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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Nox

Could you explain what a medium state would be
I am currently drawing a blank.

I am sorry for the wrinkled paper thought, It was a different modifcation of a thoery on a way that time travel could be possible by places that the timeline would connect you could somehow got to where the string of the past connected with you, it wierd i know.(because rather than it being straight in the thoery, it is more of a jumbled ball.)



Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final
Nox

Could you explain what a medium state would be
I am currently drawing a blank.

I am sorry for the wrinkled paper thought, It was a different modifcation of a thoery on a way that time travel could be possible by places that the timeline would connect you could somehow got to where the string of the past connected with you, it wierd i know.(because rather than it being straight in the thoery, it is more of a jumbled ball.)


Name two states, any two states.
A "state" can be anything. Even a number.

Like, name two Real numbers. Any two real numbers. There will always be another real number between those two. No matter what.

In a continuous universe, there are no concepts like "on" and "off", because they don't have medium states. How can you have a "half-on", "half-off"? You can't. There are no medium states in discrete spaces.

For example, if I picked two Integers instead of Real, like 1 and 2, I would not be able to find another integer between those two.

Discrete spaces don't have to have mediums.

If time was only "NOW" and didn't exist elsewhere, then there would only be a "now" and "not now" (does not exist). Those are discrete concepts because they don't allow medium states like, "partially now, partially not now".

EDIT: If you're still confused, I suggest reading about the "Point Paradox". The contradictions that arise when introducing discrete concepts to continuous spaces and vice verse become quite apparent in that paradox.

I'd rather not talk about wrinkled planes of existence. I'm tired, and it's very complicated. Sorry.


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification Nox
that helped out a lot. I think that time would have to be continual because everything is able to be broken down into a smaller unit. Time should be no exception you should be able to find a 1.5 between 1 and 2.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
yes all there is, is the present. the past is not reality- It WAS reality. and the future is not reality- it WILL BE reality, only the present is actual concrete reality and without giving an object a present frame in time, it will never be considered past -- it will have never HAVE existed, or EXIST. Now using the future is the only way we can manipulate our realitys, because as humans we have the free will to position ourselves next to something, look at it, and percieve it as the present, filter it to the past and believe it's a part of our reality, only because we have witnessed it in the present BEFORE. therefore all reality and all dimension exists in the present.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

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

Deep


Yes it's called 'Quatum Field Theory'...
The spontaneous symmetry breakdown..Here's the complete study in pdf format......

www-lab15.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp...

how's your trigonometry,algebra and quantum physics work??..



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CountFranklin
yes all there is, is the present. the past is not reality- It WAS reality. and the future is not reality- it WILL BE reality, only the present is actual concrete reality and without giving an object a present frame in time, it will never be considered past -- it will have never HAVE existed, or EXIST. Now using the future is the only way we can manipulate our realitys, because as humans we have the free will to position ourselves next to something, look at it, and percieve it as the present, filter it to the past and believe it's a part of our reality, only because we have witnessed it in the present BEFORE. therefore all reality and all dimension exists in the present.


This is sort've along the lines of what I think Count Franklin.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Let me explain it this way ..

What time is it on mars.. venus.. saturn.. pluto .. ????
its only represented by the images in our field of perception
if something can be changed that easily.. how can one give it a name? or a number.. it is a fruitless mission, Go nuts trying to explain your theories to me.. but if we were on another planet your theories change.. so BAH to your theories.. I don't mean to bash it.. but I'm sorry We only have now.

[edit on 8/12/04 by dnero6911]


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I offer this thread as evidence of why "common sense" just doesn't work in science.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
"it's belived we live in the third dimension. But we're actually in the fourth! because for any of these points, lines, shapes and figures to exist in reality, it needs to be in time. so now the chart goes:
0-time
1-point
2-line
3-shape
4-figure "

This is wrong. If we follow your logic, then a 1-dimensional world could not exist, as time exists in all dimensions.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   
A believe time is a form of undiscovered matter. Maybe even motion itself, as another member stated.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   
That is the purpose behind most religeons.. (before people started warping them for power and money)
is to help explain time... has a lot to do with the trinity, they used symbols to explain the unexplainable.. but you have to interperate it correctly..
I realize that sounds stupid... but so does remembering something I forgot.. lol


[edit on 9/12/04 by dnero6911]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
"it's belived we live in the third dimension. But we're actually in the fourth! because for any of these points, lines, shapes and figures to exist in reality, it needs to be in time. so now the chart goes:
0-time
1-point
2-line
3-shape
4-figure "

This is wrong. If we follow your logic, then a 1-dimensional world could not exist, as time exists in all dimensions.

I don't understand how a one dimensional world could not exist, since time is the before it. Time does not exist in all dimensions, but time is what makes all of the dimensions even possible.
how do you know a 1- dimensional world dosen't exist, anyways? everything we percieve is 3d. We have yet as humans to witness this 1-dimensional world. we can theorize it, but everything in our existence is made up of particles, which are 3-d.


Nox

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CountFranklin
"it's belived we live in the third dimension. But we're actually in the fourth! because for any of these points, lines, shapes and figures to exist in reality, it needs to be in time. so now the chart goes:
0-time
1-point
2-line
3-shape
4-figure "

This is wrong. If we follow your logic, then a 1-dimensional world could not exist, as time exists in all dimensions.

I don't understand how a one dimensional world could not exist, since time is the before it. Time does not exist in all dimensions, but time is what makes all of the dimensions even possible.
how do you know a 1- dimensional world dosen't exist, anyways? everything we percieve is 3d. We have yet as humans to witness this 1-dimensional world. we can theorize it, but everything in our existence is made up of particles, which are 3-d.


CountFranklin,
he's just trying to apply too much "common sense" to science. That's why there's so much confusion.


This is wrong. If we follow your logic, then a 1-dimensional world could not exist, as time exists in all dimensions.

I could take what he said and expand.

"This is wrong. If we follow your logic, then a 3-dimensional world could not exist, as time, length, width, and height exist in all dimensions."

If only people had some minimal background in relativity and quantum field theory, they'd realize that "common sense" isn't that useful in physics.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
yeah i don't understand how people cannot grasp this simple concept. I mean, it's the basis for E=Mc^2



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join