I know some people will probably call me a moron, but hey im still curious if what I have to say would be some valid ideas.

Does time exist? or is time just something man made up to explain why now is now, then was then and the yet to be is still the yet to be. Scientist say that in theory time can be bended, manipulated, slowed or even broken. IF you went back in time and tried to change something, could it be done? or is it impossible to change something thats already been done. If I went back in time and tried to kill Hitler, could I do it? Personally I think not, whats done is done, and if you went back in time changing would not only threatin your existence but your very own being there would threaten everything from that minute on. The theory of Chaos says that everything effects everything. Say a butterfly in china lands on a small kids nose, that very well could decide if I live or die tommorrow? A little dramatic? I think not, now if the kid takes one extra minute to play with the butterfly he could make his mother late to the airport and she could miss her flight. Therefore if she was to return home she could very well end up in a car accident that could involve me, or not be in a car accident and the one thats suppse to happen would be me. Now thats on a watered down scale, but I believe its true. So by simply going back in time could alter things greatly to begin with, if time in the first place existed. If you went back in time, the preceding events already occured which in effect created you. In other words going back to a previous time would only be a play back of the event, not a tranport back to what was the present. It has already happened and your there watching the events unfold live. Some people call it the billard effect. If you tried to change something that already happened something else would bounce back to prevent you from doing it. It reminds me of the twilight zone. A guy went back in time and was going to shoot Hitler and stop millions from dieing, BUT the gun wouldnt fire, he kept being interupted by people and so on. He just couldnt make it possible.

So does time exist ? or is time a made up fantasy to explain our memory of the constant images being recorded in our head. Personally I dont think time in essence or theory exist. BUT then again I worship Big Bird..... so you decide ;)

oh yea I have another question, doesnt have anything to do with time, but I'm curious what other people think about this too. They say that space ends somewhere out there, then whats after that? Scientist say "nothing" how can there be nothing when space is nothing at all? If the universe is expanding, it has to have some place to go...

Dude it must suck to be you. Writing all that and putting all the thought into it just to see that noone gives a shit. heh heh.101

2A6AAFD5CD0DB322B8E06FBE16BE1BB9D4C116B226BA29A926 7FD9CC74DE71E779AFF710719782C11E0FB715BC0B469F8AC6 114C82973F9485CC005D4480D071DC075FF127B118488FC6DE 72EA63FD26A33D9332

9C25B82F9B82D472E66FB61FB51C044198CC74AC23A323A72E 54459B376FE167B21FB815045CFF5BF45FFA5AFB52F127953D 8B9A349C389A31A0F553FA2AAC2E76D30D47528DC51BB5D4CC 16BA1A0F409F8EC90CB8E160FD2B9A399434574FB9D83F6AE5 6CBD005D86C0D170ED77DB74D7227ADE7FDB2E

A72AB81EBB0A1BBA16478392C30C4894F127A5FD5888C3D603 5185C209418C9D22A422ADFC5FF15DE97AD40F17BF0316B618 BF14014D8DCB0B1EB2EA62E061E03994CD06464A5385C0045D F66DEE56FA4D5CE430AB3493

Zambino, as to your second question of your first mailing: The edge of thew universe looks kinda like the edge of the world, just before you fall off. It may be a bit of a riddle, but you may just be elevated to the abstract level needed to get the real answer. And I don't know any scientists saying that there is nothing beyond that.
As to your fist issue. hard issue. I think time does exist, and I would like to know why one should think otherwise.
I think introducing the Choas theory is a bit far fetched at the moment; not relevant to the issue.
I am in a hurry, so I end this post nmow. Catch you later.

Merlijn

Of course time exists. You pay attention to it, don't you? You look at the clock, you worry about being late, etc. Therefore it exists for you. How much more real do you need? If it is real for you it is real. If you think something exists then it exists for you.

So this is the ultimate measure: if you think something exists it does (for you). Why don't we all stop practising science and start telling each other our dreams?
Sorry to sound a bit negative Deus, but I have had it with this way of thinking. What is next, will you be advocating the idea that all opinions are equal? I certainly do not hope so; think of the implications.

"Time is nature's way of stopping everything from happening all at once."
John Wheeler

Michael

So this is the ultimate measure: if you think something exists it does (for you). Why don't we all stop practising science and start telling each other our dreams?

Do you believe that your dreams are real? Have you ever had a dream so real that the next morning you really had to think about whether it was real or not? I have, occassionally, and until I figure out some way that it must've been a dream, the events in the dream seem pretty real.
In the same way, for hundreds of years Newton's Laws were seens as absolutely correct, that was reality for physicists. It wasn't until they discovered things that just didn't fit that they began to doubt, and when other theories that explained things better came up, Newton's Laws started to look less like reality and more like a good approximation of how things interact when they are not too big or too small, and when they are not travelling too fast and are not too hot or too cold.
Your reality is defined by you because there is no independant observer to define it for you. We are all within reality, and thus we are unable to define it without bias. Therefore, that which you observe, and in turn, believe, is true for you, it is reality for you. If confronted with strong contradicting evidence, most people will change their minds, and for them reality changes.

