Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: would time exist if.......

  1. #1 would time exist if....... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    if electromagnetic radiation didn't exist in our universe would there be time. I know that spacetime is one so would there be no space as well. I think it was John Wheeler who said that time was gods way of not letting everything happen at once so if nothing happens does that mean a second( or a planck time increment ) would be smeared to an eternity


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i doubt the universe would exist without the EM radiationbecause that would really mean that there would be no Photons wouldn't there?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    would a universe exist if it was devoid of messenger particles like the photon and only that. so no signals could be sent, gravity would still exist in this hypothetical universe and would einstein's speed limit be faster or slower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by phephiphophum
    would a universe exist if it was devoid of messenger particles like the photon and only that. so no signals could be sent, gravity would still exist in this hypothetical universe and would einstein's speed limit be faster or slower
    Einstiens limit should apply because it is used in more objects then light.
    it's just that any object traveling at or near the speed of light will notice time slowing down, objects at the speed C should not notice the passage of time and objects traveling faster would see time reverse.

    Time going backwards, to my knowlege, runs into a few problem with our friend Thermodynamics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Would time exist if there were no conscious beings in the universe? No. Infact, the universe itself wouldn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    Would time exist if there were no conscious beings in the universe? No. Infact, the universe itself wouldn't exist.
    What about the time before conscious beings came into the universe? The universe existed then – surely…
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by 8873tom
    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    Would time exist if there were no conscious beings in the universe? No. Infact, the universe itself wouldn't exist.
    What about the time before conscious beings came into the universe? The universe existed then – surely…
    If there is evidence as such yes.
    we know that the universe existed before us because we have evidence as such that proves it.

    personally i don't see why a universe would need consious beings to observe it in order to exist. surely not all parts of the universe are under constant obversation but they exist none the less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    Indeed. It's a bit like saying that the Earth was created for us
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Personally, I think things has to be "observed" in order to exist. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    So if nobody is around to hear a tree fall in a forest it won’t make a noise? Please.
    I know that’s a simplified version but that is basically what you’re saying. Wallaby’s example is a perfect one; just because there are parts of universe out there that we can’t see doesn’t mean that they do not exist. The trouble is you’ve made a statement that can’t be proved.
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Ok wallaby, I have to ask, what the heck is your avatar doing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by 8873tom
    So if nobody is around to hear a tree fall in a forest it won’t make a noise?
    Right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Ok wallaby, I have to ask, what the heck is your avatar doing?
    what it's supposed to be doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    Personally, I think things has to be "observed" in order to exist. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
    so what happens to objects that arn't being observed?
    do they just pop into creation when you look at them in which case that would mean that the energy is created.

    if objects don't exist when you arn't observing them then where are they and where they come from? ie. If your not observing me and i don't exist then how did i write this post?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    so what happens to objects that arn't being observed?
    "Nothing" happens to them.

    do they just pop into creation when you look at them in which case that would mean that the energy is created.
    With "observation" I don't mean just vision. Everything that is visible is only visible because it has been separated from its complementary half. You separate the universe from yourself, and consider it to be "outside" you. This way, it (the universe, which is a manifestation of your mind) becomes visible, and you are able to say: I am. Without this feeling of separation there would be no "you", and hence no universe either. There is no light without darkness - no "positive" without the "negative".

    if objects don't exist when you arn't observing them then where are they and where they come from? ie. If your not observing me and i don't exist then how did i write this post?
    Objects come from separation (mind)

    There is only one mind. It expresses itself through you as it expresses itself through me, and everyone else. You, and the rest of the world, is my (personal) unconscious mind. It is the same self within you, as within me. This one "self" (in religions it is often called "God") expresses itself through all things.

    "Matter" is a vision. Like time, it exists only in the consciousness. I know it's hard to understand all this when it has become a habit.

    You defend your person and reject me. You want to remain yourself, it's much like magnetic repulsion. Because you consider the "outer" things as "not-you", you reject your infinity, and remain in that specific body which matches your personal consciousness.

