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.

 

Does A Place Where Time Does Not Exist, Exist?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
No such thing as Time!
It is just one state to the next.
One thing moves from one point to the next.
A clock ticks, give it more gravity and it ticks faster.
No gravity and it ticks slow.

This has been proven by taking a atomic clock in to space,
And one down a deep mine.
When they got them together again.
The one from the mine was faster.

A photon of light moves through space.
If it passes a star it will speed up and bend around it.
This is called the lens effect.

Movement IS time.
If you could move all the atoms molecules
Back to a state in the past. Would that be back in time?
No! Just atoms molecules moving about.

And that is what time IS…
Sorry to shatter the illusion.




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I would say that any place where absolute zero could be achieved would stop time. The only way we can measure time is with motion, so no motion, no time.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarnholeOntarable
reply to post by seeknoevil
 


Dead center of a black hole...if light can't escape then time has to stop somewhere in the equation....I suggest.

Otherwise being dead is still up in the air for an explanation.


I say that's the point where time moves so fast not even light travels fast enough for it to exit up towards us.
The movement of time forces all energy down into the infinite space that is within earth blackholes and us, the atoms and subatomic particles comprising the all observable forms of matter

There is no such thing as full or empty space only half-full or half-empty with energy flowing to fill the void
Time is just a system of measurement for length, same as the metric system measures length of distance
And as a wise guy once said "man is the measure of all things"

The idea of space-time is like trying to find Pi
the exact measurement of the circumfance of a circle using its diameter is 3.14125... This run on randomly forever
Trying to measure space which is infinite and thus beyond any measure whether of distance or passage of time.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by chr0naut
 


There are some theorists who contend that time, in fast, is illusory. In fact there are people who find it easier to reconcile general and special relativity if time is removed from the equation.

So my thoughts are based in science and published papers that I've come across over the years.

Math is a wonderful tool. My issue with math is that it tends to break down when we begin to apply it to the micro and the macro. Physics falls short in these areas. To me this supports the idea of a fractal universe.. Anyone who has played with fractals knows that they have transitioning phases. You begin with one view, it alters for a period, and then, eventually, it returns to its original shape. Over and over again. Recently a graphic interpretation of dark matter was released and it looked amazingly like tissue. This adds to the puzzle. I think that traditional mathematics currently lacks the language to explain this transitory phases in the fractal process. Oh and this tangent is on topic because if the universe is fractal - then it is also, in some ways, static and a static universe is directly in line with non-linear time theories. We all know that math often ends up hitting walls - and failing. This is exactly what gives rise to reinterpretation and theory.

Of course these are just the thoughts that make sense to my mind. I cannot prove them and offer them only as food for thought for others. The caveat here is that you cannot prove otherwise. So we stalemate.

Oh, and one more note. A fractal universe also tends to explain the mystery of quantum entanglement. If there are superstructures, beyond our ability to see, due to perspective, then they can readily explain things.

My .02 cents.

~Heff
edit on 8/23/12 by Hefficide because: bad bb tag


I believe that our differences may well be due to the non-specificity of language.

I could argue that these scientific papers you are referring to concern themselves with our perception of the flow of time (because all time exists at all times from a pure physics point of view). This is different than the dimensionality along which we measure time.

Similarly, the reversal of time in Physics is NOT like running a film backwards. If you take an equation that, say, describes the dispersion of a gas after release from a bottle and then run the same equation with the time value negative, the gas still disperses and does not return to the bottle.

So the whole issue is really a confusion of definitions.

I also agree that much in the universe is scale invariant and the fractal description is apt, however the disconnect between the quantum and micro/macro realms and the suggestion that there may be a similar disconnect on cosmic scale (the cosmological constant), in terms of physical laws, argues against this.


edit on 24/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The infinitesimal duration instance, which is actually a string of such instances occuring at Planck rate, that is infinite space, better understood as "the present".