"your reality" what does that mean????
I admit, as everybody should, that we have limited wisdom and knowledge and we do not know the truth. Reality is defined independently of observers. It is not subject dependent.

Knowledge and reality are different entites.
It is MY / YOUR knowledge and THE reality.

Merlijn

I admit, as everybody should, that we have limited wisdom and knowledge and we do not know the truth. Reality is defined independently of observers. It is not subject dependent.

If reality is defined independantly of observers, who defines it?

This all depends on what exactly you mean by time existing.

Time is a dimension, hopefully we can all agree on that. People have a tendency to see time as a somehow different type of dimension, though. I'd say it's very possible that time could be no different in nature than the other 3 dimensions we're familiar with, it's only our perspective that makes it seem different.

We're 3 dimensional creatures. We can only perceive 3 dimensions through our senses. Memory is our one faculty we have which can track the 4th dimension, and it only does so by recording the 3 dimensional realities we perceive and leaving a kind of smudged impression of a bunch of 3-D realities that we say combine to make up the past.

If you were a 2-D being, a flatlander, what would a 3-D object look like to you? You'd never be able to see or to comprehend the full 3-D object, you could only observe whatever part of it was in your 2-D space. Here's an illustration of that with a sphere shown passing through a plane on the left, and the view of it the flatlanders have shown on the right:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flatland/FlatLandAnim.gif
The flatlander simply sees a circle of changing size, and never sees a sphere. So, the flatlander naturally comes to think the circle is being altered, the circle is contracting and expanding... thus there's change going on, thus there's the concept of time. From our higher dimensional reality, however, we can all see that the sphere is the same sphere all along, the sphere isn't changing... it's just that the flatlander is only seeing 2-D slices of it and so will never really be able to understand that all those slices are actually adding up to a 3-D sphere that's there in a complete form all along.

Now try the same sorts of ideas, but instead of a 3-D objects viewed from 2-D space, try a 4-D object viewed from 3-D space. Wouldn't it work similarly, the sense of "change" seen by the inhabitants of the 3-D world being basically an illusion caused by only being able to see 3-D slices of the 4-D whole?

It may be possible to think of the universe as a sort of 4-D object. This would mean that from the outside perspective, from a higher dimensional perception, there isn't any time in the sense we know it. Everything that ever has and ever will happen in the universe would simply be the infinite series of 3-D slices that make up the existing static 4-D universe... much like how the circles seen by the flatlander are all a part of the complete and unchanging 3-D sphere. Since at the higher dimension there's no actual change going on in our world (simply a continuum of static 3-D slices), and without change there's no time, what we call time would not actually exist from the higher dimensional perspective.


Hope my first post here has caused sufficient confusion. ;)

Good post, and welcome. Just one thing I want to point out for the sake of discussion: your flatlander, although only seeing things in 2 dimensions, by your explanation actually experiences 3 dimensions, just as we see things in 3 dimensions (more or less) and experience 4. The flatlander, since he/she can see change in the circle, actually experiences dimensions 1, 2, and 4. Do you suppose that perhaps time is different from other dimensions in that you experience it whenever you experience any other dimension? In the case, using your top-down perspective, perhaps time belongs higher than 4 on the heirarchy. Thoughts?

Deus,
As to: your last post: I think you are taking the analogy a bit too literally.

as to your reply to my post:
If reality is defined independantly of observers, who defines it?
Get out of your frame, please!
How about: "Reality needs no definition to exist, what I meant is: 'It is not subject dependent'." (oh I wrote that in the first place). In the same vein: did Pluto and Charon need to be observed in order to come into existence? I think not.

Originally posted by Deus
Just one thing I want to point out for the sake of discussion: your flatlander, although only seeing things in 2 dimensions, by your explanation actually experiences 3 dimensions, just as we see things in 3 dimensions (more or less) and experience 4. The flatlander, since he/she can see change in the circle, actually experiences dimensions 1, 2, and 4. Do you suppose that perhaps time is different from other dimensions in that you experience it whenever you experience any other dimension?

I think you’d sort of be right, if you put it this way: in order to experience anything, we need time. That doesn’t have to make time different from the other dimensions though, it just means we have to have a limited perspective (relative to the total # of dimensions of the universe) in order for us to exist as we know it. (If in the 4-D universe every moment of time is static and done, no movement possible, that’s obviously not the type of existence we know.)

I don’t think I’d say the other dimensions require time, even though of course they require it to be observed by us. One thing you can say is that to have a dimension we can call "time" there have to be multiple dimensions (one to call "time", one to be directly observed). Take a 1-D universe… the universe is just a line. The only lower perspective to take is 0-D, which’d be either a point or nothing I guess, and you can see there’d be no way to perceive change or movement of any sort and so the concept of time would be meaningless.

