NationStates Jolt Archive

What? *ignores you and does research*

...are you suggesting the same moment is just repeating itself over and over for infinity?

also *draws line*

How can something have a start, yet be there forever? THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake. We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING. How can we say that the universe has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that? Just something to ponder.......

How can something have a start, yet be there forever? THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake. We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING. How can we say that the world has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that? Just something to ponder.......

err... wrong.

the world has a start, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before that.

How can something have a start, yet be there forever?
Well, you see, you get going and then you keep going. It's just hard to figure out a way that you can do that.

THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake.
We are, and it is?

We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING.
Why do we have to rethink everything because everything that has a beginning must have an end? That's a little non sequitor.

How can we say that the world has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that?
I don't understand that statement.

there would have to be nothing before that?
What is 'that'? The world, I presume. There was stuff before the 'world.' Our world is only a billion or so years old, and our sun is pretty young. Yeah, there was stuff before the Earth was formed.

How can something have a start, yet be there forever? THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake. We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING. How can we say that the world has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that? Just something to ponder.......

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/martin_scientific_method.wav

:)

How can something have a start, yet be there forever? THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake. We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING. How can we say that the world has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that? Just something to ponder.......

Time has that sort of paradox, if you think about it. It doesn't exist until you are aware of it. Because of this, when trying to accurately measure the temporal existence of something like, say, the universe, the measurement becomes exceedingly difficult past a certain point because, surprise surprise, it isn't measurable.

Furthermore, I do believe it was never proposed that there was ever a 'forever' in the first place. Where, exactly, was this claim made?

Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God and he awaits you just beyond the last theorem.- Miriam Godwinson, Alpha Centauri

Nobody is saying what you describe. Time as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang, making it highly likely that the matter present has always existed in terms of our frame of reference. There was no point of creation as we would understand it because there is no determinable time in which it occurred.

The thing is, finding out what happened before the Big Bang is, with our current instruments and current knowledge base, impossible. Perhaps we will be able to find out what happened in the future, but it would require a set of tools and theories that are functional outside of this physical universe, or a radical rethinking of the overall functioning of this universe that allows it to accommodate things that occur both inside and outside of it. Of course, if some information were to survive from previous universes, should they have existed, it would make it easier...

...but we're getting very weird and speculative there, which while interesting is not a meaningful basis for scientific research. I don't think you'd be able to investigate that now without swinging wildly in to pseudoscience. Now, if somebody were to develop a working hypothesis and then confirm it with evidence, they'd probably go down as one of the greatest people in history, because they would effectively launch the effective range of human knowledge in to the infinite. That would be a truly beautiful thing, but one that would require colossal effort.

what in the world is this nonsense?

what in the world is this nonsense?

Yes.

what in the world is this nonsense?

the new Apple ad campaign :cool:

what in the world is this nonsense?

We are on a major breakthrough in human thinking! that's what nonsense it is!
we're trying to find out how the world came into being i think.
A Buddhist would say "meh doesn't matter, we are here now just get on with going up the Karmic chain".
A Christian would say "God made the universe and because God is amazing he can make it last forever".
I'm not sure about what the other religions might think.
I'd prefer if the universe did end at some point. I mean human existance isn't really that great, it's okay but there can be some really really boring bits(like queing).
But i think the purple chicken theory is the best one.
universe=eternal.
universe=made by God, God is eternal.
Universe is eternal thus was never made.
God is the universe (this one messes with my head).
You are the only thing in the universe, everything is an illusion.
The universe isn't created per se, it is there to begin with expands with time, then as the universe closes in time reverses, so things go back to the way they were.
It's some science experiment by another alien race, they have all the answers (but this sounds suspiciously like a God).
Universe=option 9.
Universe=42.
universe our understanding of the universe might not be accurate of the actual universe, we might think of one where in a different (spectrum or dimension) the colours are reversed.
Universe=my head really hurts now.
okay i'll stop