Because of there being no time in the structure of pure infinite expanse of space, it implodes from everywhere, towards everywhere, down and inward as space converts into pure time, that becomes all the past.

This time current down and inward (that was infinite expanse of space when it represented "the present") is flooding toward the ONE infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal Singularity.

Space is time that is non-kinetic (because of it's impacting the infinite null, stopping it cold). Time is space that is absolute kinetic because of the infinite kinetics of the ONE infinitesimal Singularity.

Where that ONE Singularity IS, as a collective of the "flight path", is the infinite expanse foundation of the dimension of height. Where that same ONE Singularity IS NOT, as a collective of the same "flight path", is the infinite null, the infinite impedence.

It is the infinite impedence that when impacted by the current of time out from all the future, explodes into conversion into infinite expanse of space (current got stopped by impedence and turned into voltage)


edit on 24-8-2012 by tkwasny because: typo fix.

edit on 24-8-2012 by tkwasny because: typo fix.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
The infinitesimal duration instance, which is actually a string of such instances occuring at Planck rate, that is infinite space, better understood as "the present".

Because of there being no time in the structure of pure infinite expanse of space, it implodes from everywhere, towards everywhere, down and inward as space converts into pure time, that becomes all the past.

This time current down and inward (that was infinite expanse of space when it represented "the present") is flooding toward the ONE infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal Singularity.

Space is time that is non-kinetic (because of it's impacting the infinite null, stopping it cold). Time is space that is absolute kinetic because of the infinite kinetics of the ONE infinitesimal Singularity.

Where that ONE Singularity IS, as a collective of the "flight path", is the infinite expanse foundation of the dimension of height. Where that same ONE Singularity IS NOT, as a collective of the same "flight path", is the infinite null, the infinite impedence.

It is the infinite impedence that when impacted by the current of time out from all the future, explodes into conversion into infinite expanse of space (current got stopped by impedence and turned into voltage)


edit on 24-8-2012 by tkwasny because: typo fix.

edit on 24-8-2012 by tkwasny because: typo fix.


I think I can see that you have a clear concept of what you are saying, but an overall understanding of your concept eludes me. Could you please expand, elaborating on some of the unique terms you have used here.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
No such thing as Time!
It is just one state to the next.
One thing moves from one point to the next.
A clock ticks, give it more gravity and it ticks faster.
No gravity and it ticks slow.

This has been proven by taking a atomic clock in to space,
And one down a deep mine.
When they got them together again.
The one from the mine was faster.

A photon of light moves through space.
If it passes a star it will speed up and bend around it.
This is called the lens effect.

Movement IS time.
If you could move all the atoms molecules
Back to a state in the past. Would that be back in time?
No! Just atoms molecules moving about.

And that is what time IS…
Sorry to shatter the illusion.


I think it depends on perspective. If you're talking about perceived time then it's just a measurement of how fast one records memories. If you're talking from the universe's perspective, I don't think one could measure it because it always boils down to infinity. You could have 1mm, 0.1mm, 0.001mm, 0.000000001 or even 0.(infinite0)1 so whenever something moves it's moving over an infinite distance which could be equated to an infinite amount of time. The universe lives and breathes infinity. It's both infinitely big and infinitely small. It covers an infinite amount of space and contains an infinite amount of energy and matter.

It's pretty cool because with an infinite amount of time we've got plenty of time to understand all the infinite universe.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mac420
"time isn't a straight progresson from A to B, Actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, its more like a Big Ball of Wibbly Wobbly, Timey Wimey...stuff." And that is the best I can explain what time is haha.

For real, I've always wondered if time only exists because we say it does. What if 'time' is a human invention? Interesting to think about.


This experience we have here requires being inside a body to experience it properly, and the body brain requires a linear flow of events in order to process it. So time is something we need as part of this particular experience.

Scientists are starting to see it too I think?

edit on 25-8-2012 by PrimitiveWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Time is certainly an interesting topic. The perception of its "speed" is relative.