Once you get into a 2-D universe, and any higher number of dimensions, you can have time in your universe so long as your perspective stays below the number of actually existing dimensions. You can have a 1-D universe without time, and you can have 2+ dimensional universes with or without time depending on if your perspective is of a lower number of dimensions. My main point though was that you don't need to have time be different than the other dimensions, because if you jump up to a perspective that’s as many dimensions as actually exist then what you used to call time when you were at a lower perspective wouldn’t seem any different in nature from width, height, etc.

Originally posted by Merlijn
In the same vein: did Pluto and Charon need to be observed in order to come into existence? I think not.

I'm not an idealist, so I'm not about to pretend there's no physical reality out there, but it's not like you can ignore internal realities either. With your example of Pluto and Charon, they did have to be observed in order to gain a more direct type of existence. Existence in the mind is the only type of existence that we can ever directly experience, even if it may be caused by an independently existing thing. In other words, I agree that there's an objective reality out there but things don't take on much meaning until they enter someone's subjective personal reality.

First: Welcome to Sciforums.

Second: "The flatlander simply sees a circle of changing size, and never
sees a sphere."

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the flatlander sees a disc of chang-
ing size?

Just a thought.

Take care ;)

If the sphere is hollow, couldn't it be a circle? :D

Actually it's kind of hard to imagine what a flatlander would see. If they're on the plane theirself they couldn't see the whole circle or disc at once, they'd have to see some sort of flat representation of the half they're facing... I think. Maybe it'd look like a line? :bugeye:

Thanks for the welcomes.

Time, space and mater are cage elements created by God to trap our soul in this real world, wich is actually a great illusion. We'll see more reality if we can take a spiritual journey, escaping from our body, or after dead... :rolleyes:

Ok, ismu... if death is so great and it's the way to be enlightened about true reality, I'll be nice and let you go first. :p

Originally posted by Hoth
Ok, ismu... if death is so great and it's the way to be enlightened about true reality, I'll be nice and let you go first. :p

How about... I take the first way --a spiritual journey--, and you take the second one? :p :p

Ok... no problem. It's doesn't matter who go first. All of us will got there anyway. But if you think about it a little bit more deeper, you'll find out that it was a truth. Look how priest, bikkhu, spiritualists, etc, doing a spiritual journey, just to find out the real truth... about life, death, earth, past, beyond, universe and harmony.

I see death as the transition back into nothingness. Nothingness is the most basic thing there is... er, isn't... in the universe. There's no disharmony at all in nothingness. Dead people know all they'll ever need to know, just like the unborn. People without bodies have no flaws. Yet, since it's nothing, it still can't possibly have a positive (or negative) value.

Originally posted by Hoth
I see death as the transition back into nothingness.

You'll be surprised to find out how crowd life after death is...

Probably exactly as crowded as the time before life was. ;)

Of course, if you go with the 4-D idea that time doesn't really exist, we're already everywhere we're going and everywhere we've been... with life being the tiny little spec in there and the nothing being infinite.

[In other words,] I agree that there's an objective reality out there but things don't take on much meaning until they enter someone's subjective personal reality.
I think I could not agree more! Well said, Hoth.
I am really glad to hear this. When I read your reply, my thoughts were :"finally."

What you write is near to what I perceive as the ultimate ontological truth.

I think I could not agree more! Well said, Hoth.
I am really glad to hear this.

Would it surprise you to hear that this was pretty close to what I was trying to express?

In the words of the world's smartest garbage man, "Time is an illusion created by our inability to perceive everything at once." I personally agree with him.

(And, off the subject, how do you get that nifty little picture to show up under your name?)

Deus,
Yes that does surprise me. We seem to be communicating on a sub-optimal level. :)

If the sphere is hollow, couldn't it be a circle? To you or I, but to ziggy, the 'flatlander', whether the sphere is solid or hollow he
would see the same thing. Remember, he can't look at it from above as we can.

And yes, he would see it as a line if the sphere were large enough, otherwise
as a curve and, if small enough, a 'disk' around which he could easily walk, but not
'enter'.

Take care ;)

Originally posted by ismu:
Time, space and mater are cage elements created by God to trap our soul in this real world, wich is actually a great illusion. We'll see more reality if we can take a spiritual journey, escaping from our body, or after dead...

That's pretty much the Truth... :D

Time does not exist. Is an illusion. Actually, it only exists if you accept thet the conception of the reality is what your conscience tells you. Then, time, space and matter exists.

But the conception of reality changes through the "time". For example, if you would talk with someone 2000 or even 1000 years ago about atoms, they would say that you are completely crazy. Why? Because their conception of reality is limited only to the perception of their senses.

What I mean by Truth in my posts is a Highter Reality. A reality for everyone.

Because reality is something so personal that changes even with our beliefs, reality as we know can't be discussed.

