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.

 

Time Has No Shape!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by blend56
Did you find any triumphs in regards to students who you thought just "weren't going to get" and all of a sudden, turned it around? That has got to be one of the most fantastic experiences for a teacher. I know it is for me when I train a new employee. At first I think that someone is not suitable for the position, then I try to find a way to present data to him/her in a way he/she can comprehend. And when it works, the feeling is better then any drug on the market.


Do you find this true in your position?

Actually... no.


Sorry, I'm usually tired and cranky in class... And they aren't really my students. I just have discussions with them. I'm not a professor. I'm just a professor's assistant. I'm actually a student myself (grad).


Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Does time follow some sort of generaly accepted universality? Is there a mathematical forumulation for time?
Deep


Err... being a computer scientist and an electrical engineer... I have go by a slightly different meaning for universality... so pardon me if I misunderstand your question.

Time and space are interrelated (thank you Einstein,
).
Most physicists would agree that time is not universal from all reference points. It was widely believed, before Einstein, that velocity depends on time, it is now known that they both depend on each other. Each reference point has a different "time" and speed of time compared to another reference point.

Here is the magical term that you need to remember for ratios between different reference points,

SQRT(1 - (v/c)^2)

That is the ratio you should use to compare "time speed", mass, length, whatever... between two reference points. "v" is the velocity of one point to the other.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
This is the 2nd time I've seen this exact post by the same person, it was first called Time (rebuttle to elliptical time). I was the first to post on it since I made up the theory, and rebuttled him. (can't find the original thread)

His THEORY is no better or worse then mine. And he debunked elliptical time because eventually you'd have to meet? Why would we meet the beginning? It doesnt reach the beggining because instead of meeting the start of time, as if you were still following a linear path, the cirlce/oval itself grows in size.

Maybe at the start of time, it was the size of a tiny beed (with a hole through it), then the jurassic period it was the size of a cherrio, and now by our time it is the size of a hula hoop. So...meeting the beginning wouldn't happen.

But hey thanks dude, for only seeing one possibility, shows you have a very open mind. See the first falacy and run with it, didn't take the time to actually think how it could work.


Good forums. woaw woaw


Just thought, the Mayans were deep into circular calenders and time, what is 2012 is when the circle stops growing, since it still has to grow it goes just that 1 trillith of a second to meet the beggining, boom starts all over. End of the world.

(I'm talking about the creator of the Thread)

[Edit: My little after thought]

[edit on 8-12-2004 by _BLiND_]


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Um... were you referring to me? Because I made no specific mention about what I truly believed about the topology of time (if one exists at all).



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
_BLIND_ , how many times are you going to say my theory is not as good as yours, and still give me no answers as to how some one with precognitive abilities could see through the space between this mystery shape?or how that proves the elliptical shape of time.
And how many times do i have to tell you, that you're thinking of the universes path through time, and not the shape of time itself!? sure ,the universe may move in some sort of elliptical pattern, which is a nice thought considering planets do orbit the sun in ellipses, but how does that explain the actual shape of time itself?
bottomline, i debunked all of your logic, and you have yet to debunk mine.
edit:i explained that time has no shape because it is a dimension. Why do you not seem to understand that. EVERYTHING in our reality has to have a dimension of time in order to exist. And dimensions don't have shapes or sizes, because they are LAW. They are what make objects reality.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by CountFranklin]


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I suggest everyone look up the term "TOPOLOGY".

It's not the same thing as "shape".

I think THAT is why so many people are confused.

@ Blend56,

I hope NOW you see why I was such a prick about using the right terminologies. Do you see how much misinterpretation and confusion can be caused by wrong terminologies and casual presentations of ideas?

My thoughts:

CountFrankling is right. Time doesn't have a SHAPE.

BUT, since the people CountFranklin is arguing against are most definitely referring to "topology", I will have to disagree with CountFranklin.

Time has a topology, even if it is extremely basic (a continuum, for example).

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   
topology
Pronunciation: t&-'pl-&-jE, t-
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -gies
1 : REGIONAL ANATOMY

alright, time has no "regional anatomy" because it isnt an object. it's natural law. it's dimension.

think of it this way:
without time nothing in our reality would exist.
Thus, a certain object without time, would not exist.
therfore time is a mandatory dimension in order for the object to appear in our reality and exist.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CountFranklin
think of it this way:
without time nothing in our reality would exist.
Thus, a certain object without time, would not exist.
therfore time is a mandatory dimension in order for the object to appear in our reality and exist.



I agree with you here Count I believe that the philosopher Zeno said something along these lines in his four arguments. Although if I remember right he was also trying to prove that motion is an illusion, but a similar point comes across anyways.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Oh God.

Has our online community degraded to the point where people spend about 2 minutes researching into a topic (by perhaps, looking through dictionary.com or some other equally simplistic rubbish) and think they've already exhausted the topic?

Topology is... oh whatever. I give up. I'm not going to bother.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I do understand what you were saying...and that is why I apologized and thanked you for correcting me.

Count Franklin and blind: Your two theories combined make sense.
Pieces of both would make up a sensible hypothesis.

Debunking and criticizing each other will not lead you two to greater understanding. Forget who said what and when.......focus on the topic and combine your ideas. This will lead to greater things.

