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.

 

Space Time and it's Existence

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: flice

This is an example of the blending of various definitions of time.

You have the physical "time", the counted time, and the number of times.

Perception of counted time is too often confused with the hand which stretches out space.

Time the infinite and time the finite - one is tangible for the mind, the other is an artifact of the mind.


P.S. - please forgive spelling and grammatical errors. I usually catch my phone being a malicious editor, but every now and then I miss.
edit on 1/5/2017 by TarzanBeta because: Ed It Ing




posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: wildespace
I think when Einstein said that time is an illusion, he meant that time is relative. It flows slower in some places and faster in others (depending on local gravity), as well as flowing at a different rate depending on your relative speed.

Speed of light is extremely slow at cosmic scales (it would take light about 10,000 years to cross from one end of our galaxy to the other), but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.


This is getting close imo...

Time is funny..... move to Mars and the concept of seconds, minutes, hours and so on would be useless, except to reference to something back home on Earth.

Not really, as Mars has it's own year, months, days (called sols), hours, etc. based on its rotation on its axis and around the Sun.

You can take the concept of a second anywhere in the universe with you, as it's based (at least in modern times) on a certain amount of electron oscillations in an atom. The seconds can form minutes and hours, but only the day is based on a planet's rotation on its axis.
edit on 5-1-2017 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Exactly... past, present and future all exist in the same construct... according to theory.

I recommend that the OP watch this Nova series called The Fabric of the Cosmos. Physicist Brian Greene does an excellent job of translating complex ideas into laymen's terms.

NOVA - The Fabric of the Cosmos



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Not exactly, I was referencing the fact that you exist now. The fact that you exist now means that time does in fact exist.

If I ask you to meet me in a building at the corner of X and Y Street, on the Zth floor. What good is that without a T coordinate? It's a very simple analogy that does not require a clock or a sundial. But merely a point in time to exist at a certain location in space. Hence.... spacetime. Imagine a cube of space. 3 dimensions. What the cube is made of is time – a 4th dimension. That's physics, man.

Yes, the past and future are mental constructs so these are the so called convenient illusions. But if the universe does not exist now then it doesn't exist at all.

So it's true - the time is now, and so on and so forth, yada yada, etc etc...



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity explain what he meant about that time comment. He wasn't saying it doesn't exist but that it depends on the observer's perspective. If any observer thinks that their own perspective of time is the only possible perspective, THAT is the illusion, but Einstein gives precise math to calculate the passage of time for other observers in other reference frames so that deals with the so-called illusion in a very quantifiable way. When you simply apply the maths Einstein gave us all those issues you list become non-issues solved by math.


originally posted by: Blue Shift
The thing about time is that it's personal. There is no way to objectively separate it from your personal existence. That's where the math falls down. Math is meant to be objective, and it's terrible at figuring out what it's like for us each to experience existence from behind our own individual eyeballs.
There are both objective and subjective times. Time is what a clock measures and if you boil a pot of water in the same conditions it takes the same length of time each time you boil it according to the clock. But we have the expression "A watched pot never boils" which means if you're not looking at a clock but look at the pot instead, yes it might seem to take longer to boil because our internal clocks are very imprecise and subjective. That's true but it doesn't mean that there aren't objective external clocks.


originally posted by: wildespace
I think when Einstein said that time is an illusion, he meant that time is relative. It flows slower in some places and faster in others (depending on local gravity), as well as flowing at a different rate depending on your relative speed.
Yes that's more or less what he meant, something along those lines.


Speed of light is extremely slow at cosmic scales (it would take light about 10,000 years to cross from one end of our galaxy to the other),
Closer to 100,000 but that's not exact either.


but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.
That's what the mathematician in the OP's link says, but I disagree. Infinite time dilation is a breakdown of the equation, not a valid computational result and he's treating it as the latter instead of the former which I think most physicists believe is true.

edit on 201715 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

but for a photon (or anything else travelling at the speed of light) time doesn't exist, everything happens instantly.
That's what the mathematician in the OP's link says, but I disagree. Infinite time dilation is a breakdown of the equation, not a valid computational result and he's treating it as the latter instead of the former which I think most physicists believe is true.

In the time dilation equation, the variable that reflects time dilation becomes zero at c (signifying infinite time dilation), which I found to be reasonable. The equation breaks down at speeds faster than c, which involves square root of a negative number. Although one could argue that at faster than c speed, time turns "imaginary".



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
In the time dilation equation, the variable that reflects time dilation becomes zero at c (signifying infinite time dilation), which I found to be reasonable.
How is it reasonable that light travels across the room in the same time that it travels across the galaxy or across the universe? It's not reasonable, and that's not what happens, and a correct application of the equation doesn't work that way.

Einstein's special relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same for every inertial observer. So if you try to use the speed of light as a reference frame for an inertial observer, what measurement do you get for the speed of light? This assumption violates Einstein's postulate for an inertial observer because you can't even measure the speed of light from the reference frame of a photon; it's not a valid reference frame, and if you try to use it as one you get nonsense. Special relativity says the photon isn't a valid inertial frame so I don't know why some people try to pretend it is, well the mathematician maybe because they aren't as concerned with reality as physicists in general.