We are on a major breakthrough in human thinking! that's what nonsense it is!
we're trying to find out how the world came into being i think.
A Buddhist would say "meh doesn't matter, we are here now just get on with going up the Karmic chain".
A Christian would say "God made the universe and because God is amazing he can make it last forever".
I'm not sure about what the other religions might think.
I'd prefer if the universe did end at some point. I mean human existance isn't really that great, it's okay but there can be some really really boring bits(like queing).
But i think the purple chicken theory is the best one.
universe=eternal.
universe=made by God, God is eternal.
Universe is eternal thus was never made.
God is the universe (this one messes with my head).
You are the only thing in the universe, everything is an illusion.
The universe isn't created per se, it is there to begin with expands with time, then as the universe closes in time reverses, so things go back to the way they were.
It's some science experiment by another alien race, they have all the answers (but this sounds suspiciously like a God).
Universe=option 9.
Universe=42.
universe our understanding of the universe might not be accurate of the actual universe, we might think of one where in a different (spectrum or dimension) the colours are reversed.
Universe=my head really hurts now.
okay i'll stop

...

what in the world is this nonsense?

All kinds of fun and amusing.

*snip*
A Buddhist would say "meh doesn't matter, we are here now just get on with going up the Karmic chain".
A Christian would say "God made the universe and because God is amazing he can make it last forever".
I'm not sure about what the other religions might think.

Agnostic wouldn't be sure how it was created, an atheist would deny supernatural involvement, a Muslim would call it the work of Allah...

I could go on, but religion is mostly circular, with few exceptions. Of note are Taoism, Buddhism, and others without deities. I find most religions have difficulty answering the 'Who made your god?' question, and it generally leads to a 'Their god always existed' cop-out, which then makes them not be able to answer how their god came from nothingness. Oh well.

All kinds of fun and amusing.



Agnostic wouldn't be sure how it was created, an atheist would deny supernatural involvement, a Muslim would call it the work of Allah...

I could go on, but religion is mostly circular, with few exceptions. Of note are Taoism, Buddhism, and others without deities. I find most religions have difficulty answering the 'Who made your god?' question, and it generally leads to a 'Their god always existed' cop-out, which then makes them not be able to answer how their god came from nothingness. Oh well.

Hey that makes me wonder, did time start before the universe or did the universe start before time (because if either of these is true it could really knock the whole God creating the universe thing on it's head), as you can probably tell i'd consider myself agnostic, i really have no idea.
I wonder if this God could once the universe be made by random chance, then create a small time loop so God becomes eternal then waites for that universe to finish what it's doing and tweek things a little and create the next one.
hmmm that sounds better, or there could be more than one God. hmmm.

Hey that makes me wonder, did time start before the universe or did the universe start before time (because if either of these is true it could really knock the whole God creating the universe thing on it's head), as you can probably tell i'd consider myself agnostic, i really have no idea.

Time as it is currently modeled only started as part of the Big Bang. Before that, there was no time in the sense that exists in this universe; there could have been another system in place (even more likely if there was another universe before this one), but whatever there was it was probably far different than our own conception due to the massively differing conditions between these two stages.

That's why we can't truly ask "what happened before the Big Bang" because our concept of "before" simply wasn't there. If it were, we would be able to examine what happened prior to this initial explosion.

Hey that makes me wonder, did time start before the universe or did the universe start before time (because if either of these is true it could really knock the whole God creating the universe thing on it's head), as you can probably tell i'd consider myself agnostic, i really have no idea.
I wonder if this God could once the universe be made by random chance, then create a small time loop so God becomes eternal then waites for that universe to finish what it's doing and tweek things a little and create the next one.
hmmm that sounds better, or there could be more than one God. hmmm.

The universe came before time, because time itself is a human construct meant to catalog events that have transpired and will eventually transpire. You'll notice no other species on earth has any sense of time in the way humans see it (in an empirical, observable context, at least). A vague understanding between when the moon is in the sky and the sun is, in and of itself, is barely something I would say any other animal would note.

