Notices
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: Time

  1. #1 Time 
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Okay, so we have all heard that time is a dimension, We measure "time" everyday.

    Lately, I have been thinking alot about time and have come to a realization that our measurements of time are really measurements of change and movement, Time cannot be seen, felt, studied or measured, only the results of movement and change can be measured.

    If something cannot be measured studied or detected, doesn't that mean it is only a theory untill it can be proven to exist? Like Dark Matter?

    I know I know, most of you will just miss my point and say "What?" and call me weird, but it takes a little bit of thinking to grasp what I am trying to talk about here so that is understandable.

    Take our most advanced and precise "Time" measuring device we have, atomic clocks.

    They are not really measuring 'time' but the resonating of atoms when struck by a specific microwave frequency.

    we can measure and detect, see, and even touch all sorts of things, but time is only comprehendable when our bodies access the molecules of our brain that have been placed there as a reaction to something we have observed by what we have seen heard smelled felt or touched. if something were to prevent our bodies from accessing those parts of our brain that have been changed by our experiences we would have as much memory of the past as we do of the future.

    Basically, without the movement of atoms, if everything was at absolute zero, there would be no measure of "time".

    Maybe this is why time travel, other than traveling at very fast speeds so that the amount of change our molecules experience are slower than those of our surroundings, is impossible. (I have very huge doubts about the recent theories of 'dimensional bubbles') Effectively, traveling to the past would require a totally perfect reversal of movement from every single atom, subatom, wave, and photon in existance so as to REALLY be in the past, without all of these outlandish theories of alternate realities.

    Tell me what you think, I am sorry this post is rather long and half of you may skim through it quickly, I know I have no mathematics to back this up, and that some will argue that without time there is no way to distinguish when two atoms have been in the exact same place but at different 'times', but if you really think about it the past is no more 'real' than the future since none of the matter of the 'past' is in the 'past' just as the 'future' contains no matter. We may know where some things have been before, we can even theorize where some things will be going, but only by observing where they are now and making assumptions of the past and future based on the present.

    I'm not saying things never happened before the present, because we CAN prove that things have happened to bring us to where we are now, I am just saying maybe we should re-evaluate our understanding of 'Time'


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Time 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    I'm not saying things never happened before the present, because we CAN prove that things have happened to bring us to where we are now,
    Very well. Prove to me that something (anything) has happened in the past.

    I'm looking forward to this. 8)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Well, For one thing, when you look up in the sky, you are looking at light that was emitted years ago. We know that light, when emitted from a source, does not travel other places instantaneously. So we do know that at some time in the past, light was being emmitted by an object. The farther things are from us the longer it takes the light to reach us, so that if the object exploded right now we would not know for a long time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I thought of another thing to add though, The light we are looking at, the things we touch, all of those particles and atoms are INSIDE our bodies when we detect them. We do not detect anything that is outside of our body. Those specks of light we look up to see every night, is the result of the nerves in our eyes converting the photons that have just reached our eyes into an electrical signal that is then transported to the brain. Our brain then allows us to 'see' this as an object in an 'external' world and remembers the event to give us the perception of the progression of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    Read "THE END OF TIME The next revolution in physics" by Julian Barbour.
    Your thought pattern might be leading you to his conclusions.
    Has anyone else read this book?
    Here's the problem with questions like "what would we see if we traveled faster than the speed of light". Since the rules that govern the universe as we understand them do not allow for such a possibility, to imagine such an event forces us to abandon those rules. But that leaves us no guide by which to answer the question. We have no idea as to what rules to replace them with, and we can't give an answer. - Janus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    Time doesn't exist in a black hole.
    Time doesn't exist for light.
    Am I wrong?
    Here's the problem with questions like "what would we see if we traveled faster than the speed of light". Since the rules that govern the universe as we understand them do not allow for such a possibility, to imagine such an event forces us to abandon those rules. But that leaves us no guide by which to answer the question. We have no idea as to what rules to replace them with, and we can't give an answer. - Janus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderwolf
    Read "THE END OF TIME The next revolution in physics" by Julian Barbour.
    Your thought pattern might be leading you to his conclusions.
    Has anyone else read this book?
    I found his assertions of time somewhat specious, he approached time as an absolute, as if viewing the entire universe from a reference frame "outside" of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 i can clear some things up 
    Forum Freshman Rye Rye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17
    ok...when thinking about time as a thing, remenber that there are Dynamical Laws, as well as the Zeroth Law. While most bodies have properties that can be defined with dynamical laws, time can only be defined using the Zeroth Law: Every real object has a continuous history in space and time.

