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.

 

A strange question about time

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
For years now it has bothered me, and I know there's no definitive proof either way, but I thought I would pose the question to some of you smart people of ATS.

Here's my dilemna.

If only 'Now' exists, ie; The future hasn't happened yet so doesn't exist, the past has already gone so no longer exists - what about all the material things around us ?

Is everything we see, instantaneously broken down and rebuilt in real time ? perhaps a nano second before we come into that time of existence ?

And, if that's not the case then surely this means that there's an empty lifeless world of all material things, a. of us and behind us ?

ps.. for those of you who may say I must have just watched Langoliers, I have not seen it myself but I understand it's about some time eating critters that munch away the world we have all just left behind.

I dunno, perhaps there are time eating critters out there lol

All joking aside though, this is a serious question that perhaps you guys have some insight into ?




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Riakennor
 


All matter is moving around quicker than thought possible.Something strange has interfered to enable time to take effect and allow growth on a delusional manner.......now I lost my train of thought
....

SO



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riakennor

If only 'Now' exists, ie; The future hasn't happened yet so doesn't exist, the past has already gone so no longer exists -



There are, of course, a couple different rudimentary trains of thought on this. I think the most common allows for all points within the concept of 'Time' existing simultaneously; that is, for instance, that all points of your life occur, both those 'Presently' conceived as 'Past' (and what will happen as 'Future'). They simply all exist at the same 'Time.'

That suggestion I find both quite interesting and even feasible. It certainly allows for a great number of corollaries to be considered. I tend to visualize the concept as seeing the apparent linear trajectory of time, taking any one given point there, and turning the entire line in a perpendicular fashion to that point. By doing so, it allows me to visualize the perceived linear trajectory as a simultaneous 'Now' point as well as viewing other points as possible intersections through various multiverses.

Interesting thread. Thanks for posting.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Riakennor
 


The God 'Time' has memories of the past future and present.Sorry i cant got futhure into details,but this isnt reconized until the year 2712..i dont want to disrupt or disrespects 'Time Will'.

Hopefully one day you will have a dejavue, and realize that time, is time, and you are in time, and that time can be seen, from time it self, even if in the present when having dreams, in that time, can futhure your time expansion into time, as time, is time, and time will always be the....
'ALPHA AND THE OMEGA OF ANY GOD'.






edit on 7-3-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riakennor
If only 'Now' exists, ie; The future hasn't happened yet so doesn't exist, the past has already gone so no longer exists - what about all the material things around us ?



The simplest answer is that time doesn't exist. Or, to put it another way, time is simply a measurement of distance. It's why in physics you always here about space/time not space & time. They are inseparable. A quick search finds:


A REVALUATION of TIME (and VELOCITY)


I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.

In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.


Did that help?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer77
 


Thank you, that's an interesting concept, and the only reply that has made any sense so far...

edit.. sorry Rren. also very interesting. We must have posted at the same time hehe


edit on 7-3-2012 by Riakennor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I can't get my . around the concept of time not existing, nor the concept of the past present and future all coexisting simultaneously.

I will ponder my thoughts some more, surely there must be a rational explanation which is capable of comprehension.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riakennor
I can't get my . around the concept of time not existing, nor the concept of the past present and future all coexisting simultaneously.

I will ponder my thoughts some more, surely there must be a rational explanation which is capable of comprehension.


Time is considered to be the fourth dimension.Since us humans live in a lower dimension,we can conceive only a small part of the fourth dimension(the NOW).
But in reality there is no past,present and future,in the higher dimension they coexist as one.

I hope i didn't confuse you more.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom traveller

Originally posted by Riakennor
I can't get my . around the concept of time not existing, nor the concept of the past present and future all coexisting simultaneously.

I will ponder my thoughts some more, surely there must be a rational explanation which is capable of comprehension.


Time is considered to be the fourth dimension.Since us humans live in a lower dimension,we can conceive only a small part of the fourth dimension(the NOW).
But in reality there is no past,present and future,in the higher dimension they coexist as one.

