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 Irrelevance of Time and Space

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:02 PM
Recently I read a thread about a new substance that is being produced that has immense strength and the thickness of an atom. The thread and the information on the link bring up a lot of interesting quetsions, like 'would you see the substance if it were stretched out in front of you? - Or could you wrap it around you like a shirt and have a potentially bullet proof armor or shark-bite protection?'

I thought about this for a while and it brought up more questions that escape the bounds of just the material. Many of the questions have been asked over time, but I am not sure if I have ever found the answers or seen the questions attempted to be answered.

I am going to ask a few of th questions and see what you all think about them.

Is size in space relevant at all? We know that some stars are so massive that Earth is nothing more than a grain of sand when compared to them. We know that a grain of sand is tiny when compared to the size of a city. We know that an atom is tiny when compared to almost anything else.

Is it possible that our universe exists inside of a single or atom or something even smaller?

What could be smaller than an atom? Could nanomachinery produce an artificial atom a fraction of the size of a natural atom? Possibly sometime in the future.

Could non-tech eventually be smart enough to build other nano-machines a fractio nof their size that in-turn build machines even smaller, eventually builing a machine so small that when it produces an artificial atom it would be virtually or realistically undetectable?

These are some puzzling questions. Another question I have thought about is if this has already been done? Does our universe exist in a space that is, in the grand scheme of things, truly massive or does it occupy a tiny fraction of what is really out there?

Wierd to think that everything we know in the univers may be no larger than a fraction of an atom, when viewed by an outside source. In-turn the outside viewer and their universe may also be tiny.

To the time questions.

Could universes be created, run their course, and be wiped out of existence in the blink of an eye? Are the billions of years that the universe is thought to have aged be just a blink to an outside observer and in-turn the same for them and their universe?

If this is the case maybe the circle never ends, and if it does is the sheer size of the cycle too much for us to ever overcome in the search for the answers?

Sorry for so many questions, but I know the membersand lurkers here have extremet knowledge when your thoughts are pooled. I hope that you all will take to task at least one of these questions and help me find some logical answers to them.

Thanks in advance.

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by esteay812
Recently I read a thread about a new substance that is being produced that has immense strength and the thickness of an atom. The thread and the information on the link bring up a lot of interesting quetsions, like 'would you see the substance if it were stretched out in front of you? - Or could you wrap it around you like a shirt and have a potentially bullet proof armor or shark-bite protection?'

That could actually be very misleading statement to non-engineers. I've read this article too. They are stating 'strength pound per pound'. At atom-thin, this material would be no stronger than maybe, tissue paper. Only when you scale it up to practical thickness, probably, millions of atoms thick, where you can begin to realize its immense strength compared to other materials.

...That we are living in an atom, etc, that has come to mind. I think someone around here had already arrived at a similar theory some time ago.

It's called fractals - or 'indefinite repeating patterns at progressive smaller or larger scales!' - the pattern of nature

[edit on 12-7-2009 by ahnggk]

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:35 PM
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. Appearance of the Universe.

This is a thought I had a while ago.
I wrote it down and will share it with you.

"The innumerable Universes of “All “are connected by mere Fractals.

Within each universe there are other Universes
As in fractals within fractals, no matter how minuscule

Periodically a fractal segment of “All“,
splinters off from where it was.
Mayhap caused from a rupture or a shatter by
another fractal moving on it’s trajectory.
It may be on a path that is undetermined , indefinable
or undiscovered. That shard may not be well, so to speak,
or its function is out of kilter.
It may bring another fragment or more, along with it, or more.
It will, without exception , connect with an impossible
number of fractals and universes.

Thus creating new and different Universes."

[edit on 12-7-2009 by azureskys]

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:58 AM
reply to post by esteay812

Good questions, I have a few comments for you:

We know that an atom is tiny when compared to almost anything else.

We also know that the atom is quite large compared to other things like elementary particles (bosons, mesons, gluons, quarks, etc) and especially strings, which are vanishingly small. In fact it is now becoming quite apparent that atoms are not a spherical nor solid state at all, and quite possible neither is anything that makes them up (protons and neutrons included, we already know electrons are nothing but energy packets). For a while it has been agreed that in reality all none lepton particles (protons, neutrons and all other hadrons) are point-like, but like I said, now we think they are actually also energy packets caused by the rapid vibrations of strings.

