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.


Time, Infinity, and how nature distinguishes...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 04:59 PM
link particle from another!

Well I had a thought today, the universe is not expanding "into" anything...we are what we are, a finite universe, but infinite bounds.

Furthermore, I figured Time must have a final incriment a ...singularity... where you can't get any less, such as you have a second, a millisecond, and so forth, well it has to end somewhere, and I think that minimal incriment of time is in fact none other than simply ONE particle, in the whole universe...

...yup, I mean how else can 2 particles be different? Simple, they are all existing in seperate times, we don't see this though, we see the "whole" universe (and probably even less than someone else who sees things even slower) because instead of thinking fast enough to observe this "singular quantum of time that can not be divided" we see maybe a few milliseconds at the most, and so instead of seeing the one only existing particle at any given moment of time, we see maybe a few quadrillion given points in time, and so we see what is to us the universe.

In reality though, everything only exists in a certain point of time...

for example...if you were to have a board, with say 100 pinholes, and you make it so each pinhole lights up only once...if each pinhole lit up every second, you'd see 100 individual lights over the span of 100 seconds.

But if you were to make each pinhole light up let's say every billionth of a second, you'd see only a flash of the entire board, to you the whole board lit up at one reality, the board still lit up ONE POINT AT A TIME.

I think this is the function of the universe, this "point of time" this "quantum" must be what distinguishes all particles from other particles, because physically every particle is the same, and quantumly we think we can make it so that one particle can exist in two or more places at once, so the distinguishing factor between say an up quark, and another up quark, is not its place in space, but its place in time!

If the entire number of particles in the WHOLE universe, goes on a cycle that is less than say a quadrillionth of a billionth of a second, then we have little chance in hell determining experimentally if this is true...because before we can measure what is where, it's already gone through several cycles and so every individual particle has existed at several different points in time before we make a measurement.

However, mathematically, we should be able to re-arrange equations so that we can determine the finite smallest incriment of time, and rebuild physics off of that.

Sure it's easier to say 50miles/second(2seconds)=100miles.

But that is wrong...because what is a second? That's not the single smallest point in time, sure it is a constant, but mathematically, we can solve for the smallest point in time, by rearranging the equations until we have equations that will work for anything, never changing, because in them t=a constant that is set.

Anyways, this is still my developing theory.

I feel this will certainly impact how we view the universe, because now instead of there being a "mysterious force" that is time, time becomes not a "force" but a state of being, that can be simply put:

"A point at which something exists, and that something is everything that exists."

And from that we get:

"There is only one existance, and so only one 'thing//particle' can exist at any given point in time."

And from that we can think:

"Time isn't the 4th dimension, it is its own fabric, and has its own dimensions, you have a point of time (only one particle is currently existing and thus distinct and different from any other particle) you have a line of time (a series of cycles in which seperate distinct particles exist at any given line of time) and you can even maybe have a cube of time (any block of time in which particles are interacting)"

Remember we must distinguish the differences between "existing" and interaction, because if one particle exists at any given point, then how do they interact? Simple, by expanding the dimensions of time so that they can not only exist congruently, but interact as well.

And so Time is no longer another dimension, of which we feel its weight, it is a thing unto itself that we are a part of, and it has however many dimensions itself.

no signature

PS. This is a developing theory, I expanded my idea as I was writing, it, but it's an amazingly new way of thinking, now all that needs to be done, is to begin fiddling with conventional//classical//and quantum physics, to see how time might play on a single particle...rather than looking at time as a whole!

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 10:13 PM

Well I had a thought today, the universe is not expanding "into" anything

As I've already stated in the previous thread.... Scientist's more knowledegable than you or I, have already discovered the universe IS expanding and will continue to do so forever. You are saying NO to that discovery and demanding a different answered based on your own assumption's. Your theory of time is fully flawed for various reason's as well.

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 10:27 PM
I said "Our universe isn't expanding "INTO" anything" I know it is expanding, it's just what's beyond it DOESNT EXIST! You can't go BEYOND the universe, because there's NOTHINGNESS there, you can't BE NOTHING!

Read more man...this is frustrating, my theory is sound until some dude spits out a GIGANTIC formula saying otherwise, which they can't do, because any scientist knows my theory HAS VALID APPLICATIONS especially since others are working on similar stuff for Quantum Temporal events.

no signature

[Edited on 15-2-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 10:45 PM
Well, since one word post's aren't allowed, I guess I should just tell you I have the biggest desire to sigh right now. Untill you've understood HOW we came about to discovering time, you'll never understand what it is ...

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 10:50 PM
No you don't seem to understand that the tick-tocks on a clock is not what time IS, that's what I'm addressing.

I'm not talking as much about "how many seconds are there in an hour" as I am, "what makes time time?"

no signature

posted on Feb, 14 2003 @ 11:38 PM
And you don't seem to understand that what make's time, time is nothing more than an observable serie's of event's labled as time. The universe is geared toward's simplicity, your proposing complexity. WE made time what it is. Time for us, is much more different than time for an alien. Time also exist's at different rate's throught the universe, inside blackhole's and wormhole's time doesn't even exist. Time is event. What your proposing simply does not exist.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 03:59 AM
Time is more than an "event" you should read up on it some yourself

no signature

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 04:59 AM
How can time be more tham an event, when it's that something more your trying so hard to look for and prove is so hard to even understand in the first place?

