Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Time does NOT exist

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I wish I could find the time to watch this video it sounds very interesting. Doesn't seem like I can ever find enough time in the day to do all the things I would like to. I try to make more time.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I should probably add another idea in here that I buy into a bit more than the OP I posted. This one comes from Roger Penrose's theory called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC).

Special Relativity basically says (via the Lorentz Equations) that a photon does not sense the passage of time. It sees zero time between any two events. Likewise, it sees zero space between any two events. In a sense, it is everywhere before it ever left. In the photon's reference frame, time doesn't exist. (To be more complete, this is true for any massless particle, which must travel at the speed of light)

This is where CCC comes in. As the Universe expands, matter will radiate away. In a very distant future, all that will be left is radiation, or photons. (Ignoring some current technical difficulties of the theory on this part) With only photons around, there is nothing that can "keep track" of time and, without that ability, there is nothing that can gauge distance. The infinite becomes the infintesimal and you get another Big Bang. The current Universe comes to an end. A new Cycle begins.

The point here is that space and time CANNOT exist without matter. Likewise, matter cannot exist without space and time. You cannot have an empty Universe according to this theory and somehow space, time and matter are strongly interdependent upon one another.

This is also evident in General Relativity where matter/energy "curves" spacetime, which is the effect we call gravity.

But, in CCC, it seems even stronger, in that without matter there can be NO time (or space)

Time is just the stage on which matter plays out its fate, and is perhaps nothing in and of itself.

Conformal Cyclical Cosmology

Roger Penrose

edit on 27-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 


Well then I have another one for you.



Ethan



The point here is that space and time CANNOT exist without matter. Likewise, matter cannot exist without space and time. You cannot have an empty Universe according to this theory and somehow, space, time and matter are strongly interdependent upon one another.


I can only think to add consciousness. Good thread.
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
I can only think to add consciousness. Good thread.


Thanks, and I agree! I suspect consciousness might just be more fundamental than the other things mentioned in this thread


edit on 27-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

Originally posted by badw0lf
If time doesn't exist, prove to me where it doesn't exist then!

Bet you can't.



if you are not ready to hear that time does not exist, then you are not ready.

proof is not needed when you realise this truth.


Are you Christian by any chance?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Problem with that line of thought is that it counts for everything, not just time. Clouds do not exists. Just our interpretation of a perception of clouds exist. Result of this line of thought is that nothing exists, just perception. It has nothing specific to do with time.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


Last I heard matter does exist and particles can be tracked on a timeline . Just because the particles don't know that time exists doesn't mean it doesn't. This is a completty bogus subject matter. Time does exist and unfortunately i just wasted a bunch of it reading this garbage.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by akushla99
 


Problem with that line of thought is that it counts for everything, not just time. Clouds do not exists. Just our interpretation of a perception of clouds exist. Result of this line of thought is that nothing exists, just perception. It has nothing specific to do with time.


This might be true to some extent. For example, we perceive the colour red. Where does red exist other than in our perception? Red is just a certain frequency/energy of an electromagnetic wave. Our brain (and consciousness?) creates the experience around this thing we call "red" and for one person that perception may be an entirely different experience than another. And, for any given person, typically the red of a rose gives a different feeling than the red of blood, etc.

Does the same thing go for time? I'm not so sure .. things seem more complicated with time. For one, it would seem most of the perceptions we are talking about in this thread require time to perceive them. Does this make time more fundamental? *shrugs*



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I'm sure most people here are aware of the experiments which show that time slows down (for a certain object) the faster an object travels, aka time dilation

time-dilation-einstein-relativity

So we can measure it, and also measure the changes that were predicted, it must exist, right?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Oh, so bitch at us, for something that you have only yourself to blame.

Shall I make your next reading selection for you ?
Perhaps Hustler ?
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


canselmi



So we can measure it, and also measure the changes that were predicted, it must exist, right?


That's what I'm say'in too.
edit on 27-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I think what he says in the video makes sense. He's essentially saying everything is a snapshot or a now. Look at your room.

A book is siting on the table, the remote is on the bed and the radio is plugged up into the socket. These are probable nows. Let's say you grab the remote and turn on the TV. This probable now has becomes a measured now and we percieve this snapshot or different reference point in space as time.

So he's saying time is relative to the observer. So you would experience time on another planet differently, not because time is flowing but because your reference point in space has changed.

So does gravity change time or does gravity just change your perception of objects in space?

I think we get an arrow of time because of entropy. Since the universes began in a low entropy state then every point in space would be an ordered state. So the universe will always flow in one direction from order to chaos. The human mind puts all this together and paints a synchronized picture which we call "reality."

I was watching Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman and David Eagleman a professor of neuroscience said the brain synchronizes events so you may hear and see your finger snap at different times but we put this together as one simultaneus event in our minds.