    This in order to under the nature of time, realise that it is simply the fourth spacial dimention, used to describe the orientation of a particle. Length. Width Height and then time (the time line is the line of supersimmitry with respect to LWH) The time line itself is one dimensional: Curved.

    -> !!! IN OTHER WORDS TIME IS THE EQUAL SIGN !!! <-

    Think about it, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Through what body does these reaction occur? TIME, or, the = sign.

    Now physically, what is the = sign?

    It is the line of simmitry of infinite universal parallax, where movement is relative to gravity and any motion of ANY body distorts space. The time line of the universe is actually the line of supersimmitry of infinite spacial distortions.

    Thus, since time is the line of simmitry of spacial distortion, the time line is a constant tangeant to ALL orbits in the universe.

    Intervals of this line are represented by t. In order to understand temporal intervals, consider Δs = cΔt, where c is a positive numerical constant and Δs is the arclength of the a clock’s (or particle's) orbit between the two instants. Our measure of time is thus related to the measure of distance in position space.

    It you wanted to reverse this phenomenon, all you need to do is return stars to their appropriate XYZX_0 inspace, against the expansion of the universe and the time lime will follow.

    Hope this helps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    It you wanted to reverse this phenomenon, all you need to do is return stars to their appropriate XYZX_0 inspace, against the expansion of the universe and the time lime will follow.
    But would you not have to reverse the movement of every individual particle as well? Their internal kinetic energy causes them to affect one another in a chaotic way. Would this not kill the notion of reversed time? What your sayin sound somewhat like superman making the earth turn in the opposite derection, reversing time for the earth.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Rye Rye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17
    not entirely. As long as the particles are within the spacetime continum, and have not exceeded infinity, ie still subject to relativity, then moving supermasive bodies will cause spacetime to distort accordingly. Anything on the surface of spacetime will move respectfully.

    If you wanted to completly reverse time, you would first need to establish its direction in the universe. There, my friend is the rub. It's not a question of knowing how move the line, its a question of determining its direction with respect to any and all given points you want to affect.

    Superman, for instance, may have reversed the time by reversing temporal distortions with respect to the Earth's rotation, however, once he returned to the surface, its likely, that no earth would have been there, as he accounted only for time, not space. It really should have been somewhere else in orbit.

    Its one thing to understand spacial direction, its another to determine a temporal one, as time only has a one-dimensional property - length.

    When defining spacial properties, we use LWH..., when defining temporal properties we derive LVT LVT (length,velosity,torque...) However the plane at which space and time intersect is Length; as proven by e=mc2. Thus is our plane of our existance.

    If you wanted to determing the direction of time, you need to determine the center of the universe.

    Can anyone offer any suggestions as to where that might be?

    Heint: The universt is not boundless, its bounds are infact gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Rye Rye

    Superman, for instance, may have reversed the time by reversing temporal distortions with respect to the Earth's rotation, however, once he returned to the surface, its likely, that no earth would have been there, as he accounted only for time, not space. It really should have been somewhere else in orbit.
    Wow... I dont know what to say to this one...
    Reversing the earth's rotation WOULD NOT reverse temporal distortions!!!

    It would cause some major problems though!

