67 replies to this topic

[Luna]

http://www.telegraph...lling-time.html - ideas about time.

Again, the problem is that you relay on relativity. We know that when we travel faster, the mass increases. Naturally if we have more mass with need more energy or we moved slower, therefore clocks tick slower when closer to light speed and not only to light speed, clocks tick slower the faster your travel them.
It is that simple, why keep using this argument?

[Grail]

That is not correct Luna, it is either a misunderstanding or pure assumption on your part. You should re-read up on the theories you are referring to. Mass is increased and time slows down relative to the observer, not to the object. If I were travelling close to the speed of light, I would have no more difficulty in moving around than normal, because I am not accelerating. In my eyes, I am standing still, and time is moving as normal (my hair grows at the same rate as it always did, because it is travelling with me and under the same effect I am).
I need more energy to go faster than I am going presently, but to stay at the speed I am moving, I don't need to expend any more energy. I could still scratch my nose as easily as I would were I not moving, and my clock would still move at the same rate according to me.

According to someone standing still watching me, things would appear to be very different.

[DukeNukem]

And you would have said the same thing yesterday...and the day before...and you'll say the same thing tonight. It's "now" while you're reading this sentence but it was also "now" when you just started reading this entire post and it will be "now" when you finish reading this sentence. Every point in time appears to be "now" to the observer, therefore "now" is relative, it's observer-dependent; and because all frames of reference in time are equally valid, you might as well say that "now" doesn't exist.
That's time according to Einstein's physics.

Sigh. In EVERY case you use to make a case for time existing, it's just as easy to explain what you call time, as "change".

Duke, you still didn't read Paul Davies' article did you? If you did you'd know that according to Davies (and Einstein) NOTHING IS CHANGING; THERE IS NO CHANGE. The idea of "change" is the illusion. These aren't cases I'm using, these are cases that THEY'RE using, I'm doing nothing but quoting them verbatim.

Space, Time, and Einstein (free and unabridged):
http://books.google....6...ein&f=false

Here's more from your favorite physicist, Paul Davies:
http://www.closertot...aul-Davies-/970

A decent summation of the confusion between the common use of the word "time" as related to human perception and the use of the word "time" as a REAL, PHYSICAL DIMENSION OF THE UNIVERSE (similar to the three spatial dimensions) in physics.
http://fqxi.org/data...c_FQXi_time.pdf

A good summary of the block universe model of time (which is the standard model of time in modern physics):
http://goosetheantit...-explained.html

And here's a webpage that explains the classical physics/Einstein's view on time very very well (though the author uses this as the basis for his own personal, philosophical, and somewhat spiritual extrapolations on the nature of the universe):
http://www.everythin...om/einstein.htm

These points continue to fail to address my central point. Time isn't necessary, and there's no proof it exists. You keep referring to my misunderstanding of maybe a few of the physicists I've referred to, but that's okay. Most of them have the same view that I do -- time is strictly an illusion until we have real proof it exists.

There is no proof, other than our perception of time. And that is not "proof" we can rely on. In science, our perceptions have steered us run 1000's of times.

[atp]

time and space is just an invention of your brain that proves to be useful to survive.
and this sentence is also just an invention of my brain in order to try to explain the phenomenon what i am and what i do.

the question what really exists can never be answered if the typical concept of brain and its environment is right which is also nothing more than invention.

even the concept of reality is nothing more than an invention of the brain which seems to make sense but could also be complete nonsense.

the only thing which is sure is that nothing is sure. and it is very interesting that even though so many things seem to work.

Edited by atp, 16 February 2010 - 01:20 AM.

[Teixeira]

In some dimensions of reality, one dimension time line is good to explain what happens namely the relation : cause - effect;
In other dimensions, we need to introduce the imaginary time, and than time is no longer a line but a plane with two axis the real and the imaginary axis;
In other dimensions as quantum mechanics, time simply do not exist, as Prof. Antoine Suarez has demonstrated in a famous experiment, where the relation of causality desapears as I´ve told you in other posts.
So, time is a complex thing that shows his properties depending on the level you are working. Yes, it´s a very strange think!

[bobdrake12]

Cool vid exploring how gravity works in terms of the 4th dimension: space-time fabric of space. Enjoy

Unification of space and time : Relativity

[Reno]

I always lie.....
Time doesn't exist....

[bobdrake12]

Cosmic Time

Throughout history, one thing has never changed - time. It is something we rely on to plan our lives, and it is consistent, regular and ceaseless. But is it? High in the Alps, Michio encounters a mystery - tiny particles called muons which shouldn't exist. They don't last long enough to be detected on Earth - and yet here they are. The answer to this mystery lies in one of the greatest discoveries of all time - Einstein's theory of relativity. The faster you travel, the slower time ticks. So time is not fixed at all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3573075178906840562#