Why is it, that ALL definition's of time can be brought down to some sort of movemnent being measured against something? 'The flow of time.'

You suggest I read up on time, but what books are there on the subject that are actual facts and not the theories of someone?

One thing about time, that we DO allready know and understand is, Tick and Tock. That, will never change.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 05:03 AM
Exactly e-nomynous, and what I'm talking about here, is how time DOES work, not the "tick-tock"...but you keep referring to the "tick-tock" as being a fact, when that is merely a human innovation.

Time in nature is far different.

no signature

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 05:10 AM
And how do you know that difference even exist's within nature? You simply don't, which is the main reason your trying to find it. Until you can prove that difference exist's, which our scientist's have also been looking for, and have also failed to find, it's all mere theory, and nothing more.

Why do I bring up time as being related to movement and rythmic cycle's ... If you'd look within yourself, you'd know the answer to that ... Even you are ruled by time, our planet is ruled by time, everything is ruled by time. But, for some reason, you don't see time as it is ....

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 07:03 AM
If i recall correctly your correct in how you describe time to a certian extent however its much easier to deal with the concept of Time=Space.

How does this relate to some questions that could be posed when viewing it in this new light.

Is the expansion of the universe the root cause for the "flow" of time or is it a direct result of it?

What happens if you could maintain a constant position in space? What is it relative to?

Is Light from stars us actually seeing its points in Space and thus Time? Is this actually what Einstein means when he tried somewhat successfully to answer these very questions?

Here is my take on it

Time cannot be measured except as a point in space relative to everything else in space. That point in relative space cannot be reached again. I am not in the same place i was 10 years ago or even a nanosecond ago and neither is anything else around me. I as a person am aware of the space around me so they are in my "timeframe" and they too are not in the same place ever. So even if i could maintain my position in space/Time everything around me would move and when i allowed myself to move in space again everything would be gone and i would probably be floating out in space SOL.

You can think this thing to death but Time is basically a point in space relative to everything else in the universe. If the expansion of the universe stopped on a dime, what would be the affect? Would Time continue? Would we suddenly recieve particles from distant bodys that were traveling away from us at such a speed and distance that light could never reach us previously?

This type of discussion is filled with if's and but's and its good to see other peoples thoughts on the subject but this does support Einsteins theory that there is a Universal speedlimit and that its unlikely that instantaneous travel or Time Travel will every be possible since one would have to stop all movement in the universe first then rip themselves out of space and suplant some other particles at a different spot relative to everthing else. Then you hit the go button and movement starts back up. Its even harder to go back in time because you would have to move everything else relative to the position you were in and once again you would need to rip yourself out of Space move and then hit the go button again.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 09:20 AM

That point in relative space cannot be reached again. I am not in the same place i was 10 years ago or even a nanosecond ago and neither is anything else around me.

Interesting point. BUT!

While Einstien did create a universal speed limit, scientist's have also theorized the possible existance of particle's that go well above that speedlimit and cannot go below it. There have also been experiment's in more recent time's that show it might be possible (from what I take) to travel faster than C.

If we could in fact travel faster than C, which I personally believe we could, then we have a problem with ....

Time cannot be measured except as a point in space relative to everything else in space.

The problem with FTL travel, is, what might take you 4 year's to reach the closest star traveling at C, can be achieved in less time so to speak, traveling at FTL.

Two ship's one going at C one going at FTL speed's leave at the very same second heading toward's the nearest star 4 light year's away. Before they leave they look at the star KNOWING that the image they see is 4 year's old, and it's different in "realtime" as their looking at it.

Anywho, long story short, the FTL ship arrive's at the star around the time period they saw it as before they started toward's it. The ship traveling at C arrive's at the star a little under 8-7 year's after the time period they saw the start before they left, due to time-dialation based on how fast they were traveling.

Time is dependant on movement, speed, etc ...

There is a theory also dealing with two counter-rotating laser beam's being slowed down to nearly a stop, this would generate intense gravitational field's within the two beam's. If there were a way to get in between them, you would sit there and travel to the future, but not only that, you sit long enough, and you travel all the way back to when the device was first turned on, it create's a closed time loop. There are also many other way's, given more advanced technology, that allow time travel using neutron star's and wormhole's.

So, now we knoe, time isn't limited to one point in space, like there is no way to ever get back to that point again ...

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 03:16 PM
Good theory, it would account for the law of conservation of energy (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed) seeing as there would only be one particle at a time.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 04:43 PM

Give that 'theory' some more thought, and you should understand why I'm against it. I'm sure FM is recollecting his thought's right now to counter my argument's. I'm looking forward to it.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 05:01 PM
No I'm not even bothering to because your points are so full of crap.

First off you seem to think what I'm saying is the gospel, when all along I've been mentioning it is a THEORY.

Second of all you seem to think time is measured, and not a "force//fabric//dimension" which goes COMPLETELY agains any type of science.