The Truth is that reality is a relative concept, an illusion created by our own beliefs.

To finish your question, time exists and doesn't exist at the same time. ;)

Blessings,
Nelson

Originally posted by Hoth:
I see death as the transition back into nothingness. Nothingness is the most basic thing there is... er, isn't... in the universe. There's no disharmony at all in nothingness. Dead people know all they'll ever need to know, just like the unborn. People without bodies have no flaws. Yet, since it's nothing, it still can't possibly have a positive (or negative) value.

Yes... the Truth is neutral... and is nothingness. :)

Space-Time is only an illusion. Is just an expression of a Highter Reality. The Truth is much about Nothingness. Everything comes from nothing and will someday return to Nothingness.
As Nothingness don't have a physical expression, it can't be really crowded because it doesn't have Space-Time. Actually, the Truth is that Nothing exists! :p

About dimensions... well... imagine that the Universe, I mean all Space-Time, was folded into a single point, the Singularity. Was that really crowded? I don't believe all the matter of the Universe was there. I believe that matter came as the Space-Time started to unfold. Than, particles started to be created in the vacuum. Lots of particles because it was pretty hot that "time"...! :p

To answer the threads question: Time doesn't exists. It's an illusion that started to exist after 10^-44 sec of the Universe's existance. It's called the Plank Time. Below this "time" time didn't existed in the Universe... :bugeye:

Blessings,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
To answer the threads question: Time doesn't exists. It's an illusion that started to exist after 10^-44 sec of the Universe's existance. It's called the Plank Time. Below this "time" time didn't existed in the Universe... :bugeye:

Practically speaking you may be right, but technically that can't be the case. By using seconds to measure that you're showing that there was time before. The moment before which time didn't exist in the universe was the moment zero, by mathematical definition. You can't have had 10^-44 seconds of time pass before time itself came into existence, because you obviously wouldn't have 10^-44 seconds before that first moment. Rather, it's more like 10^-44 seconds passed before the universe came into existence, even though that's still not quite technically accurate. The Planck time is just the time at which it becomes possible to use our current conceptions of space and time... it's not that there wasn't time before then, just that it was not intelligible in the current sense because time is motion and motion wasn't intelligible in the current sense. The forces were unified and there were likely a much larger number of dimensions involved, so we can't talk about it, but there was still time since time 0.

Hoth,

Below this "time" time didn't existed in the Universe...

I meant time as we know... our conception of time... ;)
Our "time", as we know, began to exist after this moment. :p

Before that, "time" was a mess... :bugeye:

AHHHHH! :confused:

:D

Hehe... :rolleyes:

That's so crazy...

If you imagine that there is "something" beyond our Universe, what time is!?!?!? :confused:

Time is REALLY relative!!

If you look at the starts, what time is!?!?

Time is one of the greatest illusions. It allways go forward in little distances, medium range (our human range of space)... but...

If...
You move below the light's speed,
time moves forward...
You move in the light's speed,
time is ever present!
You move above light's speed,
time moves backward!
You look to more and more distant stars,
time moves backward!
You look to subatomic particles,
time is so small that can't be considered!

Can there be a greater illusion?
Yes! Space! :p

But that's enough for now!!! :D

Blessings,
Nelson

If...
You move below the light's speed,
time moves forward...
You move in the light's speed,
time is ever present!
You move above light's speed,
time moves backward!
You look to more and more distant stars,
time moves backward!
You look to subatomic particles,
time is so small that can't be considered!

Not one of these statements is correct. It is clear you don't understand the concept of time nor it's relevancy.

Ok "(Q)"...

If...
You move below the light's speed,
time moves forward...

How can this be wrong? You are moving below the speed of light, don't you? How is time for you? It goes backward? It's everlasting? No... I suppose it goes forward... :rolleyes:

Guess what... I've already proved you wrong...

Not one of these statements is correct. It is clear you don't understand the concept of time nor it's relevancy.

The others are correct to, if you stop and pay attention...

Blessings,
Nelson

How can this be wrong?

No understanding of the subject matter perhaps?

Guess what... I've already proved you wrong...

Story of my life. Everyone's always trying to prove me wrong. It's a curse. :D

The others are correct to, if you stop and pay attention...

I came, I saw, I chuckled.

According to relativity time varies with velocity. But relative to what? If you are the observer (A) accelerating or moving close to the speed of light, your clock appears to be running normal. And to a non-accelerating observer (B) their clock also appears to be running normal. But if you (A) were to observe (B), you would see his clock running slower. And he would also see your clock running slower.

t' = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

t is the time for (B) observer at rest
v is your (A) velocity
c is the speed of light
t' is the time passed for (A) observer.

Therefore if v = c

t' = t * sqrt(1-c^2/c^2)

t' = t * sqrt(1-1) = t * 0

t' = 0

So you see, if the velocity of (A) is equal to the speed of light, time would stop. But since the observer (A) can never attain the speed of light, the point is moot.