    Moving huge objects around in space may distort space time in some spots, but for the most part it would be unnoticeable and would not cause travel into the past, just some minor gravitational lensing i suspect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Rye Rye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17
    You are correct, Supernatendo. The reason being, because science cannot determine any universal direction for time. You cannot reverse something for which you know not the direction. Time is perceeved to move 'forward'. However, like motion, this is relative and always supersymetric to gravity.

    Truly, if one wanted to 'reverse' time cosmologically, one would require an infinite source of energy. This requires an infinite source of mass; a singularity for instance. And, in fact, if you wanted to control the time outside a singularity, you would require twice the mass of the singularity to do so.

    Manipulating large bodies anything less than a singularity will cause temporal distortions, however these effects can only be observed at the quantum level somewhere near planks length. This is seen by gravitational lensing.

    Gravitational lensing IS temporal distortion, as proven by Einstein's general theroey of relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Time is a four letter we use to term the idea of measured change in anything.

    That's all.

    But, if we are ABLE to prove that measured change happens according to a repeating pattern, that a repeating pattern "concept" is behind all the change we observe, we could begin to present the idea that time could in fact be more than a way we measure change, but the actual footprint of change itself.

    We're not there yet.

    If we can prove atomic and subatomic phenomena vibrates according to a common pattern of vibration/change, we could present the idea that the common "change" we observe is actually a footprint of "time". There would be nothing stopping us from proposing "time" is in fact the signature of thatr common repeating sequence of subatomic and atomic change. But, no official theory is able to conclude that, so, of course, time is a mere measurement "tool".

    As for the direction of this change, this direction/flow of time, if a "thing" exists in format A changes then to format B and then changes back to format A, time would have been regarded to move in two directions (and so on and so forth). The direction time flows is ALWAYS in regard to the bigger picture of the system going from one state to another. If it could be proved that the system of space-time we live in follows a repeating code of change, overall, in the big picture, time would be said to change in a circular fashion. The direction of time is ONLY relative to the bigger picture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 TIME IS THE EQUAL SIGN 
    Forum Freshman Rye Rye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17
    We agree that time is subject ONLY to the Zeroth Law of physics, correct?

    Okay, please remember, folks, that time IS a spacial property, just as are LWH (LWH being properties of the Dynamical Laws).

    Time is thus the line of symmerty of LWH combined.

    Cosmoligically, is the dynamic line of supersymmetry of infinite universal parallax of all matter in motion.

    Thus, at every instant, the vast mosaique of particles in the universe we call spacetime, can be described in terms of its length, width, height, and line of symmetry - time.

    Time is a LINE OF SYMMERTY. The perspective from which LWH are viewed to be symetric to one another at the same instant from the point of an observer. That why math is completely BASED ON SYMMETRY. Time IS the EQUAL sign.

    The reason that the timeline is so dynamic, however, is because it is in constant curvature. In fact, it is in a state if super curvature throught the universe. The degrees of this curveature (infentesimal arclengths) are instances. To follow this curvature beyond a quantum level would require additional spacial dimensions....the twist, fold, etc all the way to 11-dimensional super gravity. Only here, can two instances occur at the 'same' time.

    When you're referring to the DURATION of something, you are referring to INSTANCES of time. In other words, duration occupies segments of the time line. Instances (duration of change) of the universal line of symmetry (time line) are what are identified by Δt. Δts then proceed according to the law of temproal order: The motion of any particle with respect to a given reference frame can be represented as an orbit in position space.

    The best way we have to measure segments of this universal line of supersymmetry (duration of change) is w/ atomic clocks. The instant is calculated using Δs = cΔt, where c is a positive numerical constant and Δs is the arclength of the clock’s orbit between the two instants. Our measure of time is thus related to the measure of distance in position space and the law of
    simultaneity: At every instant, each particle has a unique position.

    Just to reiterate, Time IS the equal sign.

    This is why all eqn's in mathematics equate to Zero.
    Time is a property of only the Zeroth Law. Otherwise everything in the universe would be equal to.....?nothing!