Is it possible that our universe exists inside of a single or atom or something even smaller?

GOOD QUESTION, it is quite possible, especially according to some of the current hyperspatial multiverse theories which state our universe is a microscopic sized 'bubble' of infinite internal size but micro or quantum external size. It is all relative and according to our frame of reference (not really trying to use this in accordance with relativity here, so do not think so) on a spatial(ie;3 dimensional scale) scale, especially when looked at in comparison to a hyperspatial realm (ie;11 dimensional hyperspace or 'bulk'). Something to contemplate: What if all of our reality in 'real space' (ie; our 3d observed space or reality) is dictated by massive, macro and universe sized world volume strings oscillating on a certain frequency, which in turn are made up of smaller strings which make up the detailed matter and energy we perceive. So in essence we have both the very large and very small that make up our reality, when in 'true reality' our entire universe and others are microscopic 'planets' (ie' bubble-type universe) 'floating' around in a hyperdimensional space?

Something interesting on time from my opinion....

I think 'time' is nothing more than the movement of particles on a fundamental level (ie;string vibrations), so time=movement and movement=time. When movement stops 'time' stops. If movement is increased enough then time is accelerated and vice versa. Also, for anyone who knows some more detailed theoretical physics and cosmology the world volume brane would be in a 'zero state' of no movement as the 'tremors' from creation would be absorbed in the macro strings. Of course I am actually using two theories here as possible creation postulates , one being a flat universe M-Theory and the other being a spherical Universe version, which would not apply to the 'clashing brane' universal creation theory and would be attributed to bubble nucleation of fractal expansion of hyperspace.

In closing, this is obviously all dependent on one of the string theories being right (which I think one of them is with some modification) and is all my opinion and should NOT be taken as fact by any means.

[edit on 7/13/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 7/13/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Thanks for all the posts everyone, this is definitely a mind twister.

Jkrog, you would make a good teacher with your delivery of very complex information in a way that is understandable - or understandalbe enough to research and know what you are looking for...Thanks.

I have another thought I would like to ask of you and the other members and lurkers.

Speed is obviously a measurement that is tracked using distance and time. If you take out the distance aspect you are left with only time.

When this is done the equation is incomplete and the time element becomes a even more curious. Thinking of the speed of time and the way you find yourself in the current moment and how the moments continue to build and pass, it seems like this type of speed is incredibly fast.

I don't know if I am making sense, but I am trying. I have the thought in my head but it isn't coming out quite right.

It simply seems like the speed in which our life occurs is extremely fast and every other calculation of speed (Like the speed of light) is a secondary speed. Like our present state is extremely fast from one moment to the next and dictates the speed of all other calculations - even time itself.

I hope you all can understand what I am trying to say, if not ask and I'll try to clarify a bit more - if I can.

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by esteay812

Thanks for your kind words my friend.

If I understand you correctly you are trying to say that it seems the passage of time is instantaneous compared to speed? I am not sure if I understand what you are saying so let me know if I am right and I will gladly give you my opinion on the matter.

[edit on 7/13/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Like the moment you find yourself in now, it is gone instantaneously and you are in the next moment and it continues. On a small scale it seems to be faster than anything I have ever heard of, it just doesn't travel any distance - it only passes. We judge that through speed, but actually it is a constant and can it be judged by a mathematical equation or are all speed based equations taking place inside the parameters at which these moments pass.

Time says that it has been 20 years since I was 10y.o., but my mind says it was just a moment ago. My perception allows me to see things in the present, but it passes at least at the speed of light. You turn a light on and the light enters your eye. You are able to see this light as long as it is on, but you are not just seeing the first part of the light you are seeing the flow of light from the bulb. You are witnessing this at the speed of light.

The speed at which we travel consciously seems to be fast as heck in it's own right and the speed of other objects outside out present consciousness are measured seperately and accordingly to our perception of the present.

