It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In a profile in The Sunday Times (October, 1998), Steve Farrar wrote: "Barbour argues that we live in a universe which has neither past nor future. A strange new world in which we are alive and dead in the same instant. In this eternal present, our sense of the passage of time is nothing more than a giant cosmic illusion. 'There is nothing modest about my aspirations,' he said. 'This could herald a revolution in the way we perceive the world.'" Cosmologist Lee Smolin notes thatBarbour has presented "the most interesting and provocative new idea about time to be proposed in many years. If true, it will change the way we see reality. Barbour is one of the few people who is truly both a scientist and a philosopher."
It's interesting that you make that claim and then post a source which apparently contradicts it:
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Barbour's model of timelessness is supported by evidence. ...
edge.org...
At least I interpret that as a falsification of your claim. If I'm missing something here please let me know what. I tried to word my reply carefully such that I didn't reject Barbour's model nor some other alternate ideas about time. Saying that there's no direct experimental evidence to support it doesn't mean it's wrong. I would also say that about string theory...there's no direct evidence for it that I know of, but I can't say it's wrong, and it could have some validity.
JB: Is there any way of testing your idea observationally?
BARBOUR: I cannot as yet see any direct experimental way of testing this particular idea.
originally posted by: Steffer
Hi.
I own a 2004 Pontiac Aztek and it's front, driver's side door panel has been removed.
The problem is both the window guides have been broken so the window constantly falls all the way down whenever I drive over a bump.
What would be a creative and cheap idea to hold this window up until I can afford to have it fixed?
Thank you kindly in advance.
originally posted by: dragonridr
If a God existed outside our universe he would not see any changes he wouldn't see anything but a static universe that never changes. There would be no past present of future because he would have nothing to compare it to.
Without a frame of reference time doesn't exist.
What about the cosmic microwave background as a reference frame? Since galaxies mostly (all?) have redshift z under 10 and the CMB has redshift over 1000 it's observationally difficult to make precise measurements relative to the CMB but it's possible to do so in rough terms.
originally posted by: dragonridr
The only true reference frame we have is distant galaxies from our view point they don't move. This is the only way we can detect all this movement.
It's hard for me to say what god would observe, because presumably he operates outside natural laws and our models of reality depend on observations following natural laws. So I'm not sure what he would see, but I think the idea you're expressing is somewhat along the lines of Barbour's idea which as I said has neither been confirmed nor directly falsified as far as I know.
If a God existed outside our universe he would not see any changes he wouldn't see anything but a static universe that never changes. There would be no past present of future because he would have nothing to compare it to. Without a frame of reference time doesn't exist.
It's hard to imagine because of the bias we have from seeing time flow our entire lives. As far as "out of the box" thinking goes it seems pretty far outside the box, but relativity has already taught us that the notion that the sequence of events we observe is not necessarily the same sequence another observer will see, an idea which was also somewhat "outside the box" when it was introduced.
Could you imagine if we could sense everything in the universe at once?
Without a model for saying what would happen outside our universe, we can't make predictions about what would happen to the light leaving the universe. This is why we refrain from trying to speculate about such an "edge" of the universe because even if such a thing exists, we really can't say anything useful about it with no model for what happens at or beyond the edge.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
In that example it appears it would be true, solely due to the nature of light; for if light were to exit the universe and enter Gods eye, then he would see change.
originally posted by: Peeple
I have a question about Einsteins relativity:
Why do a bowling ball and feathers fall with the same speed in a vacuum on earth? And what has1,4 to do with it?
Does it mean the gravity is a myth?
According to Newtonian mechanics, the "heavier" mass gets more force applied, but it takes more force to accelerate the heavier mass, which is why they end up accelerating at the same rate.
originally posted by: Peeple
As i unterstand it with the gravity constant the heavier mass still should fall faster?