    That doesnt make any sense at all, does it? The truth about zero is that it is the only constant. Zero IS infinite and the time line, (math's equal sign) sits perfectally balanced on this notion. Zero is TRULY +/-infinity.

    Time, thus, is by no means immaginary. It is the fourth spacial dimension, in constant expansion from and ALWAYS symmetric from and to Zero respectively.

    Should you ever have trouble realizing the reality of time, simply remember while doing your equations that time IS the equal sign. I guarantee you...eventually, its omnipresense will pop out at you.

    If i have made any mistakes or can clear anything up, please advise.

    I would be delighted to entertain any debate regarding the above stated notions of time and zero.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Is not "zero" time, time that does not pass, considered a seperate and measureable static reality compared to another reality of time?

    Can you accommodate for multiple realities of time with zero time?

    My point: it;s all about the reference you choose regarding what you are "measuring" in regard to time.

    If you are measuring the "big picture", if in that picture time is as zero, it is like a fozen mozaic of events............which on closer inspection, like looking at the cogs of a wheel, show and demonstrate inherent dynamic qualities of time.

    Do you understand that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    This requires an infinite source of mass; a singularity for instance.
    A singularity does not have infinite mass, does it? Only infinite density.

    Also, if I may, what is your profession? You seem to have a grasp of time in relation to M-theory. So you are saying that the fourth dimension, time, is the world line of matter? And if one looks closer at the subatomic world and internal kinetic energy, then we have to start looking at 11 dimensions to account for the chaotic movement?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 One-dimensional paraxox: How can a 'length' be a curve? 
    Forum Freshman Rye Rye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17
    StreamSystems,

    By no means did I say that time is zero. I said that time is the equal sign. Time in fact moves away from zero one-dimensionally in all directions in R3. Paradoxally, time it is always moving toward zero as well. However it is always compared to any and all points of origin - zero(s).

    Realize that zero, like infinity, is neither a value nor a number. It is a concept; an origin.

    The nature of zero, however, is a phenomenon that infininitely repeats throught the universe at infintesimal magnitudes. For instance, every point on a cartesean plane can equal zero. With respect to the expansion of time, every point is an origin as well as an instant. This is why zero is infinite in nature. It is parallel with time only in terms of its omnipresence.

    The true origin (center of the universe) has yet to be determined, however. Thus, we have yet to establish any universal direction constant for time. You need to know time's direction before you can fathum time travel. In other words, you'd need something of a flux capacitor. That is another issue, however.

    I reiterate, StreamSystems, time is NOT zero; TIME IS THE EQUAL SIGN. And in so being, time is in constant COMPARISON to zero; time is always symetric to zero. The paradox being, the more it moves away from zero, the closer it gets to it zero. Facto!

    Weird, huh?

    I hope that this was clear. please let me know it i can help more.

    ***KALSTER***... plese specify to whom you are addressing your last question.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Oh, at you.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: One-dimensional paraxox: How can a 'length' be a curve? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Rye Rye
    StreamSystems,

    By no means did I say that time is zero. I said that time is the equal sign. Time in fact moves away from zero one-dimensionally in all directions in R3. Paradoxally, time it is always moving toward zero as well. However it is always compared to any and all points of origin - zero(s).

    Realize that zero, like infinity, is neither a value nor a number. It is a concept; an origin.

    The nature of zero, however, is a phenomenon that infininitely repeats throught the universe at infintesimal magnitudes. For instance, every point on a cartesean plane can equal zero. With respect to the expansion of time, every point is an origin as well as an instant. This is why zero is infinite in nature. It is parallel with time only in terms of its omnipresence.

    The true origin (center of the universe) has yet to be determined, however. Thus, we have yet to establish any universal direction constant for time. You need to know time's direction before you can fathum time travel. In other words, you'd need something of a flux capacitor. That is another issue, however.