A photon is NOT an inertial observer in special relativity

Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coordinate which use the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to its worldline. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldline are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.

This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon should have a reference frame.


edit on 201716 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Has to be an observer and memory of change for time to exist.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Thank you for your detailed reply.


I'll add a few more thoughts below my replies to the thread.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This was a great analysis.

Thank you!



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Yeah that's right, there does. Without an observer no movement can be registered or very slow at best until once again the object is observed.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JesusXst

The Einstein quote was actually; "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

This does not mean that time itself is an illusion, but that past, present and future all exist simultaneously, so our instantaneous perception of time, where we classify time into past present and future, is the illusion.

Time is a dimensional axis and must actually exist as something fundamental for what we know of physics to work.

Previously we had measured time in its own unique units (Hours, Minutes and Seconds) but Einstein gave us tools to measure the dimension of time in exactly the same units as we measure all other spatial dimensions. One second of time is equal to 299,792,458 meters, the maximum distance anything can move in a second - the speed limit of 'the speed of light'.

Note that calling it 'the speed of light' is really a misnomer. Light can, and does, sometimes travel slower than 'the speed of light'. The real value "c" (out of the E=Mc^2 equation) is like a speed limit and is the theoretical velocity that a massless particle like a photon moves with.


I actually favored this reply due to the NoW you addressed along with it. Everything exists right now all at once, therefore, it would be safe to say that we don't actually die at different interludes but rather, all at once.

If someone is spinning while being watched by someone who's not, how much does the observer influence the velocity of the spinner as opposed to an observer who's simply not there watching, or/and, does time speed up for the spinner?



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: flice


Einstein meant that past present and future is relative ill explain this way. Lets say there is three solar systems one is 100 light years from us the second is 50 light years from us then we have our solar system. Now our solar system furthest away goes super nova. For anyone there it happens now provided they survive. To the solar system 50 light years away hasn't happened yet they still see the star in the sky normal. Now 50 years later they see it go super nova. For them its happening now for the people in the solar system it happened its the past. And for us earthlings its still the future. So what he meant was that past present and future is dependent on where your observing an event from. Another example would be a black hole if an object enters a black hole to an outside observer would see the object slow down the closer it got to the black hole. Eventually they would see it come to a stop at the event horizon. But the people in our spaceship would have all ready passed the event horizon because for them time doesn't change,

Now for ops questions first one to a photon traveling at the speed of light time doesn't exist. So from its frame of reference time doesn't pass from when its emitted to when its absorbed. But from our frame of reference we can measure the time it took to get here.


Now the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle Your misunderstanding it completely. What it says is if we measure momentum we cant measure position or flip it if we measure location we cant measure momentum. Bottom line we cant measure both these accurately because the action of measuring it will effect the outcome.


Now time yes it exists if it did not nothing would happen. A universe without time would be empty since nothing and I mean nothing would happen. People want to claim that man somehow created time well we didn't. All we did is named it and broke it down into segments so we can work with it. What we call it is irrelevant what matters is how much time it represents. This allows us to do calculations allowing us to for example make the relationship between space time and momentum. Or show the effects space can have on time in cases of gravity.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
I've always liked that Einstein quote as well. I mean here's this scientific genius saying that time is just an illusion. I wish he would elaborate.

Although there must be many more here more qualified than I, I'll take a crack at those questions.

A photon moving at the speed of light is 144,000 meters per second I believe? So it's fast but not instantaneous. From what I understand from "entanglement" or "spooky action from a distance" that IS instantaneous...but that is like a particle over here gets spun, and another particle anywhere in the universe is spun at the exact same time. So it's not like a beam or particle traveling through space. More like they are connected no matter how far apart.

And as far as the Uncertainty Principle, which I feel is a glorious concept that shows how this "dimension" or "reality" is built to its core, the more you know the position the less you know the velocity and vice versa. So if you "know" a particle is going lightspeed the position is blurry. If you "know" with certainty where the particle is the speed will be blurry. Like you can't pin it down to a certain time and place.

I think you can know both but it will be approximate. And then you got the whole "observing something changes it" scenario which is indeed mind bending. Quantum physics can be quite the trip.



There's that too, yeah. Observing things changes them. It's a trip I enjoy taking.

Someone mentioned that it's not an illusion, but it makes you think deeper at that point, what if, hypothetically, everything we see is a fragmented mirror or mirrors we can't see the refraction source, and it's creating a type of hypnosis and illusion.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst

I had a thought a few days ago... i kind of 'what if' theory...


What if... the original natural state of the entirety of existence (whatever that is), is actually without time. Time doesnt exist, therefore entropy doesnt exist. But there was an 'event' or 'trigger' that caused a malfunction in the natural state and it split and became what we see today - a universe (reality) with different natural factors like time or light or space that make up everything, and the size of the universe, its desolation, the age, what it came from and why it exists in such a form is all mysterious to us, because we dont realize that entropy/time factor may actually be a malfunction, an unnatural process.