As far as disproving the supernatural, I'm certain there are counterarguments. Especially to the effect of, "With our tools NOW we say that. But if we had done this, this and this like in [holy book] says we should, we would find I'm right!"

The universe came before time, because time itself is a human construct meant to catalog events that have transpired and will eventually transpire. You'll notice no other species on earth has any sense of time in the way humans see it (in an empirical, observable context, at least). A vague understanding between when the moon is in the sky and the sun is, in and of itself, is barely something I would say any other animal would note.

Of course, that's not really important; many animals as well as humans can perceive the passage of time between events. Humans are just capable of using that perception to construct an objective idea of how time functions and how it forms a part of the greater physical cosmology of the universe.

The universe came before time, because time itself is a human construct meant to catalog events that have transpired and will eventually transpire. You'll notice no other species on earth has any sense of time in the way humans see it (in an empirical, observable context, at least). A vague understanding between when the moon is in the sky and the sun is, in and of itself, is barely something I would say any other animal would note.

Well do you think time travel is possible, because if it is it could also explain a creator.
hmmm i suppose i'd sit with the infinate universe idea, gives me more time to think.

Time Travel in what context? Going back to a certain year? In that sense, no. You can, however, go to a certain place. Furthermore, in the sense of actual TIME we are constantly time traveling from one second to the next. So from that perspective we have already done so many, many times.

It's probably more plausible to travel forward in time rather than backward.

Well do you think time travel is possible, because if it is it could also explain a creator.
hmmm i suppose i'd sit with the infinate universe idea, gives me more time to think.

Time Travel in what context? Going back to a certain year? In that sense, no. You can, however, go to a certain place. Furthermore, in the sense of actual TIME we are constantly time traveling from one second to the next. So from that perspective we have already done so many, many times.

My take on the big bang is quite simple, really. When time is immeasurable or unobserved for extended periods, it passes quickly. Even given how unlikely it is, when you have, quite literally, nothing but free time, it will eventually happen. It, in the case, being the spontaneous explosion of mass, energy, and whatever else was lying around.

I don't seek to disprove existence of any supernatural forces. However, the notion that they exist is rather patently absurd, all things considered. Especially given how in any other context they would be considered silly.

It's probably more plausible to travel forward in time rather than backward.

I do believe it is beyond plausible. It happens all the time. ;)

The speed we cannot control beyond a certain point, but it does happen.

It's probably more plausible to travel forward in time rather than backward.

is that because if you want to go back you have to go forwards and steal the plans for a past traveling machine?

I do believe it is beyond plausible. It happens all the time. ;)

The speed we cannot control beyond a certain point, but it does happen.

what about other dimensions? or alternate realities? are they just poppicock or do they have probability to exist ?

what about other dimensions? or alternate realities? are they just poppicock or do they have probability to exist ?

Well, the many-worlds hypothesis is gaining a lot of ground as a credible explanation for many remaining issues in quantum mechanics; in more than a few ways, it is in fact simpler than the Copenhagen interpretation and resolves said issues in a far neater fashion. It's quite plausible it will be the dominant explanation as further evidence is accumulated.

However, the main debate would be the relevance of getting to said alternate worlds through some kind of yet-unrealized method.

is that because if you want to go back you have to go forwards and steal the plans for a past traveling machine?

Actually, it's possible that if you traveled beyond the end of this universe and into the beginning of the next universe, you might discover that the next universe is actually this universe repeating itself. Therefore, if you travel far enough into the future, you could end up in your own past. *nod*

is that because if you want to go back you have to go forwards and steal the plans for a past traveling machine?

You know, I never looked at it that way. Maybe the reason why we never see time travelers is because nobody has developed the one necessary to travel forward in time yet, which would be necessary to get to the period in which traveling to the past is possible.

But if they did that, they would thereby be part of the chain of events necessary for the forward time machine to be invented in the first place...

Oh and is it possible that time follows one strict line or can it divert into two different worlds?

Probably.

what about other dimensions? or alternate realities? are they just poppicock or do they have probability to exist ?