    I reiterate, StreamSystems, time is NOT zero; TIME IS THE EQUAL SIGN. And in so being, time is in constant COMPARISON to zero; time is always symetric to zero. The paradox being, the more it moves away from zero, the closer it gets to it zero. Facto!

    Weird, huh?

    Cheers

    Most things are (weird) that are not identified are "self", especially if one defines their "self" as "normal".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    How will we ever hope to be at a reliable place of observation to know exactly where the central point of the universe is? If every vantage point is warped as time is relative to the speed an object is moving, the "true" center originating spot of the universe may not be where we perceive it to be even if we thought we found it! Unless we had some way to determine the "absolute zero" to find out how "fast" we are traveling in comparrison could we start to mathematically determine where it really is as opposed to where it seems to be!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I think we need to be bold and actually say that our perception reference is the "observation reference" of the universe.

    If there are aliens out there in space, I am sure they would use THEIR reference.

    Yet, scientists are not trained to make these decisions, the military is.

    Thinnk about it: we go out into space, and explain a science to a newly found people in space that we have a science that explains our central reference in the universe.

    Useful, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Rye Rye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17
    Sorry it took so long to reply.

    I agree with you, Supernantendo. That's part of the paradox of infinity. If the universe were truly infinite at present, then every point would be the center.

    In this case, however, we have an expanding universe, once which had a hypothetical begining.

    Consider this: in a field of gravity, the center of an object is the object's center of mass. Even in an absense of gravity, an object's center of mass is the point on which it rotates.
    ok...the center of the present universe must obviously have be the center of mass of the universe. However, given that the universe is multidimensional, the universe's center of mass is any singularity. Thus, the true center of the universe exists in many places simultaniously. In other words, The singularity of a black hole IS the center of the universe. However, since the universe is so unbelieveably massive and multidimensionsl, this center is manifested in innumerable
    places at once....every where there is a singularity. The center of mass of the universe is thus a sum of all singularities.

    Yet, summing ALL the singularities is pointless, since each one already exceeds infinity.

    Kalster, because of the nature of infinity, the mass of a black hole is inversly proportionate to its density. In other words, black holes have infinate mass at their centers. Thus, they have zero density. But remember that zero IS infinity.

    The reason they are infinately massive, is that they convert their entire mass into single points of dark matter, which is expelled into the uiverse. The density of a blck hole is in fact zero, because the mass is infinite. Its mass is that of the universe, inversely proportionate, approching infinity.

    What does that mean? Not only do black holes drive the gravitational constant of the universe, since their masses are inversely proportionate to their densities, they are the center of not only galaxies but when summed, the universe as well. Ironically, each and every singly singularity is a center of the universe.

    Since we understand a gravitational singularity to be a center, we can then begin to define bounds for the universe; subergravity - the master-brane.

    Any feed back on this theory's plausibility?

    ps: My occupation, Kalster, I am a Starfleet science officer. I've just returned from DS9, where I've spent considerable time studyig this quadrant's only wormhole. Oh and, yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Ok, so if something has infinite mass, does it not mean it has infinite gravity, With an infinite resultant force applied on all matter, with all matter having infinite acceleration: travel at C? Or is the reason this does not happen that since singularities are spread out throughout the universe, they mostly cancel each other out?

    PS: Any reason you do not want to divulge your profession? (unless you really are from DS9. Say hello to Quark for me :P )
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Also, if such a thing as the centre of the universe exists, does that not require the existence of an "outside" of the universe?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    What do you consider the centre of your body?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    The line of symetry through the middle. Why
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Also, if such a thing as the centre of the universe exists, does that not require the existence of an "outside" of the universe?
    If there is a "center" and if that does give grounds for there being an "outside" (that makes sence) than there's one little "proof" for M-theory.

    what's a better word than "proof"? I can't think right now. I didn't sleep last night.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The line of symetry through the middle. Why
    When we aim to find the centre of the so-called "universe", we are actually looking for, as you are implying, the centre of gravitational symmetry.

