Time is of Essence

There is a splendid mind boggling photograph of the Hubble ultra deep field on this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... , which I have made as my desktop background and I got to thinking, that if Time did not exist, will this splendor, that is our universe exist at all?
What do you all reckon?

a reply to: Nochzwei

Of course not.

Time is what enabled the Universe to expand from nothingness to the next stage.

Without Time the Universe would still look like an uniform explosion now, freeze-framed forever.



No galaxies, no stars, not even matter nor antimatter. Nothing but an explosion, for eternity.

now if we take the imagination a touch higher, what would happen to a small region of space with some matter in it, and have time removed from it? would it just exist benignly or turn explosive?
a reply to: swanne

a reply to: Nochzwei

Okay, so it's a sector of space-time but we remove Time from it. Since dimensions may not be removed, then I'm sure you'd agree that reducing Time to Absolute zero would be here the equivalent of removing it.

If such was the case, then if say a one-kilogram meteorite was orbiting say the Core of the Galaxy at 200km/s, then its KE=1/2(mv^2) would become 1/2(m*((d/t)^2)) (where d is distance and t is time) thus would give 1/2(1*((200,000/0)^2)), or infinity.

To answer your question: its energy would collapse the Universe.

I guess this is a proof that Time does exist.

Thanks for your responses. But the infinite KE can be destructive, if it strikes another object, but by itself it will just posses this energy without becoming malevolent. Now whether the structure of the object will remain intact, would be another ball game, we just do not have the physics for it, just yet
a reply to: swanne

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Thanks for your responses. But the infinite KE can be destructive, if it strikes another object, but by itself it will just posses this energy without becoming malevolent.

True, But space isn't truly empty. Plus, the lack of time means the object could travel at an infinite speed (it goes ad a distance in 0 time).

Wether the object would disintegrate during impact... well, I'm pretty sure it would.

a reply to: Nochzwei

And the "essence of time" is exactly? Eternity....

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Thanks for your responses. But the infinite KE can be destructive, if it strikes another object, but by itself it will just posses this energy without becoming malevolent.

True, But space isn't truly empty. Plus, the lack of time means the object could travel at an infinite speed (it goes ad a distance in 0 time).

Wether the object would disintegrate during impact... well, I'm pretty sure it would.

What I was actually thinking of is an object on the ground and since it is moving with the earth at 200 Km/s around the core of our galaxy, it will only possess this energy, or will it impart it to the earth, and disintegrate with an atomic detonation kind of mass converted to energy.

What makes you think that time exists now?

originally posted by: vasaga
What makes you think that time exists now?

we exist don't we?

a reply to: Nochzwei

The question is not whether we exist, but whether time exists as an 'entity' on itself, rather than a creation of our perceptive minds.

Here's some food for thought:
physicscentral.com...

Without time the physics and chemistry will not work. so we exist materially because time exists
a reply to: vasaga

That link of yours, looks like by calling time illusory, they are trying to create another status quo like einsteins GR and SR
a reply to: vasaga

Only the 'now' exists. Ideas of time came from the idea of the past and present, which actually are nowhere. They are the same 'now', from a different point of view, if you get what I mean.

You are talking about time from a philosophers point of view and I am talking about time from physics point of view, as I was doing a peer review on this linked video
which is on about a time machine
a reply to: vasaga

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What I was actually thinking of is an object on the ground and since it is moving with the earth at 200 Km/s

Hm, if it moves "with the Earth" then it means its time cannot be zero. Other wise it'd stop moving with earth, since it'd stop moving at "200km per 1 second" but instead at "200km per 0 second"... you see where I'm getting at?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What I was actually thinking of is an object on the ground and since it is moving with the earth at 200 Km/s

Hm, if it moves "with the Earth" then it means its time cannot be zero. Other wise it'd stop moving with earth, since it'd stop moving at "200km per 1 second" but instead at "200km per 0 second"... you see where I'm getting at?

Yes indeed I can see wt you mean. So if an objects time is set to zero while on the earth, it will effectively zip away from the earth and end up somewhere in space in an instant, or it may just disintegrate on the earth itself releasing its enormous energy. Scary either way.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Indeed. Anyway, if you don't mind me asking, were you asking because you were trying to decide the level of veracity of the video you mentioned above? The one with the time machine?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Nochzwei

Indeed. Anyway, if you don't mind me asking, were you asking because you were trying to decide the level of veracity of the video you mentioned above? The one with the time machine?

No, I don't question the veracity at all. Just performing a peer review on it. Though am still undecided whether the machine will stay intact or break down into atoms etc releasing enormous energy, or end up in space in an instant, when time stops.

a reply to: Nochzwei

I didn't watch the whole video but I notice it speaks about "antigravity". Now, I have evidence that negative gravity would not freeze time but actually make it rather... different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...