And if v > c

v^2/c^2>1

1 - (a ?>1) = a negative number

The square root of a negative number is imaginary.

Therefore if your velocity is greater than the speed of light, you would be moving through "imaginary time." Which of course, doesn't exist. Hence, time doesn't move backwards and one could never move backwards through time. Since attaining a velocity greater than the speed of light isn't possible, the point is once again moot.

Re. "If you are the observer (A) accelerating or moving close to the speed
of light, your clock appears to be running normal. And to a non-accelerating
observer (B) their clock also appears to be running normal. But if you (A)
were to observe (B), you would see his clock running slower. And
he would also see your clock running slower."

How can this be if (B), from what you appear to have said, is moving
slower than (A)?

Take care :(

How can this be if (B), from what you appear to have said, is moving
slower than (A)?

This is actually quite simple yet is commonly not grasped by most newcomers to relativity. Relativity states there is no such thing as absolute inertial motion. In other words, one cannot say that observer (A) is actually moving near the speed of light away from observer (B) who is stationary. Just as easily as one cannot say that the stationary observer (B) is the one moving away from observer (A) at near the speed of light.

That is exactly the point -- there is no absolute answer as to who is in motion.

All inertial motion is relative. :)

Originally posted by (Q)
That is exactly the point -- there is no absolute answer as to who is in motion.

All inertial motion is relative. :)

Yes, and it fits in perfectly. Given that time is motion, and time is an illusion, it does follow that motion must itself be an illusion. Relativity seems to confirm that... motion can only exist through perspective.

Without motion, note that space becomes an illusion. Everything we call space, we define by motion, often referred to as interaction but of course interaction requires motion. We know of nothing that has substance without interaction... every particle is defined as a group of interactions. So, that eliminates space.

Time = motion = space = illusion

The only thing left out of that equation is the answer to why we see this illusion where there's really nothing. The answer is simple, and is already spelled out by the theory of relativity: our perspective. The phenomenon we call perspective, which gives us our fixed view on only our own mind, is what causes the illusion of existence.

but whos to say that if u went back in time and changed something, that it wasnt meant to be that way. e.g. u seen the film back to the future...he goes back and plays rock n roll, whos to say he didnt invent it by going back in time.

it is possible to go back in time to 'watch' the events, but not change them, well i base this on the theory that u can go faster then the speed of light.
if u can go back in time and change stuff. then it is also possible to go forward in time, as u could stand there and sum1 from the future come back and you will hear him say, well this is only the past, and therefore easy to go back.

i dont think im making much sense...


no im not...

if u can go back in time and change stuff. then it is also possible to go forward in time

You cannot go 'back in time'. But you can go forward in time to the future. Increase your velocity to .9995% the speed of light for a short time relative to you and many years will pass by very quickly on Earth. Stop, return to Earth and budda-bing budda-bang, you're in the future.

(Q),

So you see, if the velocity of (A) is equal to the speed of light, time would stop. But since the observer (A) can never attain the speed of light, the point is moot.

Here, you proved that I was right when I said...

If...
You move in the light's speed,
time is ever present!

And you did it with lots of calculation, and I did it with reason, logic and intuition...

You said that the observer can never attain the speed of light...
And if we had technology for that? :D
Since there are more than 4 dimensions, speeds above the speed of light are perfectly attainable... :D
And, of course, the speed of light itself is attainable...

I'm just projecting my thoughts to our future...
It's what makes someone a good scientis! ;)

Therefore if your velocity is greater than the speed of light, you would be moving through "imaginary time." Which of course, doesn't exist. Hence, time doesn't move backwards and one could never move backwards through time. Since attaining a velocity greater than the speed of light isn't possible, the point is once again moot.

The same as above... and only because the result is negative this doesn't means that the number is imaginary. This only means that the time moves backwards. It's like that:

negative......0......positive
|------------|-------------|
past.......present.....future

Thanks for the mathematics... I have trouble with that... ;)

Blessings,
Nelson

Something isn't right here!

First you say:

"... one cannot say that observer (A) is actually moving
near the speed of light away from observer (B) who is
stationary."

and

"That is exactly the point -- there is no absolute answer
as to who is in motion."

And then you come up with:

"Increase your velocity to .9995% the speed of light for a
short time relative to you and many years will pass by very
quickly on Earth. Stop, return to Earth and budda-bing budda-
bang, you're in the future."

Which contradicts your two previous statements, and
is confusing to boot.

White man, I think you speak with forked tongue.

Take care ;)

Which contradicts your two previous statements, and is confusing to boot.

Confusing, yes. Counter-intuitive, somewhat. Contradictory, no.

Like I said, newcomers to relativity...

... that said, this thread's about time so we should stay on topic and start a new one on relativity. There will be much to discuss. How's your math?