    That's quite strange though, that scientists would do that, given that gravity is a force that they are unable to properly link to E-M field forces, and that the understanding we have of the universe is based on E-M radiation.

    Anyway, back to the "centre of your body" issue, without considering what exists OUTSIDE your body, what do you tyink the centre of your own body would be, and remember aim not to count in outer references, references outside the body.

    For instance, go into a dark room, lie in bed, and close your eyes. Where do you "sense" the centre of your self-awareness? In your stomache, or still in your head? The reason you feel awareness in your head is because that is where so much happens, so many determinations of reason. "Symmetry"? Well, the brain is the most symmetrical organ of the body, left to right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    33
    yer point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    "The centre of the universe" is a loaded concept: it only implies gravity, the overall balance of the universe.

    If Hawking and other big-bang theorists have us believe, the ORIGIN of the forces of the universe happened a long time ago, the big bang, and it is moving further away from us, that origin, as time passes, without seemingly any erosion of those forces the more we move away from that initial event horizon, AS WE ARE LEAD TO BELIEVE.

    The big bang theory is more out there than star wars.

    We base the big bang theory on the red-shift effect of the light from the stars, the so-called light doppler-effect, when no one has officially ruled out the possibility that light, the wavelength, could be stretched as it traverses through dark-matter fields (dark matter also being just as out there as the big bang and star wars).

    I am a believer that a theory of perception (in regard to space-time), what we are only capable of perceiving, is what we should be relying on when we communicate scientific ideas to one another.

    I am though also a believer in the idea that children are easier to manage than adults, and so if people want to be childish with the way they reason space-time, it may be better that way anyway, in terms of managing the development of this planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Yes. Still, the minds out there that hold the key to opening doors to theoretical development are held by those who teach.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I agree. It can be frustrating though: some presumptions in contemporary physics are like philshing sites. Still, the effort and imagination behind them are worth applauding. I'm a fan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems

    I am a believer...

    I am though also a believer ...
    That is the difference between accepted theories and you.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Q, I suggest you read Einsteins early works, how he explains points and lines and the like..............the "stuff" is laced with religious verbosity, a fitting ointment for your eyes of reason on what you may consider to be "theory".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Q, I suggest you read Einsteins early works, how he explains points and lines and the like..............the "stuff" is laced with religious verbosity, a fitting ointment for your eyes of reason on what you may consider to be "theory".
    Yeah, sure.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9
    i dont know im just a student but have felt that time must be treated as a vector quantity with its current direction considered the forward direction. sicne at least as we perceive, it is moving in a particular direction. its direction, as far as we know, doesn't exhnange arbitrarily. if it did, we would 'perceive'' that some hours are 'longer' than hours. Time cannot reverse thew vibrations of the atoms in a clock and thus the clock will show the tie as if time hasn't 'changed direction.' so it will show that 1 hour has passed while we 'feel' that more has passed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    india
    Posts
    4
    Here's my hypothesis
    the smallest indivisible part of an element is an atom, w/o which the element does not exist...
    Similarly, there must be a smallest indivisible part of time w/o which time does not exist.
    Let us say this smallest part of time as a frame
    Now, according to Newton's theory this is an inertial frame as mass does not changes considerably in the smallest part of time.
    Aurobindo Banerjee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I don't think time can 'move' in one way or another because it is more a perception of movement than anything else
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you think about it in a certain way, time must exist somehow since we can measure changes in its rate, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    If you think about it in a certain way, time must exist somehow since we can measure changes in its rate, right?
    Just because you can measure something doesn't necessarily mean it exists. Right? :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    If you think about it in a certain way, time must exist somehow since we can measure changes in its rate, right?
    Or, are you instead measuring the effects of time dilation of the physical quantities between reference frames?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I don't know. Can you give an example of something that can be measured that doesn't exist?

    I'm basically asking, since time dilation exists, doesn't that imply that time exists to dilate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    I don't know. Can you give an example of something that can be measured that doesn't exist?

