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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Time does not yet have a definate definition. For different people, time is a different thing.




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Time seems to be a by-product of us being stuck in a gravity well. It is thought that once we are outside of the influence of the Earth's gravitational field, time as we measure it could become more elastic. There is some interesting research being done on magnetic fields and how to harness and control them that may well open up some new areas of previously undiscovered information on the nature of time.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CloudlessKnight
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] [/quo

What is the difference in what you believe and what you refute????

In essence its the same, just another view with the same outcome.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
What I'm saying is that "time" is an idea, not a physical reality. There is no past, save what we remember. Basically, I'm saying that we can not travel to the past or future.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
This is not my field, but I really liked your post because Ive always thought of it the same way. Time is just speed, as far as Im concerned. In our everyday lives, its the speed the second hand crosses the clock. Our measurement of it can change, but never change the fact that "one thing happens after another". But like I said I dont really know what Im talking about here.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I believe time does exist, but it keeps going, you can't go back.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Marianne Williamson also said this, "God exists in eternity, and the only time that eternity and time meet is the present, therefore the present is the only time there is."
I had a very urgent need to revise my theory of time last year, so that precog. dreams could be explained. Linear time was not a good enough platform, and the concept that all of time exists now, instantaneously, past, future, eternity... only in this moment are they real. The past is a illusory concept that comforts us, and the future is a gift that we are reluctant to unwrap just yet.
At absolute zero, time is irrelevent, millenia and milliseconds are the same.
I think some people can manipulate time, slow it, speed it up, even stop it. Whether we can go back....I don't know, but if we can see the future, which we can, then going back should also be possible.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
umm, its 7:35 MST by my watch.


so tell me, if you dont belive in time, how is it you make it to work without being repremanded for being late in everyone elses time?



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gold32

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?"


I think that if you put a video camera in the woods and it had sound, you would hear the tree fall, and it would make noise. That's what I think.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
.
I think the analogy of the river of time has some validity.
The future is steam, the present is liquid the past is frozen ice.

The illusion is that the river of time is long. Actually it is only one instant in length. It is the shortest river that ever existed.
I also think the frozen past may only be a frozen film or surface it probably has no depth beyond the surface. The depth is probably an illusion like a mirror.

You could go out in space and gather the light and see it, but the depth of it would elude you. If you cut a hole in the surface of it i think it would be like a cardboard cutout, you would see different things depending on your viewing angle. You wouldn't find the comfortable solidity one likes to think your can rely on. There may be some depth there, but it will often be not what we expect.

the past is where disparate elements become linked together in an instant. The present is where those elements are being stitched together. Perhaps it is the process of stitching things together.
When we think of the future we think of some linked frozen surface, but that is the nature of the past. even the present is probably not a fixed or rigid thing.

The future is always mystic, scary and unknown and unknowable. In a word it is diffuse. I think the more you think of it that way the better you are at adapting to it as it becomes the present and is being stitched together.
Maybe you could even think of it as sort of areodynamic. Something you very delicately lean on and guide yourself by the feel of it more than what you see/visualize.

So the continuum of time is, i believe an illusion.
The process of time is something that with better comprehesion we can work with more agreeably.
.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CloudlessKnight
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...)


[edit on 6-8-2005 by CloudlessKnight]


I know you are just postulating, but Newton's laws have nothing to do with creating energy, they are laws of motion.

You are probably thinking of the first law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of conservation of energy (energy can not be created or destroyed)

The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy.