    This is what Moses is explaining in the beginning of the Bible: "In the beginning, there is a separation between Earth and Heavens". "In the beginning" is a mis-translation of the Hebrew "Bereshit", which means "within principles" or "all that follows concerns principles; abstract principles". And the separation is that of YOU (mind, "Heavens"), and the universe (matter, outer infinity, "earth").

    If you become able to free your thoughts all the time, ignoring past experiences in order to invent a new world, one day the matter won't stop (limit) you any longer. You'll be able to go through it. One day. When you dare to recognize deeply and totally that only "I am". For knowledge is not a matter of intelligence, but of courage. "To him who sees things as they are, nothing remains unknowable."

    Ignorance is the fear of what is self-evident. People generally prefer what is not obvious, in order to complicate their way towards their goal (nothingness/infinity) so as to be sure to remain what they are. The Universe is absolutely simple (if not, it couldn't exist). But understanding it is very difficult because it is the role of consciousness not to face its cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    That should have been your first post. I like it – good theory.
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Ok wallaby, I have to ask, what the heck is your avatar doing?


    what it's supposed to be doing.


    hehe - wipe on - wipe off?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Sometimes I feel like a person in a magic shop trying to convince everyone in the shop that magic is just an illusion.

    If all matter and energy in the universe were to 100% stop, could you still measure time? Would time exist? It could be frozen forever, how much time passed? The only way we would be able to answer this question would be if someone or something was not frozen and it moved in such a way to create intervals that could be counted. Without these movements we have absolutely no way to measure the passage of time.

    It appears to be very hard to people to understand that time is nothing more then comparisons between the movements of objects. We say light travels at a given speed by counting the intervals of some object normally made of matter and based on how many intervals it completes we then say light travels at a given speed. If the intervals of our device slow down or speed up we know this by comparing it to other such devices. In the end without objects around that have a relatively constant velocity we would have a very hard time measuring time.

    Does time exist if the entire universe was frozen still, all matter, energy and light dead in it's tracks. It would only exist to the outside observer using some device to count up those intervals of movement internal to the device. So without this outside observer time is immeasurable, thus it doesn't have quantity and one could say it doesn't exist.

    So you see, to make changes in time we have to first change what it is we are trying to measure. If we are trying to slow down time we either need to slow the universe or speed up the intervals of our measuring device. That device could be an atomic clock or a planet orbiting a star. It's all movement.

    It's not time that passes, it's change in state that happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    If all matter and energy in the universe were to 100% stop, could you still measure time?
    The universe and time are the same thing.

    Every motion, every movement in the universe is a means towards peace, towards equilibrium: absence of motion. If you could stop the restlessness of the universe, every motion in every atom. What would remain? A few particles, huh ? No. Nothing would remain, since matter is only an impression due to apparent motion. Without motion, there's no universe.

    Nothing. Motion of what? Motion of nothing, in fact, since mind doesn't really move. It is always here and now. But it believes it moves, projected into the future to reach its goal of absolute peace (nothingness), and restrained by a memory which it doesn't want to lose (universe). All energetic motions in the universe are only psychological ones.

    Now we're no longer talking about "physics". There is nothing physical. The effect of matter appears there where the mind "freezes" energy 's movement by "observing it".

    ---

    Have we ever observed the universe other than in the present moment? Does movement in time exist in reality, or is it simply the present phenomenon of Memory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    n fact, since mind doesn't really move. It is always here and now. But it believes it moves, projected into the future
    Off topic, but I can't resist.
    In point of fact, the mind actually lives in the past, not the now. It's about a half a second behind when it comes to sensory input and conscious awareness of said input.

    So. How is it that we aren't aware of this lag?

    That's the tricky part and the function of the interpretive mechanism. Which predicts what we should be experiencing in the now based on what we were experiencing half a second ago and beyond.

    As I said, all off-topic but interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    n fact, since mind doesn't really move. It is always here and now. But it believes it moves, projected into the future
    Off topic, but I can't resist.
    In point of fact, the mind actually lives in the past, not the now. It's about a half a second behind when it comes to sensory input and conscious awareness of said input.

    So. How is it that we aren't aware of this lag?