    I'm basically asking, since time dilation exists, doesn't that imply that time exists to dilate?
    Not really.

    Time dilation is the observed relativistic effect between reference frames on the objects being compared. Within those frames, no observable changes have occurred to the objects.

    My clock will always tick normally for me, while clocks observed and compared with mine will tick differently under those relativistic effects.

    Time exists as a mathematical quantity and 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, 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".
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    What do you consider the centre of your body?
    This just gave me a whole lot of insight, maybe unintentionally but still!

    What is the "center" of our bodies?

    Where is the spot within our bodies that the splitting cells originally began?
    The answere is there is no "Center" of our bodies. The "center" became the whole and is disbersed throughout.

    Could it not be possible the universe has "grown" not too unlike from this same concept? That the center is now the whole and there is in fact NO "center"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    If you think about it in a certain way, time must exist somehow since we can measure changes in its rate, right?
    Well, if time is defined as the rate in which things appear to move then the rate of which things appear to move is really whats being measured.

    The weirdness comes into play when you realize that The rate of which things appear to move changes in relation to the speed at which light appears to move to the observer. However, light is still apparantly moving the same speed from the observer's perspective regardles of how fast he appears to be going to other observers who think they are going slower or faster than the original observer, but all three of them see light going at the same apparant speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46 Re: Time 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Okay, so we have all heard that time is a dimension, We measure "time" everyday.

    Lately, I have been thinking alot about time and have come to a realization that our measurements of time are really measurements of change and movement, Time cannot be seen, felt, studied or measured, only the results of movement and change can be measured.

    If something cannot be measured studied or detected, doesn't that mean it is only a theory untill it can be proven to exist? Like Dark Matter?

    I know I know, most of you will just miss my point and say "What?" and call me weird, but it takes a little bit of thinking to grasp what I am trying to talk about here so that is understandable.

    Take our most advanced and precise "Time" measuring device we have, atomic clocks.

    They are not really measuring 'time' but the resonating of atoms when struck by a specific microwave frequency.

    we can measure and detect, see, and even touch all sorts of things, but time is only comprehendable when our bodies access the molecules of our brain that have been placed there as a reaction to something we have observed by what we have seen heard smelled felt or touched. if something were to prevent our bodies from accessing those parts of our brain that have been changed by our experiences we would have as much memory of the past as we do of the future.

    Basically, without the movement of atoms, if everything was at absolute zero, there would be no measure of "time".

    Maybe this is why time travel, other than traveling at very fast speeds so that the amount of change our molecules experience are slower than those of our surroundings, is impossible. (I have very huge doubts about the recent theories of 'dimensional bubbles') Effectively, traveling to the past would require a totally perfect reversal of movement from every single atom, subatom, wave, and photon in existance so as to REALLY be in the past, without all of these outlandish theories of alternate realities.

    Tell me what you think, I am sorry this post is rather long and half of you may skim through it quickly, I know I have no mathematics to back this up, and that some will argue that without time there is no way to distinguish when two atoms have been in the exact same place but at different 'times', but if you really think about it the past is no more 'real' than the future since none of the matter of the 'past' is in the 'past' just as the 'future' contains no matter. We may know where some things have been before, we can even theorize where some things will be going, but only by observing where they are now and making assumptions of the past and future based on the present.

    I'm not saying things never happened before the present, because we CAN prove that things have happened to bring us to where we are now, I am just saying maybe we should re-evaluate our understanding of 'Time'
    Actually come to think of things, doesnt time itself create the 3 spatial dimensions. I mean, without time, we'd only have one dimension. Time itself could be merely shattered-symmetry.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: Time 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins

    Actually come to think of things, doesnt time itself create the 3 spatial dimensions. I mean, without time, we'd only have one dimension. Time itself could be merely shattered-symmetry.
    Yeah, without the movement of particles, energy, atoms, quarks, there would be nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •