40 replies to this topic

[Luna]

I'm not convinced. Time doesn't exist in the sense that there is no yesterday anymore and there is no tomorrow yet. There is no time arrow, just now.

[bobdrake12]

I'm not convinced. Time doesn't exist in the sense that there is no yesterday anymore and there is no tomorrow yet. There is no time arrow, just now.

Time does not exist by itself; therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation (of space).

In other words, without three-dimensional space, there is no time.

We need to conceptualize in terms of spacetime.

I've included evidence for spacetime in my last two posts shown above.

Now we can believe anything. But what evidence do we have to support what we believe?

Is there mathematical evidence? Have there been experiments to back up our theory?

With that said, within conceptualized spacetime, I would agree with the following:

o

Time doesn't exist in the sense that there is no yesterday anymore and there is no tomorrow yet.

o

There is no time arrow

If we agree with the above, we would need to go beyond the concept of time being simply a "fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions." This is because space is not necessarily limited the three dimensions and time is not necessarily merely one dimension.

Edited by bobdrake12, 17 July 2010 - 02:06 PM.

[Luna]

You are asking for a mathematical proof from a 21 years old girl which doesn't know a thing about math and physics

I am only saying my assumptions giving the logic I perceive. Also, explanations that exist today might just suffice but are maybe incorrect in their explanation on some basis function.

[bobdrake12]

You are asking for a mathematical proof from a 21 years old girl which doesn't know a thing about math and physics

I am only saying my assumptions giving the logic I perceive. Also, explanations that exist today might just suffice but are maybe incorrect in their explanation on some basis function.

Since you do have an active mind, you might have a high mathematical and physical aptitude. Therefore, you might consider pursuing their study.

In any case, it is always good to question and not blindly accept what authority states.

For example, Einsten had problems accepting portions of his Theory of Relativity.

Einstein recognized that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were inconsistent in solving the reported four fundamental forces of phyisics necessary for the Unified Field Theory. Einstein spent the last part of his life trying to resolve this with open access information stating that it remained unresolved.

Einstein had an interesting quote regarding common sense:

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen

We are here to learn. Everyone has good ideas. And the supposed experts aren't necessarily correct.

Back to your assumptions on time. I agree with this following:

o

Time doesn't exist in the sense that there is no yesterday anymore and there is no tomorrow yet.

o

There is no time arrow.

Although mathematically it can be proven that there is a time arrow, you need to have physical space to prove it through experimentation. Under Relativity, time (as in spacetime) is relative and not absolute. But through the math backing up Relativity, nothing precludes time (as in spacetime) going backwards. Therefore, there is not necessarily a time arrow.

Edited by bobdrake12, 17 July 2010 - 11:46 PM.

[Luna]

if you agree there is no tomorrow and no yesterday, just now then you do agree there is no time!

Time dilations and other stuff like that which happen at differences of gravity and differences in speed can be explained by slowed energy or increased mass or something.. I already posted about it at the thread that was once "Time doesn't exist".

This is my guess, that it is all about slowed energy, but you can't call it time, it isn't time. The explanation in physics I believe is simply immature, simplistic or incorrect... Well simplistic might be wrong to say as I'm thinking something more basic and more simple than time (as it can't exist), but maybe the explanation itself is a bit more complicated than just to say "time slowed down" or "time speeds up" anyway so..

[bobdrake12]

if you agree there is no tomorrow and no yesterday, just now then you do agree there is no time!

Under Relativity, time (as in spacetime) is relative and not absolute. But through the math backing up Relativity, nothing precludes time (as in spacetime) going backwards. Therefore, there is not necessarily a time arrow.

If time (as in spacetime) can go backwards, time doesn't exist in the sense that there is no yesterday anymore and there is no tomorrow yet. And there is no time arrow in the sense that it is always moving forwards.

In spacetime, time is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. Although there could be higher dimensions for both space and time.

This is my guess, that it is all about slowed energy, but you can't call it time, it isn't time. The explanation in physics I believe is simply immature, simplistic or incorrect... Well simplistic might be wrong to say as I'm thinking something more basic and more simple than time (as it can't exist), but maybe the explanation itself is a bit more complicated than just to say "time slowed down" or "time speeds up" anyway so..

When you drive a car in a spacetime frame of reference, you can go 10 MPH, 50 MPH, etc. It's called speed.





Click here for Speed and velocity - Constant Motion

Click here for a Speed and Velocity Discussion

Edited by bobdrake12, 18 July 2010 - 02:50 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Under Relativity, time (as in spacetime) is relative and not absolute.

Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

Relativity In 5 Minutes

A 5 minute clip, employing both video and computer generated animation, that aims to explain special relativity.

Edited by bobdrake12, 18 July 2010 - 03:56 PM.

[Luna]

Well, even though some equations says you can go backward I highly doubt you really can.. I stand with my position, time doesn't exist. No backwards, no forward, just now. I have no fancy videos which don't really say much except "Cool! we found out that space is like a fabric.. like this!" sorry

[robomoon]

I'm a geek, I truly believe that I am.. But I am completely lost with this thread (:

We need to think outside the box when it comes to new energy sources.

For example, how about using wind energy?



...

Suggestion regarding solar updraft towers, just in response to the blog message http://lifeboat.com/...humans#comments for practically making wind from solar heat. Also mentioned in a comment http://www.facebook....6435&topic=7609 regarding overpopulation vs energy. Instead of towers, a construction like a vertical particle accelerator would turn the rising wind on one side into a tubular motion to descend on the other side. After so much work on particle accelerators all these years, science and their clients should be very open to this new concept.

Edited by robomoon, 20 July 2010 - 11:07 AM.

[PWAIN]

Well, even though some equations says you can go backward I highly doubt you really can.. I stand with my position, time doesn't exist. No backwards, no forward, just now. I have no fancy videos which don't really say much except "Cool! we found out that space is like a fabric.. like this!" sorry

Well (by your reasoning) now doesn't exist either - what you experience only exists when in the context of time. What you experience depends on time to make it valid. In a true snapshot of 'now' electrons would be frozen around frozen atoms which in turn would be made up of frozen quarks which in turn would be made up of frozen strings that would not be vibrating. Non vibrating strings could be said to be non existent since that are only an effect on space. In effect, nothing would exist, the universe would be empty and the forces of nature would also not exist.

The nature of time is that it is a sequence and as such we move along a sequence. The nature of a sequence is that you are only ever at one point in that sequence with previous and future parts of that sequence not in your grasp. This does not however mean that it is invalid.

Quantum mechanics is what binds all the non existent nows together and creates the universe we see around us and the relativity that we experience.

[robomoon]

Look, Spain has created La Florida, a large park of antennas well-camouflaged as solar energy panels. They are sure on something like secret messages from extraterrestrials. Oh no, it's not even in Florida, so don't click the below link to avoid arousing attention from the aliens.

DON'T CLICK THIS: http://www.guardian....ain-solar-power

But there's not even a single solar cell on their solar farm, very suspicious. And to keep these good news in motion, just consider donating to the AU (Artifishial Uninteligence) Project. We can replace solar updraft towers with turbo-draft tunnels.

Edited by robomoon, 21 July 2010 - 01:32 PM.