It has a possibility of occurring, in quantum physics if nothing else. Because of this, I'm open to the possibility if skeptical of it. Accurate evidence of said dimensions would do wonders, but even unfounded the idea has plausibility. Look at comic books, for instance! :p

Actually, it's possible that if you traveled beyond the end of this universe and into the beginning of the next universe, you might discover that the next universe is actually this universe repeating itself. Therefore, if you travel far enough into the future, you could end up in your own past. *nod*

Then tell yourself that you are god, and take him too to the next time machine, and another and another then, go down different legs of time.
Oh and is it possible that time follows one strict line or can it divert into two different worlds?

The universe came before time, because time itself is a human construct meant to catalog events that have transpired and will eventually transpire.
Not quite. Time is not a construct of Man, how we measure time is. Measuring time is kind of like begging the question. The only way you can measure it is in increments of time "passed." For example, the ticking of a clock, or a photon bouncing between two mirrors. One tick is a second, six billion bounces and it's a second. Sixty ticks is a minute, etc.

It's the equivalent of "If a tree falls in the woods, and there's nothing there which can hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is that, no, it does not make a sound, since sound is a reaction caused by our brain interpreting sound waves. Therefore, it makes sound waves, but there's nothing to transform that into actual sound.

Yes, time exists, but it only matters is if there is something passing through it. You cannot measure time where there is nothing working (note: definition of work is 'force exerted at a distance') since you have to measure time against something doing a routine task. For example, if the clock isn't ticking, and you aren't counting in your head, your perception of time falters. If nothing is simply not there, time practically freezes because that's how our perception of time works.

Time Travel in what context? Going back to a certain year? In that sense, no. You can, however, go to a certain place. Furthermore, in the sense of actual TIME we are constantly time traveling from one second to the next. So from that perspective we have already done so many, many times.
You're not explaining it very well.

We pass through time, time does not pass through us. I'll explain: Let's say you're going out to eat with a friend. They call you up, and tell you to "Go down Main Street, and on your left will be the Cafe. We'll eat there."

Yes, but when will you eat with him? This is just as important as where you will eat with him, since if you get there and the appointment is an hour, a year, a millennia, whatever from where you reached the point, you will not eat with them. Same if you reached the wrong restaurant and went down Side Street instead of Main Street and went into Bar instead of Cafe. You will not eat with your friend because even though it's the correct time, it is not the correct place. This is why time is the fourth dimension.

We are constantly moving through time, and we are affecting time (by having a mass, you have a small gravity field around you that bends light waves - if you are moving, time also moves at a slower rate for you as well since it takes more work for the same motion. This is General and Special Relativity.) Time cannot move backwards, and time cannot move forwards, we only move forwards through it. Everything you do has a reaction, and you cannot unmake a reaction or an action. You can do more things to negate that, but that takes more time. I digress.

Your intuition lies to you when it says "If a clock ticks forward, and since we measure time as clocks ticking, therefore a clock can tick backwards, and time can move backwards." This is incorrect, because, like I said, we can measure time based upon our perception of something doing work, but you cannot unwork, or do things 'backwards' through time. Everything we do requires energy (note: definition of energy is 'the ability to do work'), and work has an action and a reaction, and that has a reaction, etc, etc. All of this is done in a state of time. To do it in a state of non-time is impossible, because since how we measure time is something working, if something works and it is observed, then time therefore exists in that area. How can a clock tick where there is no time? The clock would have to be at an exact stand still, otherwise the hand could not be in at 4 o'clock one hour, and 5 o'clock the next hour. That requires time to have passed, otherwise it would be in both places at the same time (which is the theory of simultaneity, which I know very little about.)

I have to go, so I can't finish explaining. I hope that's somewhat clear.

I like to think of myself as reasonably well-informed, as far as the sciences go.

Sadly, between the thread title, the opening few responses and the poll, I find that I can't even discern who the OP was, never mind what the hell this thread is about. I think that this may mean that it's time for me to shut down my PC and go to bed - I've had a fairly mentally exhausting day, anyway :eek:

I like to think of myself as reasonably well-informed, as far as the sciences go.

