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.

 

I do not believe in time...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I may not be the only one. I bet someone probably already came up with this theory, but since I'm not sure, I'll post it anyways.

It's odd, since I think others may have come to the same conclusions... I never really read up on it much, but I started thinking about it a few days ago, without any external intervention, and came to the conclusion that time does not exist. That is, that our concept of time, is a completely false theory.

Here's why I think this is so:

The theory of time violates the principles of Newton's laws of creating energy. (So unless Newton was just completely wrong, in this respect...)

In order for there to be "time" (past, present, and future), energy must be created at an impossibly constant rate. For there to be a past, a record must be kept... In other words, for every moment in time, a near exact relica of the universe must be created, with only an immeasureable, insignificant difference...

I'll use the technique used in animation as an analogy. For every moment in an animated show, there is a picture, a frame, that makes up a portion of a movement. One frame could show a man walking with one leg in front of the other, then the next frame showing the other leg slightly more forward than it was before, and so on...

Instead, I see the universe as a single state of matter this is ever changing. Past, present, and future is just a concept that we use to help our minds remember and understand the changes that the universe undergoes. If I stick with the analogy, then the universe is a single picture that is constantly rearranging itself.

So anyways, that's why I don't believe in time. I hope I don't get a bunch of crud saying, "Someone already thought of that, dork."

Well, if someone has already theorized this, have any valid arguements popped up that can validate the existance of time?

[edit on 6-8-2005 by CloudlessKnight]




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
You're not the only one I've seen theorizing that time doesn't exist, CloudlessKnight. From what I've read, though, we aren't sure whether time actually exists or not.


Well, if someone has already theorized this, have any valid arguements popped up that can validate the existance of time?


The best argument I have seen in favor of the existence of time is the Arrow of Time concept, and its relation to entropy.

Here's an idea I read about in a book called 'View from a Height', by Isaac Asimov. Imagine that the universe is empty, or else imagine that the universe has undergone 100% heat death, i.e. all matter has become energy. Nothing happens, ever, because nothing can happen. In the absence of any definable event, everything would be static, unchanging. What would be the difference between absolutely nothing, and absolutely nothing an hour later? A year later? A billion years later? Nothing would change, so in a sense, time is not passing.

I've thought about this idea of time myself, but I can't convince myself to one side of the argument or the other. My brother took a theoretical physics course, in which his professor claimed that time does not exist, because mathematically, time is always defined in terms of other quantities, or something like that, anyway; I didn't really buy the explanation, but that's what he said.

Imagine a really, really deep hole, infinitely deep. Now drop a rock into this hole. It falls, and falls, and falls, forever and ever. It never slows down, speeds up, and never, ever, stops or climbs back up the hole. It just falls. That's what I think of time as being (though that is strictly my personal theory).

I don't know where I'm going with this, but hopefully I gave you some things to think about.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudlessKnight
....
Instead, I see the universe as a single state of matter this is ever changing. Past, present, and future is just a concept that we use to help our minds remember and understand the changes that the universe undergoes. If I stick with the analogy, then the universe is a single picture that is constantly rearranging itself.
....
[edit on 6-8-2005 by CloudlessKnight]


The problem I see with this is that for there to be any change there must be some form of time. A flow of one state of the universe to the next. Even if we were not aware of these changes( giving us past, present, and future ) they would still change from one to the next. If it didnt then everything would remain static and in effect not exist. Do you see? Change implies time right away. Quite a tricky issue really hey. It is kind of like the saying "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make any noise?"



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Hmm...well, I have read that there are physicists working on kinematics equations that don't involve time, the problem is that they're incredibly complicated. I guess the only analogy I could use is geocentricism vs heliocentricism...geocentricism works mathematically, infact, in some areas the concept is still used. However, heliocentricism more simply describes the universe we live in, mathematically.

So, I guess I can say that the concept of time makes things alot easier, conceptually and mathematically.

All I can say is, I read alot of posts here with hypothesis of certain things, but you can't really work on these things w/o mathematics. Experiments have been done to prove that time can slow down at higher velocities, so, I'd say you probably won't dethrone Einstein anytime soon.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Time is perplexing to say the least. I don't really quarrel with time so much as I quarrel with the concept of time as a dimension. From where I sit (which is by no means the best observation post for these matters) time does not seem to behave or be traversed in the same way as the other dimensions with which we are familiar. Physics aside (which I have no real understanding of) Time seems more like a relative observation of the speed with which things which we assume are constant happen. Make the constants variable and the need for time more or less disappears, no?
I probably am way off on this one, just asking the questions that most inquisitive laymen would probably ask.


Now for a friendly jab at those who "don't believe in time". What does your boss think of that?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I've never understood why people assume time has some kind of omniscience in and of itself.... Time is simply a measurement, no less real or fake than a foot is long. The only time it even becomes an issue is regarding theoretical time travel (the old kill my grandfather paradox bit, etc.). Personally, I doubt "time" gives a damn about paradox, and changing one thing in the past or future won't affect your return to present one bit....imho. Time has visual effect though...just take a look at your baby picture to see what I mean....



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
.
You feel the gravity pressure as you sit typing?

You are experiencing not just constant movement, but constant acceleration.
That would seem to require constant energy input.

You don't believe in time,
but does time believe in you?

Time is the way we sequence the events of the Universe as we see them.
If you slice space-time up in different ways you end up with a different order/sequence.

I think we have some general shared sequencing of time due to our inability to view [move through?] the Universe from any other perspective/vector.
.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
This has been explained before. Time exist. It is a tool for measuring.

