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.


I do not believe in time...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 07:38 AM

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.

CloudlessKnight you are correct-time is not linear and if it were than Jupiter would orbit the sun at the same rate and speed as Earth. It takes 12 Jupiter years to equal one Earth year relating to the law of physics. Quantum physics is another matter.

I agree that time is not a reality as we have been led to believe or else Methusaleh wouldn't have achieved almost a thousand year lifespan. Why in the Old Testament did people lifespan exceed ours by several centuries and we only live a fraction of that?

We have been led to believe that once we achieve a certain age that we have to start aging and slowing down. Nonsense. I once saw a girl in her 20's with wrinkles and it was down to her sun-bathing, drinking excessively and smoking excessively and having a poor diet.

I am 42 and have been told that I look half my age and my husband is 52 and many people think he is in his 30's.

One people accept a certain reality they maintain it to the point that they believe it. My dad is almost 70 and can still do the same level of work as men half his age.

My mother is in her 60's and is in active employment and intends to continue working until she feels she can no longer work.

My family are genetically predispositioned to a long life, but it is also keeping thier minds and bodies active and not believing a certain mind-set.

My disability is not related to age but environment and genetic factors. A chemical incident triggered a recessive gene and made it active. Once science can learn how to replicate nerve cells and nerve endings my condition will be eradicated.

Age is simply a physical condition not a reality that can be treated. Stress, and other factors increase the persons biological breakdown.

I knew a girl at 10 riddled with arthritis (again not an age related condition). If we believe all the statistics about age-related conditions we accept them as fact and when they occur we assume we are growing old.

Mentally, I feel and act like people half my age, because I don't accept aging as a reality, only a concept created by man/woman to fool us.

Besides when a person travels at light speed they do not age because they are outside the pull of planetary gravity. I know this sounds like a conumdrum, but what is age really? It isn't wrinkles and arthritis and grey hair and such like. It is a marker to help you locate where you are in relation to the Earth's orbit around the sun and it's gravitational pull.

Our cells and atoms are like small planets and galaxies which make us up to the lifeform that we are. In reality our bodies are just vessels to move about the planet in and it is the maintenance of these vehicles mentally, physically, spiritually that determines thier lifespan.

There are cars that are still running that were built in the 1930's and look as if brand new. So physical age and time is in fact not a reality just a concept that has been created to limit us until we find our true potential.

love, light and peace

another note: when we die-we revert into concious energy and are connected to everyone and everything within the universe. I know as I was deemed clinically dead in April '99. My husband had been told to make the necessary arrangements. I am here to tell you that we are limited by the boxes that we set for ourselves and each other.

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:32 PM

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.

Time is pretty much a concept. For instance, my aunt died one year ago. At one point she was alive, and at another point after that, she was not alive. It's a wierd concept that we all understand, and yet, I haven't heard anyone really define it.

However, it is used in mathematics to help explain stuff. For example, falling bodies. You can determine how far something has fallen off a cliff depending on how much of this "time" stuff has "gone by:

xf = xo + vo*t + (1/2)*a*t^2

So, in essence, time exists to help us explain sequences. We have divided it systematically by how far the earth has orbited around the sun, and then further divided it by how far it has spun on its axis down to units we call "seconds."

I guess the best thing to call it is a conceptual tool that helps us explain sequencial events described by the degree of the motion of the earth's solar orbit and axial rotation.

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:56 PM
I'm just still wondering if there's an explanation for my time dilemma a few posts back. Especially the one about a process of accumulation. How else can you measure different stages of the process.

Also, I'm not sure how an undriven car proves time is a concept in the post before last. To me it just describes a relativity, but the car isn't even alive. A child conceived IN the car does age accordingly. You can shrink wrap a car if you want but not a body or a living plant. That's just not a great example.

Processess take time or "time" or whatever you want to call it. If there wasn't any such incremental linear occurrance, we'd just get anywhere we wanted to instantly right?

I'll bet I can pick my nose before a reply is posted as well.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:41 AM
If twin babies were born in that car, and one of them went to the event horizon of a black hole, while the other stayed here, they would both be different ages when they reunited. It is theoretically possible that the space travelling twin might return to find that his twin had died long ago, and he would meet the twins great grandchildren instead. Meanwhile he might still be a teenager.
My own reason for seeing time as non-linear is due to events in my life that linear time can not explain. In an effort to find a definition of time that would allow for these things to have happened, (since they had already happened), I had to revise my view of time. It was something I felt necessary to do, because the conflicting information was bothering me.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:01 PM
speed = distance/time right ? 55 miles per hour for example. so if time does not exist, then speed does not exist right ?

step one : make a fist
step two : punch yourself in the nose at a speed of 12 inches per second

if you don't feel anything, time does not exist

if you do, time does exist

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:22 PM
Any hypothetical space-travel black-hole speed-of-light kind of stuff is theoretical until someone does it.

Here on this cage called spaceship Earth, time is a very real component of life.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:46 PM
the past is something to be remembered

the present is something to be lived

the future is something to be hoped

these three ideas are fundamental but so constricting, ide like to think we are all capable of 'remembering' the future just as we are capable of living the past in our own brains. we were always told we couldnt therefor we never even considered how.

the brain knows no difference between reality and memory. its all the same neurons firing off.

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:53 PM
I think time is a physical mechanism we can measure but not control...yet.
It exsists just like heat or light...unless of course you want to get all theoretical and say nothing exsists just our perceptions of things, but then if nothing exsists why bother talking about it. Makes me think the only reason we are here is to disagree with each other and make vibrations from our vocal chords that some how spell out abosult truth. But then I dont beleive in absolut truth either. so i guess its all a conundrum (spelling?)

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:20 AM
There's a fairly prominent physicist with a theory time does not exist. It may though that when all is said and done, space may not really exist either.

But the guy talking about time not existing (forgot his name but he was in the press), basically believes something like all possible states exist or preexist, and that our choices lead us into one scenario or another. His ideas are taken seriously.

My idea is time and space are derivative aspects not real at all points within the universe and that this is demonstrated by General Relativity theory. According to GR, if you measure the universe from the photon's perspective, there is no time. Time equals zero.

Additionally, if you measure space from the photon's perspective, due to length contraction, space does not appear either.

So time and space are only "real" from certain perspectives within the universe and not absolute qualities within the universe and "physical reality" or the natural and material world.

quite an idea, but the science is pretty straight on that even if people don't want to draw the same conclusions.

What is fundamental to reality, of which space and time are derived functions of, is information, and we see that in quantum mechanics as well, imo. Information and perspective is the fundamental state of existence of all things, and from that stems what we normally think of as physical existence.

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:26 AM
"My own reason for seeing time as non-linear is due to events in my life that linear time can not explain."

It's been interesting for me to find out that some ideas in more modern science, experimental data and theology as well can help understand how such experiences can occur.
Actually, the Lord helped me see it from His perspective first, but in the last couple of years I've noticed more parallels in scientific, experimental data.

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:49 PM
an electron moving forward in time is the same as an anti-electron (positron) moving backward in time

posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by CloudlessKnight

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...[edit on 6-8-2005 by CloudlessKnight]

There is no proof of this, and there is NO law stating that energy must be created IN ANY SENSE. Energy is not created or destoryed EVER, only transfered.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by Aether]

posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:35 AM
Time is a constraint imposed upon man by man. It is a mechanism of control, nothing more or less...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in