Sadly, between the thread title, the opening few responses and the poll, I find that I can't even discern who the OP was, never mind what the hell this thread is about. I think that this may mean that it's time for me to shut down my PC and go to bed - I've had a fairly mentally exhausting day, anyway :eek:

it's about how the universe was started or who started it, sort of stuff

Actually, it's possible that if you traveled beyond the end of this universe and into the beginning of the next universe, you might discover that the next universe is actually this universe repeating itself. Therefore, if you travel far enough into the future, you could end up in your own past. *nod*

however it would be rather disastrous if the physical properties of the next universe are not the same

lets say you ended up in a universe without donuts ;)

How can something have a start, yet be there forever? THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake. We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING. How can we say that the universe has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that? Just something to ponder.......

err... wrong.

the world has a start, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before that.

Correct. In fact, if brane cosmology, a facet of string theory, is correct in its predictions, than there not only was something before the universe came into existence, it's still there now.

Correct. In fact, if brane cosmology, a facet of string theory, is correct in its predictions, than there not only was something before the universe came into existence, it's still there now.

spooky, so my wild theories could be true? i knew it! you thought i was a fool.well now i'm a fool who's right!:mp5: Why don't i feel any different?:(

You're not explaining it very well.

We pass through time, time does not pass through us. I'll explain: Let's say you're going out to eat with a friend. They call you up, and tell you to "Go down Main Street, and on your left will be the Cafe. We'll eat there."

Yes, but when will you eat with him? This is just as important as where you will eat with him, since if you get there and the appointment is an hour, a year, a millennia, whatever from where you reached the point, you will not eat with them. Same if you reached the wrong restaurant and went down Side Street instead of Main Street and went into Bar instead of Cafe. You will not eat with your friend because even though it's the correct time, it is not the correct place. This is why time is the fourth dimension.

I do not understand why you put in a small explanation on Place and where, but that's fine. 'When' is only used as a specification and qualification, and the time given catalogs events that transpire. In such case, eating at a cafe at a certain time catalogs it for later remembrance and notation. This helps the mind process things, but it does not truly 'exist' in the sense that other types of perception would. To use your example of 'tree falling in the woods', it doesn't make sound because, as you said, we would not be trying to process it. However, the time at which the tree fell is not measurable or even exists because it requires more than a human simply being there to recognize when it happened.

Make more sense now?

We are constantly moving through time, and we are affecting time (by having a mass, you have a small gravity field around you that bends light waves - if you are moving, time also moves at a slower rate for you as well since it takes more work for the same motion. This is General and Special Relativity.) Time cannot move backwards, and time cannot move forwards, we only move forwards through it. Everything you do has a reaction, and you cannot unmake a reaction or an action. You can do more things to negate that, but that takes more time. I digress.

If time does not move forwards nor backwards, and we only pass through it, then it ultimately ends up being a nonfactor. And if time was a nonfactor, you would have essentially proven my point. Our ways of time measurement suggest that it does advance. What I would like to understand is how you can say it does not.

Your intuition lies to you when it says "If a clock ticks forward, and since we measure time as clocks ticking, therefore a clock can tick backwards, and time can move backwards." This is incorrect, because, like I said, we can measure time based upon our perception of something doing work, but you cannot unwork, or do things 'backwards' through time.

This was not contested, even in the slightest sense. The notion of clocks ticking backwards is absurd.

Everything we do requires energy (note: definition of energy is 'the ability to do work'), and work has an action and a reaction, and that has a reaction, etc, etc. All of this is done in a state of time. To do it in a state of non-time is impossible, because since how we measure time is something working, if something works and it is observed, then time therefore exists in that area. How can a clock tick where there is no time? The clock would have to be at an exact stand still, otherwise the hand could not be in at 4 o'clock one hour, and 5 o'clock the next hour. That requires time to have passed, otherwise it would be in both places at the same time (which is the theory of simultaneity, which I know very little about.)