Let me ask you something: Do you believe in a centimeter or a foot or mile?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Someone must remember the test they did on a Blackbird if i'm not mistaken or some other fast aircraft, they had 2 completely synched atomic clocks, one on a plane the other on the ground, the one on the plane saw the LEAST ellapsed time.

So what does this mean?

I do agree, time is not linear as we might think, but that is my theory.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
they had 2 completely synched atomic clocks, one on a plane the other on the ground, the one on the plane saw the LEAST ellapsed time.

So what does this mean?


Actually, althought we can infer that maybe the aircraft fell behind in time, the only thing it proves to an absolute certainty is that at extremely high speeds, physical processes slow down (assuming some contaminating factor wasn't overlooked).

As for the concept of time as a dimension, I'm not sure that paradoxes matter. dimensions are traversable. Theoretically, the entire universe is traveling forward in time. This is the main reason why I don't think time travel is possible. If you went back to kill your grandfather, he wouldn't be there- nor would anyone else.

Imagine that you are driving on a highway next to a car that is going the same speed as you. It gets really foggy and you can't see him anymore but you continue driving at the same speed in the same direction. Could you go back 100 miles to where you first saw him, and meet him there?

Neither can you go back and meet your grandfather, because he has been moving through time all along, and is in the present, just in another form now- probably in the worms that ate him or some such thing.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
.
According to the slicing a loaf of bread [loaf = space-time] school of thought you could slice it in U shaped slices and then you and your grandfather could coexist in the same slice.

The real trick then is getting sequential slices so you can coexist through an extended continuum of slices. If you did just nested 'U's you would be going opposite time directions in shared slices. Kinda hard to communicate much that way.

I wonder if a slice of space-time has to be a complete [to infinity] planar curve? Or could you have partial slices like using a line segment as opposed to a complete infinite line. If you could use partial slices it probably would not be too difficult to have all sorts of time sequence patch throughs.

Off the cuff: We experience time in the linear fashion we do because our structure in 4D spacetime is a long worm like shape. We are just flash frames of our continuous if limited selves in spacetime. [jeeze that sounds fatalistic] Of course since [in theory] you can slice spacetime up any way you choose, maybe it is possible to construct any sort of scenario you want.

entangled particles inter-react instantaneously over theoretically infinite distance.
Do they have some infinte structure that spans infinity?
Do they simply have no distance between them in some other spatial dimension? Would that imply some kind of Universe folding/warping?

I wonder what happens if you take one of a pair of entangled particles and accelerate it close to the speed of light, slowing its time passage? That wouldn't offset the instantaneous reaction linking through time would it?

If it didn't then their link would be superior to time & space-time. 5D+

If it did then it would show the particles as linked strictly though time [the time dimension]. If that were the case it could give you some kind of functional handle on time.
.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
While I admit that I am probably not as well read as you on this and haven't put nearly the thought into it that you have, I follow just enough to be keenly interested in what you're saying.

It seems to me that instant reaction in entanglement has interesting implications for cause and effect relationships, and does seem to imply a non-linear view of time.

Other aspects of this sort of went over my head, but it's interesting. Just wish I had the background to really appreciate and reason through it all.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I believe in time... that is to say, I believe in a linear sequence of events that is generally objective but can, in some situations, become subjective. As Albert Einstein demonstrated in his equations, 'time' slows down as one approaches the speed of light.

If time did not exist, this idea of time dilation would be impossible, but there it is.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
what you describe sound like paralell universes. An exact description of alterate universes from Michael Crighton...... and John Titor..... Perhaps time does exist?

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Kushi]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I don't necessarily think of time as a focus of parallel realities, but as a single reality with laws that can be bent under the right conditions and in a localized area.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
You don't believe in time?

You must not have a job, or you have a very lenient boss, or you are on the verge of being without a job!

What? You were expecting something high-browed from me? Seriously.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Perhaps I should reiterate...

I do not believe in a "past" or "future". Only a "present" that is constantly changing it's form. "Time" is something we've created in our minds to measure the universe's changes.

Think of it as though one were molding a pot out of clay (the clay being the universe). When you're finished with the pot, can you say, "Ok, let's go back to the clay before it was a pot" without destroying the pot, or by having creating exact duplicates, of each step the molding clay took, beforehand?

Does this make any sense?


[edit on 7-8-2005 by CloudlessKnight]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Then it's down to semantics, really; the whole thing depends on your definition of time.

Remember, if it walks like a fish and it barks like a fish, then it's a fish.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
.
I wonder if the thickness of the slices of the loaf/Universe affects the speed [perception?] of time?
Maybe thick slices make time go faster and thin slices make time go objectively slower. Anyone still remember early films where the originating photo frame rate was so slow that the created movie was in high speed?

The Universe is defined by a factory auto-slice machine.
Sandwich anyone?

If the slicing is merely subjective [like a strobe light] then a single Time-space Universe could be lit readily in any number of ways creating, in theory, an infinite number of different 'Universe' experiences. I would guess altering the actual physics [beyond a few simple constant changes] might be easier to construct a different space-time.

Time - a sequence of space-matter configurations
Energy - the ways [linkages between] these various configurations.

Consistent/definable energy patterns indicate that there is a parallel-to-time structure between strobe lit configurations [4D structure/shape/form].

Maybe Energy itself can be seen as a description of 4th Dimensional structure.

[been reading some Brian Greene, 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' (Elegant Universe), my cliff notes]
.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudlessKnight
I do not believe in a "past" or "future". Only a "present" that is constantly changing it's form. "Time" is something we've created in our minds to measure the universe's changes.

Does this make any sense? :


Time is how we measure change. Change happens all the time and so time exists. Changes that have happened are past, and changes that will happen are future.

Maybe you don't believe in time travel? I don't understand how you don't believe in a past or future.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join