Unless you feel that debunking and criticizing is more effective in coming to a solution...........then carry on.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CountFranklin
topology
Pronunciation: t&-'pl-&-jE, t-
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -gies
1 : REGIONAL ANATOMY


I am pretty sure Nox is mad at you for finding such a simple definition Heres what I found from the Merriam Websters site

(1) : a branch of mathematics concerned with those properties of geometric configurations (as point sets) which are unaltered by elastic deformations (as a stretching or a twisting) that are homeomorphisms

I think this is closer to what he was talking about but please correct me if I am wrong.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Yes, I know blend56, I wasn't really referring to you specifically, sorry.

I was just making a statement, sorry for focusing on you.

Anyway, I was thinking back to AngelaLady's idea about how our time-flow has a "tornado" topology.

It's not that I originally disagreed with her, I just found it slightly perturbing that she didn't elaborate further.

I spent some time thinking about it to see why she would believe in the validity of such a notion. It has some truth in it.

Perhaps it's ridiculous on a Universal level, but applied to human history (or some other equivalent timeline/timeflow), we can see that it might have some validity.

Human history repeats itself, and is repeating at a faster rate. In such a way, perhaps the time-line COULD look like a tornado. Maybe that is what she was saying. Can anyone (preferably Angela herself) verify that this was what she was trying to say?


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification The_Final.

I guess I was being unreasonable.

A comprehensive mathematical definition for "Topology" wouldn't really be found in a dictionary anyway. I shouldn't really expect people on an online forum to go through an entire graduate course on topology...

Anyway. Time has a topology because it is AT LEAST either continuous or discrete (unless someone wants to offer ideas on how time ISNT either of those... haha, good luck).

If time is discrete, then each instant in time is a snapshot of current reality. The current state "jumps" to the next, with no medium state in between. It's not "fluid".

If time is continuous, there are no snapshots, it's one fluid motion.

It could also have a circular/elliptical topology if it repeats itself, etc etc. (note, that I'm more skeptical of these kinds of topologies, lets just stick to either continuous or discrete for now,
)

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
No problem Nox I couldn't find anything else that could apply with Mathmatics as well. I do belive that time is a streaming thing not a snapshot as it was put. Why would the repition of history cause it to form in circular motion???(not sure of this word) What about that thoery that was explained using the wrinkled piece of paper that has connections and this is how history seems to repeat because it comes in contact with a part of the past?? I made my own modifictions on this theory.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Time is a concept, and doesn't exist unless we exist... sure its there... but doesn't exist, time created us so it would be recognized...

Just like if a tree falls in the forest, does anyone hear it.

[edit on 8/12/04 by dnero6911]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Yes time is a concept you are right about that, but we created time, we said that from when it gets hot to cold is season, year that sort of stuff without us there is what we call eternity time forever because there is no way for us to divide it. Also how could time create us, if its only a concept?? o and dnero I think the saying goes: If a tree falls in the forest any nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[edit on 8-12-2004 by The_Final]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
EDIT: Sorry I double posted didn't mean to but I was pissed off at my internet and kept clickin


[edit on 8-12-2004 by The_Final]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
If history is repeating itself, it may be because people in each generation
tend to make similar mistakes or take similar actions of the previous ones. If history is repeating itself faster, it could be because there are
more people in the world to help speed up the process.





[edit on 8-12-2004 by elaine]


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dnero6911
Time is a concept, and doesn't exist unless we exist... sure its there... but doesn't exist, time created us so it would be recognized...

Just like if a tree falls in the forest, does anyone hear it.


The problem with this idea is that it automatically assumes discrete time.

You're saying that an immediate past is not possible. An immediate future is not possible.

The ONLY possible reality is the present. The present, is one INSTANT, it must be discrete.

Remember, in absolute continuous universes, for every two states, there is a medium state.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
even if time is a concept or illusion, as some say, time as dimension still applies. It's like when people say , " i'll believe it when i see it." in order for it to exist in their individual reality they need to address a certain time frame or period to that object in order for it to actually exist. Our brains need to witness the object or idea in action, in time, for it to be considered reality. If we do not witness the object or idea in time, it's not reality, it's just a thought of an object or idea that we believe to be true. Now of course most of the time we believe tons of stuff ,we've never actually seen before, exist. Like the statue of liberty, Everyone knows it exists, but as far as the brain and mind are concerned it is not concrete reality, if you havn't witnessed it. Therefore time is still a key dimension in order for an object to actually exist in front of you.
Second i would like to say that all dimensions are just concepts and illusions that the mind uses in order to grasp reality.
Third, the superdefinition of topology states:
" a branch of mathematics concerned with those properties of geometric configurations (as point sets) which are unaltered by elastic deformations (as a stretching or a twisting) that are homeomorphisms "
it says, the mathematics concerned with the properties of geometric configurations, but before someone posted that i continually said that time is not an object, It has no geometric proportions or properties or anything, because it is a dimension.
it's like saying the dimension of line has elliptical shape.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Heh, let's not forget if time didn't exist

and that everything existed only in the now

what would become of relativity? Quantum mechanics?

Guess we don't need those, we have "better" theories.


EDIT: In other words, I agree with CountFrankling.

It MUST exist, as a dimension at the very least. A dimension with either continuous or discrete topology.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join