And now you bring up "time is dependant on speed" which I don't care who's theory that is I developed that idea entirely on my own years ago and now completely dismiss it.

Time is not dependant on speed (The expansion of our universe through the 4th dimension is not "Time") fact, rather I think space is more likely a dimension of it's own, and time is the 3 dimensions, or rather, space and time are the SAME things and our thinking of them as two seperate dimensions is what causes us to have draw-backs in science.

Space is not "Up//down left//right back//forward" but rather it is "1,2,3,4...n-1,n" is the cycles that is "0 point" or "the smallest incriment of time possible...the incriment in which only one point, and thus one particle exists at any given moment."

And as you expand 0-point to other dimensions, that is when you begin to get the interractions IN this universe, as you see them, you form a line (1st dimension) in time, and you get two particles in a box that simply bounce back and forth for instance, you expand time to the 2nd Dimension and you have particles, none of which existing in the 2nd dimension because as my theory states, they exist only at one time in a point of time, however their effects, like shadows on a wall are cast into further dimensions.

This is why we have interactions, why balls can be thrown and why things bounce off walls.

Not because there is a "Physical" space in which to "move" but because their relative places in time are interacting on multiple levels of dimensions.

See, your problem e-nonymous is you like most any normal person, take for granted the chair you sit on.

While all these theoretical physicists, are scratching their heads wondering WHY THE HELL IS THE CHAIR THERE, AND NOT OVER THERE!!!???

Because in our universe, there is NO way in hell, to tell if something is anything, or if it is nothing, we simply can measure an "effect"... your universe e-nonymous is the "chair".

Mine is the particle...I'm not talking about tables apples and people, I'm talking about particles, when you leave the realm of atoms, the universe ceases to exist as a "physical" entity, and becomes merely a shadow.

My theory of time being dimensional and space more of an illusion, or rather a mis-nomer, is addressing the fact of "what is a particle, and how does it exist versus another particle?"

See stop going "Time is a second" and ask yourself, what makes particle A and particle B different?

We don't know they are different, so how does nature?

Some how you seem to have gotten lost in my theory, I think it is because you are taking my theory, looking at it to address something else, and then dismissing it because it makes no sense.

Well of course your desk doesn't exist at only one point in time...your desk is in the 3rd dimension, it doesn't exist at ANY point in time...a point is not the 3rd dimension, but no dimension!

e-nonymous when you can leave the bounds of physical existence, and enter the realms of theoretical physics and quantum-mechanics//physics//temporal you will begin to see, my theory is actually quite a reasonable one, and only lacks mathematical formulas and expermimentation.

no signature

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 05:30 PM
I can tell you that I'm not taking your theory as gospel, I'm trying to show you how your theory is flawed.

Second of all you seem to think time is measured, and not a "force//fabric//dimension" which goes COMPLETELY agains any type of science.

Can you show me ONE factual case where something has been discovered showing time as a force, fabric, or dimension? No, you can't, because such a discovery hasn't been made yet, and all these thing's exist within theory.

Time is not dependant on speed (The expansion of our universe through the 4th dimension is not "Time") fact, rather I think space is more likely a dimension of it's own, and time is the 3 dimensions, or rather, space and time are the SAME things and our thinking of them as two seperate dimensions is what causes us to have draw-backs in science.

Scientist's DO percieve time and space as one thing, hence the term time-space. But, the way your going about it, while it SOUND'S nice, it's fuly wrong. As for time being dependant on speed, I've already shown an example of that. It's already a KNOWN FACT that you age more than someone traveling at C speed's. Even if you were walking and I ran as fast as I could, I will STILL age slower than you, not by much, but still slower.

I've shown, how traveling faster than C can bring you to a distant point in both time and space, which is fully accepted by many physicist's, yet you reject.

You are saying NO to what established scientist's are saying YES to.

Time didn't start until the universe went BOOM and started to expand. Before that, there was no time. No movement, no time. And I can't stress this enough, the universe is geard TOWARD'S SIMPLICITY, what your proposing is more complex.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by FreeMason particle from another!

Well I had a thought today...

Please stop having these "epiphanies" of yours... they are painful to read for those of us who have even a passing education in the sciences. As our esteemed member, e-nonymous has been attempting to point out, your idea has no merit for anything beyond occupying bandwidth related to this discussion.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:06 PM

Where ya been? I thought we lost you or something!

Hope you can pick up our old argument's.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:12 PM
Hello e...

I stayed away as the forum was becoming mired in pettiness... as the "Taking Back" theme seems to have emerged amongst administrators (not that I agree with their methodology).

I see Mr. Free Mason is still posting topics for discussion, while ignoring all but his own opinions. Perhaps he would be much happier operating his own blog.

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 06:18 PM

Yes, I've tried showing them how there TBATS plan would fail under certain condition's, and I've even offeres to show them a 'workable' alternative that still accomplish's what they are trying to do. Oh well ... Atleast I tried, it's better than sitting there and doing nothing. All we can do is sit and wait now to see how effective thier idea will turn out. Hopefully, it will be for the best, and they'll revise it as time goes on ...

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in