It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The concept of Time just Made UP?!?!?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by shaunybaby
do i get a wats vote for coming up with the idea?

pretty please...

Aww heck I'm in a good mood.

"You have voted shaunybaby for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:30 PM
I doubt there are very many planets without gravity and rotation that could even sustain life....that being said, time is nothing more than a constant state of change which is a totally natural process....atoms never stop so change will never 0 Kelvin, perhaps even the mere act of change would cease thus Time would not exist......the word time is something humans created to explain a natural process.....perhaps Time itself is nothing more than than the infinite number of atoms in the universe at a constant rate of vibration, keeping everything moving along

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:40 PM
which in that case, if it is just atoms moving around this can't be considered time in anyway, shape, or form...its just considered movement and change. neither of these two things, seperate or together, make up the Earth's concept of "time".

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Maiden Mayhem

Now you try taking this concept of time and teaching it to an alien race with no planet rotation or gravitation pull to get that drop of water to can't be done...because time only exists on Earth.

If such conditions could exist for life to be sustained, then yes I could teach that alien race. If you can teach someone the length of a foot (12inches) you can teach them time as they are very similar concepts.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Frosty]

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:28 PM
Measurement is also a concept "we" have made up to make things easier on ourselves. you can't teach distance in space...cause i believe technically there isnt is nothing. its hard to believe but yea. nothing at space there are many things we cant explain, such as distance, because so many things can alter that distance, such as maybe a black hole. condensing or stretchin out "distance". therefor making the concept of distance in space unstable.'

There could be many holes in this thing we call space. many things are possible that can not be explained. distance doesnt actually exist in space either. we could only go off of what we believe the distance is from our Earth studies.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Maiden Mayhem]

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:34 PM
I'm talking about time itself, not the concept of time......"concept" by definition, comes from a person's's just an idea someone has....humanity's concept of time is only relative to itself.....every species, including others on this planet, probably have their own concept of doesn't make them wrong, it's just how they perceive things as a living do not have a concept of time, yet they erode, thus changing their size and living beings this is called aging because we have a life span.....perhaps on an atomic level, non-living objects have a concept of time but this "atomic time" should be constant for everything, living or non......if time is a form of energy it must be constant because energy is neither created nor destroyed.....even after a lifeform dies, its atoms are slowly released back into the fabric of space, thus enabling them to become a part of another life....even after something dies and it's concept of time is no more, the very makeup of this being is alive and well on the atomic level.....nothing changes for these atomic particles, only their previous particular configuration....Time is separate from our concept of time.......passage of time, as in change of atomic arrangement, is constant on a grand scale, but for sentient beings, it is not....even day to day, our concept of time changes......when we are enjoying something, hours seem like minutes, when we are not, minutes seem like hours.....the universe went on as it always does yet our time seemed different for that period.....if something in space was happening at the same time we had an altered state of time, it was still occuring at a constant rate, regardless of how long or short a period of time we felt like we experienced

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:43 PM
We had a big discussion on time about a year ago on ATS somewhere. I believe time is a man made object. Yes the sun revolves and all that but everything is constantly moving we just used the sun as a guide to our new concept of time. I believe time does not really exsist and i know im gonna get a lot of people sayin "yes but things get old and die that is time" but face it before someone first ever decided it was 12 noon and time would begin today at 12 noon the only time we had to follow was the autumn spring etc etc and before that absolutely nothing. Time is something we as man made to judge our life and practices by.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:47 PM
To further discuss onetd4u28's thoughts.

yes but you are not born with this concept of time. you have to be taught it. i honestly dont really see the need to play word games such as the "concept of time" and "time itself". yes everyone has there own concept but what im talking about is Earth's belief on Time as a whole. This "idea" doesn't fit in any caculation if earth had never existed. your talking about a rock eroding as if it is proving time? this proves nothing other then the fact that water splashing up against a rock can change the Physical features, structure, and say that this happened "over time", well thats just an "idea" earthlings have.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Maiden Mayhem]

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Maiden Mayhem]

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:32 PM
Here,Here I totally agree Mr Eddie Maiden. Time is something that has messed up my head for years trying to work it out. It will probably play with my head forever but it makes great conversation.

Your picture reminds me of first time i saw a 12 foot Eddie Maiden on Stage at Manchester apollo about 12 year ago headbanging. What a night.

Long live Bruce Dickinson I say

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:20 PM
hahaha Bruce has always been the Voice of Maiden. i was not a fan of Paul DiAnno and maybe alittle bit a fan of Blaze Bailey...but Bruce is golden...i have been a maiden fan all my life but for the first time actually got to see them live in San Jose about 3 years ago...good god they are crazy and epic. if youd like me to make a new topic rigth here and now..."Are the Iron Maiden Band Members really men, or are they gods sent from Hell to rock the world as we know it!!!". hahaha

And yes 12-20 foot Eddies on stage rule!

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Maiden Mayhem to see them live in San Jose about 3 years ago...

AH HAH! Three YEARS. THAT IS TIME. ha jk. But yes Iron Maiden's Somewhere In Time justifies this conversation.

[edit on 7/7/2005 by xxblackoctoberxx]

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:28 PM
Hahaha yes, sorry i didn't say Earth Years hahaha...obviosly Iron Maiden's lyric "Lost Somwhere in tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime" was a stab at the theory of Time as a whole...evidentally Steve Harris must also think as i do...It's called BESP. "Bassist ESP" where we are able to read eachothers minds...but only if you play bass parts to Maiden's songs hahaha.

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:45 PM

That's ridiculous and comparable to a kid thinking you can't see them if they cover their eyes. Just because no cave men knew how long a second is doesn't mean that seconds didn't transpire.

