 1 = Time - singularity
December 2nd, 2005, 12:58 AM
ofcourse.. past n present r just fakes...
if it was true ... people from future wud have come to present by this time..nah?
December 2nd, 2005, 04:00 AM
past presant and future are just an observers frame of reference.
what the hell does this mean?Duality 1 = Time - singularity
December 2nd, 2005, 04:31 AM
what the hell does this mean?Duality 1 = Time - singularity
The Question is what is the polar opposite of time ?
The answer is a singularity
try as i might i don't see the connection.
Time is relative word! I think that time is actually here to get easy to man organize himself and to time is like a symbol to make easier to realize some things! But time have presence in world like relative thing and its better with time than without it!
Your walking in the park, beams of light are passing you. I beam of light passes in the direction you are walking. It HAS PASSED you. The light is gone now, it is part of the PAST. BUT, if you were that beam of light, traveling next to another beam of light, the the beam of light next to you is part of the PRESENT, because you are moving at the same velocity.I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?
If someone was to live in a space ship moving at a higher velocity than someone living on earth, in X earth years they would be proportionally younger according to the difference in velocity. Time is relavant to velocity.
I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?
It seems you are suggesting that time is a type of matrix we cannot penetrate, that we are confined by time, like time is the very space-time fabric prison we live in, right?
| « Possible to fly like this? | If heat is the 'lowest' grade of energy,What is the highest? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