Certainly time, as a form of measurement, exists only within our human comprehension (do aliens wear Timex?), its a human invention of forms of measurement that has existed along our entire history. Without the human conscious ability to perceive it, time, in terms of our understanding, would not exist. There are ciradian rhythms, biological clocks, and lunar and sun cycles that animals perceive, but I've never had a racoon ask me what time it was.

Now, "don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers."
----Firesign Theatre

Originally posted by Chagur
"Increase your velocity to .9995% the speed of light for a
short time relative to you and many years will pass by very
quickly on Earth. Stop, return to Earth and budda-bing budda-
bang, you're in the future."

Which contradicts your two previous statements, and
is confusing to boot.

Wouldn't it have to mean relative to your former location on the Earth? Time is always the same for you where you are, it's just when you compare with other people that you realize it's different.

If I may, I would like to point out that this thread began with the following question regarding time: "Does time exist? or is time just something man made up to explain why now is now, then was then and the yet to be is still the yet to be." (zambino)

The discussion the proceeded to an ASCII exchange between 'zambino' and 'Tweeker' and then diverged to a discussion of 'dimensions' and the defining of 'reality' before you entered the thread and brought up the matter of the relativity of time ("According to relativity time varies with velocity.") which was extraneous to the question: Does time exist?

Your having opened the door, so to speak, to the relativistic aspects of time, I questioned your attempts at ... What? ... Explaining that the perception of the passage of time is directly related to the motion of the observer? At least, that was what I thought you were attemping to explain.

When you failed to adequately, in my opinion, address my question, I questioned you further and received a rather condescending reply that included the comment "This is actually quite simple yet is commonly not grasped by most newcomers to relativity." and confused the matter even further.

When I attemped to resolve my confusion by questioning you further, you again gave a condescending reply that included "... this thread's about time so we should stay on topic and start a new one on relativity." ... ignoring the fact that you initially brought the matter of the relativity of time into the discussion ... and made what I consider to be an attempt at intimidation, "How's your math?"

To be perfectly honest, at this stage of the game my math is lousy. But what does that have to do with clarifying the matter when what I was questioning was what appeared to me to be logical inconsistancies in you posts:

"According to relativity time varies with velocity."
"... observer (A) accelerating or moving close to the speed of light ..."
"... to a non-accelerating observer (B) ..."

Why did you refer to accelerating/non-accerating observers when 'relative' velocity was the only pertainent criteria in the example given?

Where in your initial example did you indicate that (B) was 'stationary' - A logical inconsistancy (or is that what you meant when you referred to (B) as "a non-accelerating observer"?) which you recognized and commented on in a subsequent post,"All inertial motion is relative."

Finally, you made the statement in your 'back in time/earth' example: "Increase your velocity to .9995% the speed of light for a short time relative to you ..."

Is that why you asked how my math was? You intended to prove that there is an imaginary 'me' ('me' x -1) so that your statement made sense?

Just curious.

Take care ;)

Chagur,

I asked you about your math because relativity is easier to explain with math.

Let's go back to relative motion.

The common analogy relates to one sitting in a car and noticing they were moving backwards and then realizing it was the car beside that was moving forward. Since one considers the ground 'stationary' it was the other car moving relative to the ground rather than their car. Unless they looked at the ground or the surrounding area they had no way of knowing which car was really moving. With me so far?

Therefore, using this same analogy, although observer (A) is moving away from the stationary observer (B), neither (A) nor (B) would have any way of knowing which of them was moving away from the other.

So, observer (A) may apply the concepts of relativity just as (B) can, all motion is relative. In the reference frame of observer (A), who views observer (B) moving away at near the speed of light, it appears observer (B) clock is running slow. And in the reference frame of observer (B), who also views observer (A) moving away at near the speed of light, it appears observer (A) clock is running slow. So you see, there is no absolute answer as to which clock is running slower than the other. The only way to answer the question is relative to whose frame of reference you're considering, (A) or (B).

Now comes the part about moving into the future. Although neither (A) nor (B) know which of them is moving away relative to their reference frames, we use the reference frame of observer (B) as stationary relative to the universe. It's not really stationary of course, but the universe is the best reference for our purposes. Observer (A) has accelerated and is now moving at .9995% the speed of light away from observer (B). Time dilation now comes into play.

For observer (A), while moving at .9995% the speed of light, in his reference frame relative to observer (B), a short time passes. Due to time dilation, the distance between ticks of the clock are greater for observer (A) than that of observer (B). Observer (A) does not notice any difference in his own clock however. According to his reference frame, his clock is ticking quite normal. And remember, he thinks observer (B) is moving away from him at .9995% the speed of light, so he views observer (B) clock as running slow.

But (A) is the one actually moving at .9995% the speed of light relative to observer (B) AND the rest of the universe. Therefore, observer (A) is the one who will experience time dilation. Observer (B), who is stationary relative to the universe, also does not notice any difference in his own clock, it also appears to be running normal. And it is! Relative to the rest of the universe. Therefore, many years pass for observer (B). Suddenly, out of the blue, years later, observer (A) returns to observer (B). Observer (B) has aged many years, but for observer (A), only a short time has passed.