A clock ticks when there is no time to create a sense of it. Time is merely the catalog, it's presence only felt when observed. Because of this, we are in a state of nontime while debating existence thereof until one of us looks at a clock and remarks the time. Then a state of time is created, because it was noted. Furthermore, it does not necessarily begit time passing, it merely notes how many times the hands of the clock were able to move. Simply stating it would stop if there was no time is rather silly.


I have to go, so I can't finish explaining. I hope that's somewhat clear.

I eagerly await your continued explanation. :)

spooky, so my wild theories could be true? i knew it! you thought i was a fool.well now i'm a fool who's right!:mp5: Why don't i feel any different?:(

Because, ultimately, you are still a fool who uses gun smilies. :D

spooky, so my wild theories could be true? i knew it! you thought i was a fool.well now i'm a fool who's right!:mp5: Why don't i feel any different?:(

Well, the central challenge, as always, is testing the theory. Something string theorists haven't quite figured out how to do yet.

I think the first few posts in this thread prove that travelling back in time is entirely possible.

I think the first few posts in this thread prove that travelling back in time is entirely possible.

And that mistakes can be corrected without catastrophic effect.

however it would be rather disastrous if the physical properties of the next universe are not the same

lets say you ended up in a universe without donuts ;)

Bite your tongue. :(

And that mistakes can be corrected without catastrophic effect.

Back To The Future should now be considered a vitally important learning tool for our time travellers. Well, more vital.

How can something have a start, yet be there forever? THat is what we're assuming in science today and that is a mistake. We need to re-think everything that we have thought about before, and I mean EVERYTHING. How can we say that the universe has a start when to have a start, there would have to be nothing before that? Just something to ponder.......

It is easily enough explained with the idea of an omnipotent, timeless, and immaterial God.

The problem is trying to comprehend (as it is impossible to the human mind), the nature of such a being.

It does however, satisfy my intellectual curiosity better than any other explanation that I have ever heard.

err... wrong.

the world has a start, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before that.

But the big bang does. It was not just clouds that came into existence then, but time itself. Not a tiny almost infinitely dense dot of matter floating in space that existed pretty much as we know it now but with less scenery. Nothing. No energy, no time...

"Nothing" doesn't even capture what existed at the time of the big bang because the idea of nothing almost always presupposes a space to be vacant in which there is nothing. Such was not the case.

In the words of MC Hawking.

In the beginning there was nothing
Not even time
No planets, no stars
No hip-hop no rhyme.
Then there was a bang
like the sound of my gat
the universe began
and the shit was phat.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2267/1198980467626bh6.png

But the big bang does. It was not just clouds that came into existence then, but time itself. Not a tiny almost infinitely dense dot of matter floating in space that existed pretty much as we know it now but with less scenery. Nothing. No energy, no time...

"Nothing" doesn't even capture what existed at the time of the big bang because the idea of nothing almost always presupposes a space to be vacant in which there is nothing. Such was not the case.

In the words of MC Hawking.

Are you sure that time began at the big bang and not that the big bang started our recording of time?

The Universe is chaotically held together by a giant roll of duct tape.

Bite your tongue. :(

*ow*

Back To The Future should now be considered a vitally important learning tool for our time travellers. Well, more vital.

"Hey kids, Time-traveling isn't only safe, but recommended! I swear, if you go back and change things it'll probably turn out better than it was at first...

...eventually."

Certain theories (the math is pretty complex) postulate that it is entirely possible for the universe to have created itself.

Or as someone else said. "Yes, but as time and space are curved, the universe eventually bends back upon itself, and so have I."

*Snip*

Whoops...

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/30/train_wreck.jpg

Whoops...

Better than my results...

http://philip9876.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/nuclear-explosion.jpg

think anyone would notice that? :(

Are you sure that time began at the big bang and not that the big bang started our recording of time?

well, our recording of time would've started the slightest of moments afterwards, so yeah, pretty sure.