You have to get to Einstein and later before you get real heavy thinking on time and space including some out there theories such as string theory.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I too do not believe in time. If you'd like to see my proof, simply refer to my post from next Tuesday. I linked to it in my post from yesterday.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Can time simply be distance ? Ok i'm not sure about this, so please correct m if i'm wrong. But Gravity can shrink distance isn't it ? Gravity also shrinks time ? So can time and distance be the same thing ?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Reality differs relative to one's perspective. The time that a light flashed on and off once, as measured by two witnesses observing from very different distances would be different, yet it only flashed once. Of course, this is due to the speed that light travels at. But, regardless of whether they can agree on an exact time by calculating how long the light took to reach them, the experience itself was different due to the connection between time and distance.
I feel that we each live in a reality that is individual and unique to ourselves, since no one can occupy the same space at the same time as anyone else. Even if they are hugging, they are not experiencing each others perspective, and never will. My feeling is that this makes it impossible for me to definitively say that someone else's claim of what they experience could not have really happened. In my life, scientifically inexplicable events, though not common, have nevertheless been a life long reality, so I do not doubt the reality of someone's unbelievable tale solely on the basis that it never happened to me. I haven't seen a ghost, been spoken to by an angel, or levitated, but I know very reliable, sane people who say they have, and I totally believe them. The scoffs that I have been subjected to all my life by the skeptical, suspicious, self-assured doubters, who probably make up about 99% of those who I tell one of my experiences to, are unpleasant to me. Others may be insulted, or hurt by the allegations that they are delusional or liars, and I don't care who you are, you cannot be 100% certain you are right and they didn't really go through what they swear they did. Even if that experience is as fantastical as being able to talk to the dead, or predict the future. I am convinced that although I cannot do these things, some can. And if that makes me appear naive or gullible, so be it. Like I said earlier, nobody can guarantee for sure, without question, that I am wrong. That is impossible, imho.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
yeah im pretty clueless on time meself. i never could accept the theory of time being 0 before the big bang.
wouldn't it take time to spin up enough matter into mass to cause an explosion of that magnitude? i mean damn the universe alone was living place working hard like a vortex to spin matter into density

knowone knows were time started, or when it started, except ONE.

oh' and i forgot a wise African drummer once said,
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow's a mystery, but today is a gift. That's why we call it the present" - Babatunde Olantunji

[edit on 16-8-2005 by arawak420]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The thing is as I see it, you dont believe in something that dosn't exist as such. You see time is just an abstact measurement used to describe a 4th dimentional distance needed to understand a 3 dimentional universe. Becase it is abstract no energy is needed to create it or store it[ie. the past] This also makes time travel impossible as there is nothing to travel in.this is my view anyway. Al



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Wait untill your teeth and hair start falling out........You'll believe!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
But some of my grandparents never lost their hair or their teeth, and passed on with a full head of hair and set of chompers. So maybe that is one reason that I cannot accept the linear time concept. Well, that and the phenomena of some folks getting glimpses of things that haven't happened yet. If they see stuff that occurs much later, then my conclusion is that it doesn't really occur later. All time, past and present, exists at once. Now. No other time is real. It is all part of that persistent illusion Einstein described, which most of us call reality. It is hard to explain precognition without drastically altering ones concept of time. But for those whose experiences include precognition, and they feel a need to find an acceptable model to explain it, it is necessary.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
You're 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.


That's the same effect we get when we have a movie where someone "stops time". Events or the transfer of energy ceases. Is time simply the transfer of energy? I don't suppose it's that simple, but you have to admit that time would be meaningless without energy transfer.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I don't think "time" is absolute, it can be relative, etc. etc.

But if time doesn't exist, then how do we explain aging?

My I agree that a newborn's skin is different from my 95 year old grandmother's and that the difference results from, among other things, the constant effects of oxygen.

A peeled apple turns brown but not "instantly". So forget time and just measure the chemical reaction. In each subsequent measurement, the amount of change that takes place on the apple's surface increases and accumulates. This is the first example that prevents me from getting completely philosophical about "time".

If not for a measurement of "time" as a requirement for one state to progress to the next, then what else?

A second example that I run into is:

If I walk somewhere, I start at a place and end at a place. I don't go from A to B instantly and I also didn't imagine putting one foot in front of the other. The physical action is "real".

What I get from this example is that each action requires a unique process and because one part of the action follows another, i. e. left foot/right foot/repeat, some measurable quantity is used up: "time".

Some people walk faster than others only because they perform the required processes in a different type of sequence. "Faster" or "slower". Slower left foot/right foot/repeat requires more "time" for each action.

And so I believe "time" exists and will do so until such things as oxidation and sensory perception (required to observe oxidation) is proven to be a massive hallucination.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join