Observer (A) has essentially moved into the future. :)

truthseeker

Your ability to 'spin' my responses is only surpassed by the number of times I shake my head. :rolleyes:

anything is possible, nothing though is completly certain.

Q, i was saying you cannot go into the future, the un-known future... If it has been done, then yes you can, but if no-where in the multi-verse has this avent happened, then no...retard

P.s. jus supportin your other thread on flamin people.

Tom

Q, i was saying you cannot go into the future, the un-known future... If it has been done, then yes you can, but if no-where in the multi-verse has this avent happened, then no

You are correct. It has not been done. But by using my example, and if the technology were made available, someone could move themselves into the future from their respective reference frame. And that is where they will remain. No turning back.

retard

P.s. jus supportin your other thread on flamin people.

Thanks. But please support the other thread instead.

Everyone goes to the future. The only thing you can change is the relative rate of that movement between you and something else. It's not any real new sense of visiting the future unless you can return back to the time you came from -- which you can't.

Thank you for your reply.

As far as I can see, you avoided most, if not all, the logical inconsistacies
of your earlier posts even though you did not acknowledge that the manner
in which you initially presented your thoughts created inconsistancies, real
or apparent.

It's a bummer presenting complex concepts in a simple manner. I just
wish your final post would have been your initial post. It would have
saved me the effort of ragging you to the degree that I did.

Take care ;)

PS Was a non-mathematical presentation all that hard?

(Q),

Your ability to 'spin' my responses is only surpassed by the number of times I shake my head.

What do you mean by "spin" your responses? I already proved me right... can't you continue to criticize me? If you prove me wrong, I accept. I just want to find a better explanation for things. It's why I exchange my ideas with people. If you don't answer them and instead just say I'm wrong, how can I be wrong if you don't expose your point?

Blessings,
Nelson

(Thought about leaving this topic alone, as everyone now seems happy. Darn hamster is just too pedantic.)

There were no inconsistencies in Q's earlier statements, just insufficient explanation. (At least none detectable by this hamster.) To be fair this hamster couldn’t have explained this subject as well as Q. Complex topics are difficult to discuss without a shared knowledge background.

“But (A) is the one actually moving at .9995% the speed of light relative to observer (B) AND the rest of the universe. Therefore, observer (A) is the one who will experience time dilation.”

This statement seems to imply that the speed relative to the “rest of the universe” makes a difference. As Q said earlier it doesn’t. (This statement is why the hamster felt compelled to chatter.)

Q had good reason for choosing observer B’s frame of reference. B stayed home. Observer B’s frame of reference is close to inertial. By observing from B’s frame a single (almost) inertia frame covers the entire thought experiment.

What if one chose to view the entire experiment from A's perspective? Observer A starts from observer B’s location, accelerates, coasts, undergoes another acceleration to reverse speed, coasts back, and finally de-accelerates. Each stage represents a different frame of reference for observer A. The observations made in each stage need not match the observations made in a prior inertial frame. In each inertial frame SR describes what the observer A would see. SR doesn’t say what happens during the non-inertial transitions.

During each phase of inertial travel observer A sees B’s clock as moving slower than A’s while back on earth observer B sees A's clock as moving slower than B's. This doesn’t contradict Q’s observation that once back on earth observer A will be younger than observer B. All of B's observations were made in the same inertial frame. Observer A's non-inertial transitions are key to understanding this “paradox”.

If this patchwork approach of viewing observer A is unsatisfactory, GR provides non-inertial transformations for accelerating bodies.

Here’s a better explanation of this topic:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

(This hamster welcomes corrections.)

Chagur

Thank you for accepting my last post as a lucid and meaningful response. For the most part it consisted of what was said in my previous post only using a different format. I'll try and highlight the appropriate excerpts. Please do not hesitate to make me aware of any "inconsistencies."

you entered the thread and brought up the matter of the relativity of time ("According to relativity time varies with velocity.

Exactly. If you go back and carefully read that post, you'll notice it is in response to claims made by Truthseeker. Those claims already made reference to certain properties of relativity; speed of light, motion and time. Time being the main focus of this discussion. It was necessary to not only challenge those baseless mandates but also attempt to offer clothes to an already naked emperor. Obviously my somewhat 'inconsistent' response, as you put it, failed to enlighten.

However, I challenge you to find *any* inconsistencies with this statement "According to relativity time varies with velocity."

which was extraneous to the question: Does time exist?

The existence of time and velocity are most definitely relevant. However, my response was not an attempt to discuss that question. Look closely, it would appear your responses are not on that topic as well.

Your having opened the door, so to speak, to the relativistic aspects of time

So what.

I questioned your attempts at ... What? ... Explaining that the perception of the passage of time is directly related to the motion of the observer? At least, that was what I thought you were attemping to explain.