I do not understand why you put in a small explanation on Place and where, but that's fine. 'When' is only used as a specification and qualification, and the time given catalogs events that transpire. In such case, eating at a cafe at a certain time catalogs it for later remembrance and notation. This helps the mind process things, but it does not truly 'exist' in the sense that other types of perception would. To use your example of 'tree falling in the woods', it doesn't make sound because, as you said, we would not be trying to process it. However, the time at which the tree fell is not measurable or even exists because it requires more than a human simply being there to recognize when it happened.

I don't think you fully understood my analogy. Yes, sound waves are made, but no sound is made. In the same sense, time still exists, and the tree still fell since for it to fall it requires time. If we were to go into the woods and look at a tree, and bring a clock along to make sure that time did exist in this area. Then, while there wasn't a soul in the woods, that tree fell. When we come back at a later date, would the tree have fallen? The answer is yes. Time still existed while it fell, or else the tree would have been "frozen" until there was a person to perceive it falling since every movement requires Time. Just because we cannot measure it does not mean it does not exist, we just can't know for sure.


If time does not move forwards nor backwards, and we only pass through it, then it ultimately ends up being a nonfactor. And if time was a nonfactor, you would have essentially proven my point.
No, you misunderstand. Time is not a nonfactor, it is a dimension and a part of life like everything else. It is a part of the fabric that covers everything in the universe: The spacetime fabric. All matter exists in the spacetime continuum (at least, observable.) What this means that not only do we exist in space (the chair you're sitting in, for example - assuming you're sitting in a chair. This chair exists in space, sitting on a floor which exists in space, which is located on planet Earth, which exists in space, which orbits the sun Sol, etc, etc,) but not only that, it exists in time. Just as you pass through space when you turned off your computer and go to bed, you also pass through time, since time is measured by work, whenever you work there is time since time is measured by increments of something. Or, in more precise language, we measure time by the constantly changing state of an object, which we judge everything else against. If object A is traveling towards object B, it will at State 1 be located at place X, then at State 2 be located at place Y, at State 3 be located at place Z, and at State 4 it will have reached object B.

Where is time moving forward in all of this? There is an object moving forward, and it is being judged against the constantly changing state of something else. This is the only way to measure Time. How, then, can we measure time moving forward, when it is in fact objects moving forward?


I couldn't find a definition of nonfactor, so I'm going to assume you mean it in the sense that time is of little importance, or it is not a major factor. I cannot know for sure, so I cannot address this.

This was not contested, even in the slightest sense. The notion of clocks ticking backwards is absurd.
I was digressing to explain how absurd time travel is.


A clock ticks when there is no time to create a sense of it. Time is merely the catalog, it's presence only felt when observed. Because of this, we are in a state of nontime while debating existence thereof until one of us looks at a clock and remarks the time. Then a state of time is created, because it was noted. Furthermore, it does not necessarily begit time passing, it merely notes how many times the hands of the clock were able to move. Simply stating it would stop if there was no time is rather silly.


No, it is not silly to suggest that if the only way we can measure time stops (not due to influences such as mechanical failure, let's say this clock is perfectly accurate, like a photon clock), then time must stop. No, a state of time is created only in the sense that we acknowledge time, and that is our perception of time. Our perception of time lies: time does not move forward. If a state of 'nontime' exists, then no work could be done since time is measured by the observation of something working, or moving. There is nothing here to suggest that time moves forward, like I said, only that an object is moving forward (or backward, if you are say leaning backward, but that's semantics.)

Are you entirely ignoring the implications of relativity? Time is a fabric, part of space, that can be warped by speed (constant velocity), acceleration, or gravity. It does not move forward, although the fastest thing in the world, and therefore a constant, does move forward since it is passing through time.

How can something have a start, yet be there forever?

Right there's where you're gonna get caught up. Name one thing ... ANYTHING ... that has a "forever" about it. It is, by definition, without parameters of measure. It's nonsense in any practical forum.

Human science is at a wallWell, i'm sure someone will dig a way underneath it.

I start studying.

Are you saying that, before I started studying, I knew nothing, was nothing and thought nothing?

Because that would be false.

Well, i'm sure someone will dig a way underneath it.