So if you subscribe to Zeno and Parmenides then this might be true. I don't know if I accept it but it is thought provoking.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Time is an illusion...its been said over and over again.

Its an illusion of "something" that is created by the observation or measurement of energy, ie: movement of mass through points in space.

The speed/velocity at which energy/movement of mass travels through points in space creates the observation of what we call "time" which is nothing more than a mere instrument of measurement for mostly practical purposes.

Depending on the point of observation and the speed at which "you" or the "observer" are traveling in relation to the "observed object" the experience of time will be stretched or shortened appropriately.

Human aging is the sum of molecular and cellular MOVEMENTS through points in space, because humans all have the same "observation point" ie: EARTH we age similarly under ideal conditions, however if the observation point is changed the way time is experienced is changed.

This is why it is said Astronauts age differently than people on earth. The speed at which you are traveling determines how you experience or measure the illusion known as time...

I personally hypothesize that energy (movement of mass through space) is experienced differently (time) depending on the relation in speed it has with its point of origin which would be galactic center. The farther out from the center of the galaxy mass gets the FASTER time is experienced in relation to its origin. The closer to the galactic center the SLOWER times is experienced in relation to its origin.

It’s very difficult to explain in mere words it needs a lot of illustration.


edit on 27-6-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-6-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
It is what he says it is... a mathematical concept. There are many math concepts that work and are true in the world of math but do not comply with reality.....untill proven wrong.

Infinity is such a thing....for example...if you devide a not infinite number by a infinite smal number, the outcome will become infinite big. Calculations with speeds in this manner can result in a speed faster than the speed of light. Is this real....or debatable?
edit on 27-6-2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 





This is why it is said Astronauts age differently than people on earth. The speed at which you are traveling determines how you experience or measure the illusion known as time...


Well yeah, because in earth orbit, even low earth orbit, they are travelling incredibly fast. compared to us, they are travelling faster towards the speed of light than we are, so time slows down for them while going on blissfully unaware for us.

it's only micoseconds, but it indeed has been tested.

Time is more than a term we use to describe things. Time does indeed exist as events happen in sequence, if there were no passage of time, all things would be at once, and our current reality does not function in this method. Granted, time could merely be an illusion for us as we are inside a larger system, but the model for time fits perfectly with our reality, and can be measured and repeated. Einstein postulated that time and space are linked, and that gravity is actually a bend in space/time, as an object travels faster towards the speed of light it's mass increases, thus it would have a larger impact on the space around it, and therefore time.

The real question is, what mechanics actually make time work? What mechanism actually allows this to take place, if at all?

We still haven't found the "gravitron" (no, not the amusement park ride) the particle that makes gravity work. Most people have heard about the LHC and it's search for the higgs boson, but the gravitron, or whatever the decide to call it, is also being hunted.

The fact that I can type this, click "reply" and see it posted proves there is something going on allowing events to happen in a linear fashion. If time didn't exist, this reply would have been posted at the exact same instant as the thread.

What we consider "time" as in clocks is merely an artificial construct. This doesn't change the fact that the earth orbits the sun, the moon orbits the earth, and these events are recordable, and reproducible.

Time might be an illusion, but I can use "time" to tell me when the sun should rise, and low and behold, it did.

Instead of arguing back and forth that it doesn't exist, we should start investigating HOW it works, not if it works.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


We also need space in order to perceive anything, so I do not think time is more fundamental. Time is nothing more than a label we put on a phenomena we experience. We base our judgment whether something exists or not on our perception. That basically means that existence is function of our perception. Or in other words, when we perceive something, we say that it exists. Existence is the label we put on things we perceive.

This all quickly becomes a semantic "game", where definitions of words become very important. What is existence? What is perception? I don't think the question whether "time exists" is the right question to ask in such a situation, as it is misleading. As if time is outside the realm of our perception and space isn't.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
If time didn't exist, this thread wouldn't exist...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


Haha it's funny I said time doesn't exist the way everyone thinks of it and got flamed for it.. Well look who's laughing now



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I think what he says in the video makes sense. He's essentially saying everything is a snapshot or a now. Look at your room.


The future is now..... is now..... is now..... is now..... is now..... is now..... is now..... is now.....

Maybe we invented time and asigned it as a base in an effort to make sense of our existance. Removing time from our existance and what are you left with? Without time our existance, as we perceive it now, would fall apart. Maybe its a part of our evolutionary process. We know people and animals have adapted to their environment from way back then up until now.

Universe is created / born / what have you with everything present (elements / building blocks of life) in one form or another.

Thinking about this more and more, it seems time is a truely human creation. Something out of nothing.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
A physicists spouting words of philosophy. quantum physics and philosophy are VERY closeley intertwined in one way or another. How can we prove that an imaginary force doesn't exist?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 


i don't think i would be classified as one.no.





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join