    That's the tricky part and the function of the interpretive mechanism. Which predicts what we should be experiencing in the now based on what we were experiencing half a second ago and beyond.

    As I said, all off-topic but interesting.
    Actually Invert, about the only support for time travel. Well that and a Tivo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Off topic, but I can't resist.
    What is off topic?

    ---

    The presence is non-existent: nil (and it's the only thing that is real) It doesn't have any duration. You can always divide what has a duration, and find something in it which is of lesser duration. The present is not divisible. It only separates what is past from what is not yet. It's a point without substance and which doesn't contain anything. Physicists sometimes give present a duration, in order to allow the universe to exist. This is scientifically untenable.

    All evidence leads to suggest, uncontestably, that the past is a sheer memory. Memory is a present feeling. No honest mind can logically state that time exists by itself, that it is a 'physical' reality. Nobody can prove the existence of time or matter, since they are just sensations, parts of our mind. We think we live within time, but it is time that lives within us. We think we live in a universe, but it is the universe which lives within our mind.

    Everything past is an effect, and an effect is a creation of the cause.

    When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. Quantum physicists could have guessed that if they tried to observe the present reality of particles, they would be bound to banish the idea of "particle".

    What is visible is always illusory, an illusion produced by a cause but unable to create anything. The cause cannot be visible. The present cannot be visible. It is the creator of appearances. Physics cannot apprehend what is not physical, so Physics will remain ignorant of the causes of the universe.

    For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed. Hence the cause is always invisible, and apparent reality is always illusory. This is why when Physics tries to seize the atoms' reality (mind's presence), it discovers... nothingness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Sad you keep lapsing into the Philosophical nature of our universe and even though it may be justified in explaning the heart of reality it often only applies to the observer.

    if the person is not observing, or thinking about, an object or event then it does not exist. To them
    scientificaly light is emited from a source, such as the sun, even while i am not thinking about it, due to it being night time right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    if the person is not observing, or thinking about, an object or event then it does not exist.
    Things exist, even you don't observe them, if someone else "observes" them. If someone else observes them, it means that you observe them, but subconsciously, since you are currently only aware of a specific body and person. In reality, the mind is omnipresent.

    To them scientificaly light is emited from a source, such as the sun, even while i am not thinking about it, due to it being night time right now.
    Yea. But there is no "them". There is only you. Only one mind, which observes the universe (mind) from all places at the same time.

    No one has ever seen light between a source and a receptor: light is in the "receptor's" sensation, not outside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    If I setup a billion cameras to record various part of the universe and then opt to watch back those tapes later on, did the objects I was recording exist while they were being recorded or did the video on the tape only appear because I was recording.

    The universe vanishing theory while we are not looking is nice, but not very well grounded in probable fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Aer
    Aer is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    If I setup a billion cameras to record various part of the universe and then opt to watch back those tapes later on, did the objects I was recording exist while they were being recorded or did the video on the tape only appear because I was recording.
    If you record things here on Earth, did the things your recorded actually exist while they were being recorded or did the video on the tape only appear because you were recording. If you can answer this question and not the other - what, must I ask, is so special about Earth? I suppose it's special because you live on it, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    sad
    sad is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    like said, every place in the universe is already being "observed" at every moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    i unfortunately had a case of bad grammar in my previous post and didn't put in the fullstop between 'To Them and 'Scientificaly'.

    what i mean't was that every part of the universe exists even when not under observation.

    however to an observer the universe, outside of what it is observing, does not exist To Them. simply because they are not observing it and can only be sure of there own existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    Personally, I think things has to be "observed" in order to exist. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
    Are you suggesting that as mankind looked farther and farther out into the universe, the many new objects have been observed over the last 10,000 years only came into existence at the point in time that they were first observed? You claim that this makes sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    Personally, I think things has to be "observed" in order to exist. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
    Are you suggesting that as mankind looked farther and farther out into the universe, the many new objects have been observed over the last 10,000 years only came into existence at the point in time that they were first observed? You claim that this makes sense?
    i agree.

    how do stars and galaxies that take millions if not billions of years to form come into physical existence just like that.
    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
  •