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.
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by libertytoall
Time is not a force. You need to brush up on your physics.
Originally posted by libertytoall
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by libertytoall
Time is not a force. You need to brush up on your physics.
There has to be two dimensions of time. You need to brush up on understanding reality. One bound to space and can be physically calculated, and one that is infinite, measuring past present and future from every point of existence.edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by libertytoall
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by libertytoall
Time is not a force. You need to brush up on your physics.
There has to be two dimensions of time. You need to brush up on understanding reality. One bound to space and can be physically calculated, and one that is infinite, measuring past present and future from every point of existence.edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)
Time is not a force. Present some evidence that shows time being a force. Describing a force doesn't make any sense.edit on 10-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)
If a basketball is not a type of power drill, what would you call it?
Originally posted by libertytoall
time flows in one direction. If that's not a force then what would you call it?
Time alone doesn't do any of that.
In physics, a force is any influence that causes a object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.
Nothing about any force in that definition.
Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If a basketball is not a type of power drill, what would you call it?
Originally posted by libertytoall
time flows in one direction. If that's not a force then what would you call it?
I'd call it a basketball. By inference you should be able to guess what I'd call time.
What you need to do is look up the definitions of force and time and see there's no match. But since you apparently lack the resources to do so, I did it:
en.wikipedia.org...
Time alone doesn't do any of that.
In physics, a force is any influence that causes a object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.
en.wikipedia.org...
Nothing about any force in that definition.
Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
Originally posted by KINGKONG
Well not claiming to be making some new theory or anything, just kinda got to thinking about it....But say nothing can travel faster then the speed of light....as velocity increases so does mass right?
The Hadron collider propells protons to 99.99% the speed of light....Well what would happen if the collider itself could rotate....so the protons inside the collider went 99.99% of the speed of light and the entire collider itself rotate at say 0.02% the speed of light....Would the protons inside the collider be traveling faster then the speed of light relative to us?
And at that rate I dont see how the rotation of the collider would even have an effect on the protons inside...bypassing the whole "as velocity increase so does mass" Law.
I mean say the collider was built in space and rotated in orbit like the space station from 2001...LOL...Seems it could be possible in theory at least????
There are plenty of things scientists don't understand and maybe a few more things that wiki gets wrong.
Originally posted by libertytoall
I guess wiki has all the supreme knowledge already and we should never learn another thing for wiki is GOD
Where did you gather that?
Honestly, don't preach what you don't understand. What I gather is our universe is moving at near the speed of light and this is why we have two dimensions of time, one which is bound to space, and one which is bound to our velocity.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There are plenty of things scientists don't understand and maybe a few more things that wiki gets wrong.
Originally posted by libertytoall
I guess wiki has all the supreme knowledge already and we should never learn another thing for wiki is GOD
But you're talking about definitions of words used in physics. Wikipedia tends to get those pretty much right, in the field of physics.
Honestly, don't preach what you don't understand. What I gather is our universe is moving at near the speed of light and this is why we have two dimensions of time, one which is bound to space, and one which is bound to our velocity.
Where did you gather that?
You would be well advised to follow your own advice regarding talking about things you don't understand. Where did you hear the universe is moving at the speed of light?
I watched the video of the brilliant PhD from Harvard and you're wrong about that video, the first 55 of the 60 minutes of his presentation is very mainstream, and most if not all of it is covered in wiki. The only part that may not be in wiki is the last 5 minutes from around 55-60 minutes, which doesn't support anything you say because even Dr Carroll admits it's highly speculative and completely unproven. I have no problem with proposing it, but you certainly can't claim there's any validity to it since he doesn't even make that claim, he just says it's an idea that may be a possibility and he'd like to come back in a few years to share more research to see if it's ever confirmed, but he's not even sure it can be tested.
Originally posted by libertytoall
If you have time this video will support what I'm discussing. The speaker attributes the arrow of time in the end to entropy. 2 dimensions of time exist and wiki is not going to teach you this..
Did you watch the video you asked me to watch? He shows an example of entropy. It's a glass with some coffee in the bottom and about an inch of milk at the top in a separate layer. Gradually, over a period of time (maybe half an hour to an hour?), the milk and the coffee mix together, and the glass is seen as a uniform cream-colored coffee rather than 2 separate layers. In that example, it's obviously not happening at the speed of light.
Originally posted by libertytoall
Do you think entropy could be happening at the speed of light?
I'm not seeing how you are getting a velocity 13 billion times greater than c.
Originally posted by libertytoall
If we do something in the present, and we are moving at a velocity 13 billion times greater then c,