*ahem*

*ahem*LG's nemesis?!?!
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/43/35/23373543.jpg

I start studying.

Are you saying that, before I started studying, I knew nothing, was nothing and thought nothing?

Because that would be false.

Just because that is false doesn't necessarily equate to the same applying for the universe, the universe is infinately different from you, and from me.
Also you could argue you start studying when you're just born so before you were born you were nothing. So it isn't false

I'm going to elaborate on one of my points:


Are you entirely ignoring the implications of relativity? Time is a fabric, part of space, that can be warped by speed (constant velocity), acceleration, or gravity. It does not move forward, although the fastest thing in the world, and therefore a constant, does move forward since it is passing through time.
I'm going to say a word about photons and relativity. One of the ways that we know that time is relative is that because photons, or light, are always the fastest moving particle in the universe, and its speed, C, is how fast it is moving in a vacuum.

Let us make ourselves a photon clock. A photon clock is where you have two mirrors on top of each other, the reflective side facing down. Between these two mirrors is a photon bouncing up and down. Roughly every six billion bounces (maybe more, I'm not sure) is a second. So, you measure the clock, and you make sure that its speed is, indeed, a second every six billion bounces. Now, let us add wheels to this clock, and a rocket jet. Yes, this is an awesome clock.

We light the fuse, and the rocket powers the clock on wheels away. This clock is traveling at a constant velocity, or a constant speed. Not to be confused with the speed of light, it merely means that relative the ground it is travelling on, and is not accelerating or decelerating.

But wait a second! There's a problem!

If the clock is moving at a constant velocity, and the photon is bouncing UP and DOWN, while the clock is moving to the RIGHT, that means that the photon must eventually bounce off of the clock since while the photon is in between the mirrors and moving through 'empty' space, the clock will have moved without it.

However, the photon does not bounce off because it is moving relative to where the clock is, not relative to where the ground the clock is traveling upon. In fact, if you are in a perfectly box with no windows traveling at a constant velocity, you would feel no different than if the box were stationary. The only time you would feel a difference is if the box were accelerating, because the effects of acceleration are the exact same as gravity (which is why the feeling you have when the airplane is taking off from the runway is called G-forces, g for gravity.)

This holds true for the photon. It is traveling through space relative to the mirror, so it continues to bounce at the middle of the mirror without falling out.

Now, here is where relativity comes in.

What if you are standing OUTSIDE of the mirror, looking in at the photon bouncing up and down (we're magnifying this a lot, so you can see the individual photon. Or maybe you're shrinking.) on the clock. Now here is another problem: You are not on the mirror, so the same affects of being inside the box does not hold true. Although you may not feel the clock moving because you are not on it, you can certainly see it. But since you are outside, and things are relative, why isn't the photon still bouncing off? This is because it is the PHOTON that is relative to the mirror, not you. In other words, you can observe the photon being relative to the clock, but you yourself are not relative with it on the clock.

However, you are still relative to the ground on the track. As you see the clock zipping by on rockets and wheels, you notice that the photon is still bouncing up and down at the middle of the clock. Never mind that the photon is traveling MORE ground relative to you while traveling at the same 'speed.' This is calling time dilation.

I found a good graphic illustrating this:

http://physweb.bgu.ac.il/COURSES/PHYSICS3_ElectCompEng/lec_notes/pc.gif

It's a big picture, so I put it just as a link rather than putting it with the IMG code on the site.

Also, how do you deal with general relativity, which says that space and time are a fabric affected by gravity and speed (time)? Do you make a habit of completely ignoring the implications of well established scientific theories?

Are you sure that time began at the big bang and not that the big bang started our recording of time?

Yes.

As you approach a black hole time slows down for you. Someone watching you fall into one would see you darken and appear to fade as less and less light managed to bounce back from you. From the perspective of the observers you would never actually make it to the middle (even if the radiation didn't kill you before you got anywhere near it). By the time you got close you'd be frozen in time.

The Big Bang Singularity was the mother of all black holes and would have existed in a state of frozen time the same way.