Im beginning to think that time is an unnatural occurrence that is required to run a simulation.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: JesusXst

I had a thought a few days ago... i kind of 'what if' theory...


What if... the original natural state of the entirety of existence (whatever that is), is actually without time. Time doesnt exist, therefore entropy doesnt exist. But there was an 'event' or 'trigger' that caused a malfunction in the natural state and it split and became what we see today - a universe (reality) with different natural factors like time or light or space that make up everything, and the size of the universe, its desolation, the age, what it came from and why it exists in such a form is all mysterious to us, because we dont realize that entropy/time factor may actually be a malfunction, an unnatural process.

Im beginning to think that time is an unnatural occurrence that is required to run a simulation.



I like that theory a lot. You're onto something here. I've always felt like something here was a bit off.

This is how I view it. Strange because i'm getting deja vu writing this.

Time, everything seems to revolve around it. Without Time would we then become aware of our reality state and would it bring down the veil spoken of by ancients long ago. We need light to create, light, like the one coming out of us according to Science.

So now, Time is an unnatural construct as you said, and possibly skipping like a record would, throwing everything off balance, thus revealing the simulation or whatever you want to call it, to people who have started to notice this. Intuition, we were born with it, it's like a safety mechanism, so it would naturally make any human wander outside of his comfort zone looking for the source of our questions.

note - The trigger, a corrupt simulation trying to repair itself.

Where does it derive from though?

Hypothetically ... There are three glass heavens above the earth. One refracts water inside the first layer above us, which is what we see when it's blue.

The second glass layer, or second heaven ... I'll get to that later. Also known as where the fallen angels derive according to religion/beliefs.

The third heaven ... Where God resides, 'hypothetically'.

The fourth which came to mind just now is, every time more than 30% of mankind are thinking of the same thing, it's being created as we speak. The mind is powerful and everything is light.

edit on 6-1-2017 by JesusXst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
Has to be an observer and memory of change for time to exist.

I don't know...

...I have to think that in the early universe -- prior to any observer being around to have a memory of change -- that things actually DID change over time in the universe.

That change might only be two primordial hydrogen atoms coming together and interacting with each other, and that entire interaction occurring over the time it takes for "X" number of vibrations of one of those hydrogen atoms. So even without an observer around to even have any knowledge of this atom-to-atom interaction taking place, that interaction still actually did take place, which imparted a change in the universe, and did so over a measurable amount of time (if someone were around to count the atom vibrations).


edit on 2017-1-6 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta


I hate it when science and Technology is lagging behind my knowledge


I always have to wait on them to prove me right..



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

One of the more prominent voices on the matter (Stephen Hawkin) sp? suggested we colonize Mars.
If it were not for the dark ages before the Renaissance we would likely have had a dome city at Cydonia in Sir Isaac Newtons time. Problem is given the much stronger Gravity on Mars, Newtons encounter with the apple might have been fatal and we would never know about gravity or space time in the first place.

Then again Newton might have been born in a Venusian colony or saved by the anti gravity components of Die Glocke in a hovering colony orbiting Neptune.

I used to have space time theories when I was a child but operation plowshare showed me that that kind of technology would have been too risky to use on Earth.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: wildespace
In the time dilation equation, the variable that reflects time dilation becomes zero at c (signifying infinite time dilation), which I found to be reasonable.
How is it reasonable that light travels across the room in the same time that it travels across the galaxy or across the universe? It's not reasonable, and that's not what happens, and a correct application of the equation doesn't work that way.

Einstein's special relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same for every inertial observer. So if you try to use the speed of light as a reference frame for an inertial observer, what measurement do you get for the speed of light? This assumption violates Einstein's postulate for an inertial observer because you can't even measure the speed of light from the reference frame of a photon; it's not a valid reference frame, and if you try to use it as one you get nonsense. Special relativity says the photon isn't a valid inertial frame so I don't know why some people try to pretend it is, well the mathematician maybe because they aren't as concerned with reality as physicists in general.

A photon is NOT an inertial observer in special relativity

Special relativity says that photons do not have a reference frame. When constructing a reference frame for an object in relativity you start by choosing a basis vector for the time coordinate which use the unit vector (whose 'length' of |1|) that is tangent to its worldline. However for a photon (or an object traveling at c) all vectors tangent to it's worldline are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.

This is not a flaw in theory it is a feature of the theory as in SR there is no reason that a photon should have a reference frame.


I don't know why you think anyone considers a photon an inertial frame of reference. From a photon's "point of view", time doesn't exist and it appears, travels, and gets absorbed all at once. But that's beside the point. Time dilation is described by Lorentz Transformation equation, and reaching c produces infinite time dilation.

You can play with various values for the equation here: www.1728.org...

If you can prove that equation wrong, then I guess there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
edit on 6-1-2017 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join