It's not ridiculous. Time is a concept created by man. This is an accepted fact, not a theory I just came up with. I'm not saying there was nothingness until someone decided to say, "Hey! Let's have these things called seconds, which transpire into minutes, and then hours, etc."

I'm saying that the universe doesn't know time. Humans do.

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:17 PM

This is a guy I found a while back. I'm not enough of a physicist to see if his calculations are correct. Basically his theory is that time = speed of light. According to his web site if you do this, a lot of complicated physics becomes very simple indeed.

It sounds very reasonable to me. Since speed of light is the fastest way we know of to transmit information (quantum tricks aside…remember you got to move those separated protons physically so you do pay a transmission price of sorts).

Anyone know more about this?

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Ess Why Kay

I'm saying that the universe doesn't know time. Humans do.

That's ridiculous and comparable to a kid thinking you can't see them if they cover their eyes. Just because no cave men knew how long a second is doesn't mean that seconds didn't transpire.
second quote tbh - in fact I am going to quote that last quote everytime someone makes such a bizarre suggestion as the first quote........because quite simply you are suggesting that there was no time before a 'certain' human, therefore human creation was the start of I can get a hundred different sources suggesting different before you get one suggesting so.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Strodyn]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:50 PM
You could always look at it in a quantum theory perspective, where all points in time exist simultaneously, and it is simply the perception of events that creates time. It is this concept that theoretically allows time travel (and since we're far from proving the concept, time travel is still not possible for us).

The short version of the theory is this:

Everything that will ever happen, infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future exists on a wheel. The wheel is a singular entity, therefore dictating that every event must exist simultaneously. We percieve time as we journey around the wheel, seeing different parts of it. If it were possible to jump to a different point on the wheel, we could jump into the past or future.

Then there's the multiverse theory which also shatters our concepts of time/space.

Realistically, though, time exists in some form everywhere. How we percieve time may not be the same as another lifeform on another planet (or even other lifeforms on this planet). For instance, our average lifespan of 70 years (give or take) might only be a blink of an eye for another race living on another planet. By the same token, however, our average lifespan might be hundreds of lifespans for another race living on yet another planet.

Even taking the lifeforms on earth, you can still see examples of this. Is our 70 year lifespan not just an afternoon in the life of a great oak tree, which will live to be hundreds of years old? On the other hand, isn't our lifespan thousands of generations for a housefly, who has a lifespan of roughly two days?

Time is a concept which we will never fully grasp. Our measurements of time work for us, however, and they will continue to work for us as long as we exist on this planet (settle a different planet, and chances are, the length of a day will be different, along with the length of a year, not to mention atomic clocks which could measure time completely differently with a different gravitational field).

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:58 PM
This thread is unbelieveable. Some of you are just sticking out points that don't make sense, just for the sake of sticking out points.

Time is a word, and that word represents several things. The most used version is the measurements we use here on Earth, minutes, seconds, hours, years, decades, millenia, etc. On any other planet, "time" will still pass, more or less at the same rate, but it wouldn't be measured in the exact same way we measure it. The point most of you are trying to argue, is senseless; that just because we use our measurements here on Earth to our best use, it in fact doesn't exist without us, and is therefore made up. All that's "made up" is the word time and our version of measurements. But what time represents is more or less universal (spare me the black hole and space warping theories, thanks). As has been said before, if you could sustain your life alone in space, free of the Earth, that wouldn't make everything stop and you just sit in a void forever unaged. You might not call the passing of events "Time" or measure it in "minutes hours and seconds", but the passage of events would occur.

Time is a word. It represents the passing of events. If what the word time represents didn't exist, everything would be occuring all at once. Yes the word time is made up by humans and the measurements we most commonly use are made up by humans. But a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, and time by any other name would still pass, no?

[edit on 11-7-2005 by The Voice of L]

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:06 AM
This idea works with the thought of the universe always being here and no beginning. Look at it like this.

^this line is the existance of the universe, it goes infinitely on^

^man came into the picture and the measuring of time started

That example didn't really make sense. Time is just a part of the whole. The whole is just a huge infinite span of being. That is why time doesn't exist, it is just a piece taken out of the whole that we are measuring, but because there is no start or end it isn't time. Ha, I hope that made sense, I'm tired.

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:25 PM
Maiden Mayhem is perfectly correct. There is no such thing as time.

"Time is the element measured by clocks."

That's the definition of time. There is no time, never was, and never will be. Time is simply measurement of movement, a completely arbitrary device, like the English or metric system of measurement.

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Show me a "particle" of Time, if you please! As things are made up of smaller things so too you would presuppose that Time is the composite of ....What? Eons? Years? Months? Weeks? Seconds? Shall we go smaller still?

Show me the vaunted "Chronon"; the supposed "smallest partition of Time itself".


Using your logic, you have no idea at all. What's that? You think you do have an idea? Show me a "particle" of your idea and I might listen.

Similarly, you are blind. What, you say you are not? Show me a "particle" of your sight.

Also, you are weightless. You say no? Show me a "particle" of your weight.

You are an idiot. No? Show me a "particle" of your intelligence.

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxxSay I was floating in the middle of outer space and I blink... It happened but there is nothing to measure it against and nothing to put it into context so basically thats all I can say about it.. "It happened" but it did not happen in the grasp of any type of time. Basically saying that there is nothing to put what has happened into context with time helps me understand it the most.

Say while you were floating, you spy a meteroid in the distance coming at you. The rock appraches, takes off your hand, and goes on its' way. Later, you remember with regret that you once had a hand. What are you remembering, if not the past?

You remember the good old days when the rock was still coming towards you, and you didn't have this nagging pain in your wrist. You remember casually stretching your arms and interleaving your fingers to crack your knuckles, an action you can no longer take. What are you thinking about here? Something that never existed?

Time exists in precisely the same way length exists, whether you measure it or not.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in