We will be 75y.o in a blink of an eye, but we can be at the corner store in 10 minutes.

This is kind of what I mean, but I am still having trouble putting exactly what I mean into words.

I'll write a draft or hypothesis of what I mean and try to convey it in a more literal and literary way.

Thanks for your quick response J.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by esteay812

Okay, well right now there are really no good or solid theories on "what is time", some think it does not even exist and is only a by product of human perception---Thus in the theory I presented in the post above I have taken both of these in to account, because really I feel that time must exist in some manner but it is obviously dependent on not only our actions but the actions of all things in reality. So my postulate is that time is direct effect of the 'movement' of all physical objects in our reality. It also is in order with causality so that works out well in that respect, meaning that the cause ALWAYS proceeds the effect, but yet it also works in quantum theory if we assume a supersymmetric reality[superstring theory for example] (this accounts for entanglement, while probability distribution and superposition(probability distribution is basically the quantum law that gives a probability of a particle being anywhere at any given time UNTIL directly observed, then it becomes a physical particle and ceases to be virtual in nature is irrelevant because it is virtual in nature.....Superposition is the quantum law that states multiple electrons must occupy the same the same space at once due to the probability distribution ).

Now in regards to the currently excepted model of the relationship of time and speed, well I think you know that---Time equals distance divided by rate, while speed equals distance divided by time. But to further commentate on your question let me say that everything that we perceive is nothing but light reflecting off of mass, so no light equals no seeing (literally),lol. It is hard to imagine a world with absolutely no light at all I know.. So everything we perceive is coming at us at the speed of light (roughly 186,000 mps) but we are so close to everything and the illumination is constant so it can seem instantaneous but I assure you it is not in all probability.

The mind can only process so much at once so a lot of times it does seem that everything is 'instantaneous' but in fact it is not, although it might be REALLY, REALLY quick. Time is also relative depending on your frame of reference according to Dr. Einstein, but for general purposes of all of us on this planet we all move at relatively the same speed so time is pretty constant, so in essence 70 years for you is 70 years for me, although certain events in our lives may make it SEEM to pass more slowly or faster than others 'feel it pass'. In actuality time is propagated at a constant rate throughout the Universe, it is only the individual frame of reference that can slow it down or speed it up for individuals in different reference frames, so while time is observed differently depending on your individual frame of reference it originally 'happens' at the same everywhere if we were to theoretically balance all frames of reference, which is arbitrary but let us just imagine for this purpose
. So in essence time is a constant but WE (ie; all physical, high gravity stars, rapid speeds of matter, etc) are the variable that 'bends it'.

In an example, right now satelittes in GSO (Geosynchronous Orbit) are traveling at around 17,500 mph so their clocks move differently than us here who are not moving at the same rate. I hope maybe that answered your question a little, sorry about kinda of going long winded but this is a very tricky subject and I still probably misworded some things,lol. As fa as 70 years going by in the 'blink of an eye', lol speak for yourself I know the last two years seems like two years,lol.....But it is all relative right?

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Thanks for your post and it did answer my question somewhat.

The post i wrote yesterday and the fact that I am viewing the thread now is what I am talking about.

When I wrote yesterday I knew the future was ahead of me, and time elapse can be calculated and said that a certain amount of time has passed from then to now. It really seems that I was just writing to you a moment ago. Almost like time isn't real, only the things we do constitute the basis of speed. We can't do multiple things because we only take up one space at one time, but the things we do all seems to happen at the same time. Like the speed at which we live is the fastest thing there is, because everything else that is judged by equations to calculate speed happen within the speed of life.

Again, I don't know if I am makeing sense.

Even the speed of light is slower than the speed at which we live, if it weren't we would be able to even perceive it or measure it.

Possibly, the things that we are oblivious to and maybe other dimensions that people speak about are all functioning at a speed faster than what we live with.

I am screwing my mind and I hope I am making a bit more sense, but if not I'll keep trying.

Thanks for your prior responses and your future responses as well... even though they seem like they might be happening at the same time.

When I first started this post it was now and it is still now and in a moment - which the speed is calculated through equations - it will still be now.


log in