That is your interpretation. I was trying to explain the relationship between time and velocity. Those two subjects will eventually require some discussion of relativity.

When you failed to adequately, in my opinion, address my question, I questioned you further..

Allow me to properly address the question in question, if you'll be so kind as to point out which question you're referring.

..and received a rather condescending reply that included the comment "This is actually quite simple yet is commonly not grasped by most newcomers to relativity." and confused the matter even further.

You are far too sensitive. That statement was not directed at you personally. So sorry you took it that way. I really must improve on my clarification skills.

When I attemped to resolve my confusion by questioning you further, you again gave a condescending reply that included "... this thread's about time so we should stay on topic and start a new one on relativity."

Tetchy, aren't we. Yes, I thought it wise to start another thread on relativity. I was quite prepared to go into an indepth disussion of the matter and leave this thread on topic. What's wrong with that?

ignoring the fact that you initially brought the matter of the relativity of time into the discussion ... and made what I consider to be an attempt at intimidation, "How's your math?"

Were you having a bad day or something? If not, I'm surprised you read so critically into that simple three word question. Sheeesh!

But what does that have to do with clarifying the matter when what I was questioning was what appeared to me to be logical inconsistancies in you posts:

"According to relativity time varies with velocity."
"... observer (A) accelerating or moving close to the speed of light ..."
"... to a non-accelerating observer (B) ..."

Again, I challenge you to find any inconsistencies with these statements. They were as clear and concise to formulate as was possible in my drunken stupor. :D

Why did you refer to accelerating/non-accerating observers when 'relative' velocity was the only pertainent criteria in the example given?

You answered your own question.

Where in your initial example did you indicate that (B) was 'stationary' - A logical inconsistancy (or is that what you meant when you referred to (B) as "a non-accelerating observer"?) which you recognized and commented on in a subsequent post,"All inertial motion is relative."

You're right, my bad. Slap me with a wet noodle. It was my presumption of the readers. I did not make the logical connection between stationary and non-accelerating. But again, no inconsistencies.

Finally, you made the statement in your 'back in time/earth' example: "Increase your velocity to .9995% the speed of light for a short time relative to you ..."

Is that why you asked how my math was? You intended to prove that there is an imaginary 'me' ('me' x -1) so that your statement made sense?

I'm sensing a little animosity here. It's really too bad you misinterpreted my posts... but please remember... they're only words and cannot hurt you.

As far as I can see, you avoided most, if not all, the logical inconsistacies
of your earlier posts even though you did not acknowledge that the manner
in which you initially presented your thoughts created inconsistancies, real
or apparent.

If so, they were apparent. Especially to you. I can only hope someone out there understood what I was attempting to explain.

For the record, there are NO inconsistencies.

It's a bummer presenting complex concepts in a simple manner.

You're damn straight on that! They can be so easily misunderstood. :D

It would have saved me the effort of ragging you to the degree that I did.

No problem. I get that a lot.

PS Was a non-mathematical presentation all that hard?

Apparently it was.

more on the dimensions...

isnt it possible that there could be a whole MYRIAD of dimensions that we cannot percieve? maybe the concept of time could be explained with exposure to these dimensions. just as the sphere would be to the flathead.

ok, so time is a dimension. what would happen if we subtracted this demension? could the other dimension stand alone? would everything just be on pause? i dont understand the conscept of infinite. to me, everthing, by definition, surely have to end.

^ yes i know they were all run ons im just thinking out loud is all heh

Hoth and ismu,

Originally posted by ismu:
How about... I take the first way --a spiritual journey--, and you take the second one? :p :p

Ok... no problem. It's doesn't matter who go first. All of us will got there anyway.But if you think about it a little bit more deeper, you'll find out that it was a truth. Look how priest, bikkhu, spiritualists, etc, doing a spiritual journey, just to find out the real truth... about life, death, earth, past, beyond, universe and harmony.

Originally posted by Hoth:
I see death as the transition back into nothingness. Nothingness is the most basic thing there is... er, isn't... in the universe. There's no disharmony at all in nothingness. Dead people know all they'll ever need to know, just like the unborn. People without bodies have no flaws. Yet, since it's nothing, it still can't possibly have a positive (or negative) value.

You are both talking about the same thing! You both have a Zen-Buddhist, Taoist and Spiritual perspective of Death. Here is the two views together:

When we die, we do a journey to the Nothingness. The Nothingness is infinite. It's called Tao for the Taoists. For Hindus is where you go when you reach the Nirvana. For the Zen-Buddhists is like fish in the ocean... :D
There, people that are free from the illusions of the physical Universe (time, space, matter) see the Universe from outside and even create new ones!

I think that's your idea. You have Nothingness and at the same time, a crowded "space"...

Blessings,
Nelson

ok take a look at human brain ...if u look at it its just matter ,then how our 'thinking' exist?

does science exist ?