I would say that time exists based on matter. The relative movement between two physical systems, whatever they may be. When what we understand as matter is stretched to its limits, such as in the mechanics of a black hole or even in the quantum realm, so does our understanding of time and its relevance.

Time, itself, is a human concept. Everything we know is a human concept, so its kind of a given!
That doesnt mean it is not based on a "real" mechanic or law in the universe.

As long as the planets rotate around the Sun and electricity/light flow, we have a reference for time. So, where do such things not happen?

As previously mentioned, we see some anomalies in the center of a black hole. We also see some anomalies regarding this in the quantum realm. I think it is possible that time exists in the scale of the physical universe, but is perhaps not relevant in all areas of existence.

A thing can not make movement in infinity, but when it is given a frame of reference (like another thing) it can move in relation to that other item. In an area where time does not "exist" we could very well see a "thing" appear in two places simultaneously.

So, perhaps when we look at where a black hole goes and the quantum realm, we are viewing the same place, but at different ends of the physical energy spectrum. And perhaps in that place, time and movement are not necessarily part of the equation. The interesting question would then be; How do they actually connect to an arena where time and movement are at play?

Just some thoughts...



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeknoevil
Could there actually be a place of no time? Curious, what kind of space would it take up? Would it even occupy space? Hmmm.. Thoughts?


There can be no space without time as time is a dimention of space.

At the most fundamental levels of reality, space itself boils, a sea of quantum foam that is caused by chaos. Although time at this level works very differently, time does exist, for if it didn't there could be no quantum foam and no matter that arrises from it.

Korg.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
From reading the posts.
I can see we are mostly seeing the same thing.
We just don’t agree on the way to word it.

to time travel back in time is inposible.
but you can travel forward in time at different speeds.
Very low gravity means time! Flows slowly.
High gravity and time! Moves fast.

Like two brothers. One stays on earth.
the other goes on a space flight to a star and back.
his brother is long dead and he can see
his grand children when he gets back.

When you get a scientist saying time is loop’t.
It is impossible to loop time.
Could two big bangs make ever thing the same the second time?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Ive actually considered this quite alot.

My theory.

Time was invented for two reasons.

1. Enslavement.

2. To chart decay.

Due to the intellect displayed in this thread explination of these two reasons is not needed. (you guys are way smarter than I.)

Which "was" first? Verbal communication, or the perception of time?

Did we percieve time before we stopped being "one", or after. Id guess it was after. Is there a place where time doesnt exist?

If there is an afterlife, a non physical realm of the dead, then there is the place where the limits of time do not exist. But that is only 'if' we have a non physical essence, or spirit.
edit on 25-8-2012 by psyko4570 because: More questions



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


Two big bangs could certainly be exactly the same. You could go back in time, but it's actually going forward in time. Say there are two big bangs, bang 1 and bang 2. A person from bang 1 could send a message to himself in bang 2, he simply uses advanced technology to calculate the results from the collision of all matter in his universe which forms bang 2 and then modifies those results by intelligently placing the matter in his universe so that when it collides to create bang 2 there is a message left for himself at a certain place and certain time determined by himself from bang 1. So he's not really sending a message back in time, but it is the younger version of himself that receives the message.

Edit: Ya, pretty cool

edit on 25-8-2012 by Symbiot because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Time only exists as something for humans to make sense of their lives.

For that vast majority of life, time has no meaning.

Therefore, this thread will vanish in a puff of logic in 3, 2, 1 .... (darn it)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Win some and lose some... Maybe next time eh?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 


You just hurt my brain... big time.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
time doesn't exist, only clocks exist.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


I've been told that I have a knack for that sort of thing.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I knew my Mayfly clock patent was doomed from the beginning.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No, because sound is merely a waveform until it vibrates an object capable of translating the wave into something else.




I've heard this saying being banded about many times in the past but it's the first time I've seen the reasoning behind it explained, so thanks!!!




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join