I hope i didn't confuse you more.


Thank you, I like that way of looking at it, and it does make sense to a certain degree. Now all I have to do is figure out in my mind how 4th dimensionality works.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riakennor
I can't get my . around the concept of time not existing, nor the concept of the past present and future all coexisting simultaneously.


Some things are pretty simple and Time is one of those things. I have a way of understanding Time in a way that almost aligns with a theory called Planck's Constant. Basically it states on Wikipedia that Planck discovered that physical action could not take on any indiscriminate value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the "quantum of action" and now called Planck's constant) en.wikipedia.org... What this suggests is that action (or event/change) can only exist as a collective of indivisible units that are identical. Yes, this does seem a bit counterintuitive until you consider a chain of events, and realize that its organization requires unitary structure.

Planck assumed the indivisible photon to be the rate representation of the action unit, but then the speed of light is what he and everyone like him saw as the epitome of velocity, so the photon'as change from here to there would naturally be the smallest possible action unit to exist. Now, I'm not saying tat the photon is the rate representative, but the concept of the indivisible unit of action/change/event is something that I do agree with. Happily, those physicists proved Planck's Constant to the degree that any such theory can be proven.

What Time is and how it relates to Planck's Constant is that as each action unit occurs, and is then replaced by the next action unit, the present becomes the past. That rate of change is a fact of physical reality, and is what creates the synchronization that makes interaction between stuff that exists possible. It's what creates the concept of cause and effect, ramification and progressive development.

The idea that Time doesn't exist is debunked as soon as you consider the idea after having had it presented to you. It's just that simple, even if there are people who work hard to craft convoluted arguments focused on promoting the notion that nothing is that simple. Time is fundamental to the nature of physical reality. It bases the structure of the event trajectory and the informational continuum that trails out behind it. Some people have a hard time wrapping their .s around it, but when a fly ball arcs through the summer sky and a baseball fielder runs to ensure that his trajectory intersects the ball's trajectory (allowing him to catch that ball), and when you remember that fielding play (as residual information within your own "memory cloud") you're able to because of the fact that each event trajectory involved launched an associated informational continuum (facts concerning each instant of the event trajectories involved) as a default result. That's all the proof you need to verify that Time does exist and that it can't be dismissed as an illusion.

The experience of Time (perception) can be flexible, but Planck's Constant has proven that Time itself is immutable at the unit level.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Riakennor
 


there are in fact nuetrons and protons constintly forming and disapearing throughout the universe. check out steven hawkings work on that



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Riakennor
 



time does not exist outside of us.


it exists as part of what we are projecting or creating. it is part of how we are connecting to or interacting with the physical world.


it is part of our perception of reality which is why as we expand our awareness our perception of reality changes and along with this so does our relationship with or perception of time.



edit on 10-3-2012 by nicolet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Thank you guys.. all very interesting concepts.

One thing I have come to realise is that when you look at dimensions, you need the higher order of dimensions to bring the lower order of dimensions into existence.

When thinking about time as the fourth dimension, it occurred to me that when you turn a 2d object into a 3d object, that it isn't simply a case of adding the 3rd dimension on it's own per se.

If we say that a 2d object has length and width, we think that by adding depth we create a 3d object right ?

Actually no, what I've realised is that in order for that 2 dimensional object to become a true 3 dimensional object, we also need to bring Time (the 4th dimension) in to the equation.

The reason for this is because if you 'freeze' time the object remains 2 dimensional and it's only with movement that a 2d object becomes 3d. So the movement of the object takes 'Time' which is what is required for the photons to leave the surface of the object to give the 3 dimensional perspective that we all know and love.

Ok, I'm starting to ramble off topic here but I thought I would share that bit of realisation


It makes me wonder what higher dimensions are required for time itself to exist (which by the way I do believe exists and is not just a perspective of our consciousness)




top topics



 
0

log in

join