Topic: Is Time Relative?
no photo
Thu 02/24/11 08:41 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Thu 02/24/11 08:42 PM
Time. My favorite subject. :-)




You know the saying, "Time flies when you're having fun," and how "time drags," when you are just waiting for the clock to tick for the end of the day? There are also times you are working and time just is moving much faster than you thought it would and you can't complete your tasks.


The above attempts to imply that time actually exists and "flies" or "drags." Or that time actually exists and it "moves."

In relation to what?



If time itself fluctuates and not just our perception, doesn't that mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete? E=MC2.


The above assumes that time actually exists and as a thing, might "fluctuate." Really?

Fluctuates in relation to what?


Since time is multiplied 4 times in this equation, a minor fluctuation in the flow of time would have a significant impact on the results especially when approaching the speed of light.

If this is correct, wouldn't that mean that faster than light travel is not only possible but inevitable?


The above assumes the premise that time actually exists and "flows."

Flows in relation to what?



The problem is in measuring the flow of time. You would have to be able to step out of time to observe the flow of time. You can't measure a foot by taking a ruler and saying that is a foot. You need a standard to tell what the foot is equal to. After the standard is set, then you can take that ruler to measure other things. You can't measure time using time to measure it.

So, how do we know time is constant?



This would imply that time actually exists and "flows."


My opinion is that time does not exist.





AdventureBegins's photo
Thu 02/24/11 09:05 PM
Hi JB...

I had thought you must have stepped through a hole in space...

since time does not exist.

Where you been?

no photo
Thu 02/24/11 09:08 PM

Hi JB...

I had thought you must have stepped through a hole in space...

since time does not exist.

Where you been?


LOL

Here. Now.

As always :-)


mylifetoday's photo
Thu 02/24/11 09:35 PM
Well as some have said, time is simply a measure of movement.

So, if time doesn't exist, how do we move? Each moment leads to the next. Seems like a fairly linear progression.

I guess if time doesn't exist then there is no yesterday and there is no tomorrow. Just the here and now. Nope scratch that - just the here - there is no now.

So is the universe like a movie projection. Just a series of still shot frames that exist in their own universe but played together to appear to move as if through time?

AdventureBegins's photo
Thu 02/24/11 09:56 PM
Yesterday is a thing that was now... 'yesterday'.

By experiencing it you stored a memory that you can access 'now' but it no longer exists 'now'.

Tommorrow is a thing you 'envision' yet do not yet experiance...

and what you do 'now' may even change what you 'envision' as tommorrow.

In reality only 'now' exists, can be touched, smelled, seen, and listened to...

Now is timeless.

it exists in the now. To 'see' the past one must 'bring' it to ones moment of 'now'.

mylifetoday's photo
Thu 02/24/11 10:00 PM
Pictures help. :smile:

no photo
Thu 02/24/11 10:07 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Thu 02/24/11 10:10 PM

Well as some have said, time is simply a measure of movement.

So, if time doesn't exist, how do we move? Each moment leads to the next. Seems like a fairly linear progression.

I guess if time doesn't exist then there is no yesterday and there is no tomorrow. Just the here and now. Nope scratch that - just the here - there is no now.

So is the universe like a movie projection. Just a series of still shot frames that exist in their own universe but played together to appear to move as if through time?


I am trying to read a book that suggests exactly that, but I don't agree with that idea, at this time. However, I will withhold judgement until after I finish the book. I'm always willing to consider different viewpoints. The name of the book is "The End of Time." (No, its not talking about the end of the world, just the end of time.)

Don't get me wrong. the concept of time exists. But time, as some sort of entity, (that moves or fluctuates) does not.

You are correct. There is no yesterday or tomorrow. The past is only made up of "memory." The future, a probability or a dream.

HERE represents time. (Here in this moment.)

NOW represents where we are in relation to other things in what we perceive as "space." (Which by the way, also does not exist.)

It is all a projection and perception of mind.

(Just like the "space" you perceive in your dreams.)






no photo
Thu 02/24/11 10:15 PM
So, if time doesn't exist, how do we move? Each moment leads to the next. Seems like a fairly linear progression.


Do you dream? Do you walk around in your dreams? Do you have the perception of movement in your dreams? When you dream, does your real physical body walk around or does it stay in bed? If it also walks around they say you have a "sleep disorder."

If you are sleeping, how can you dream and perceive that you are moving through space? What creates that space? Answer: your mind creates it.

I suspect this reality is some sort of dream or holographic projection.

mylifetoday's photo
Thu 02/24/11 11:02 PM
I think therefore I am - kind of idea?

Thought it was funny. You said, "but I don't agree with that idea, at this time." laugh

Well as far as space in relation to dreams I would have to agree with you.

The danger is that when you go into those ideas, you can argue that the only real existence is your mind. Your mind is creating all this other stuff in this apparent world. Then you get into the problem of individual thoughts and behaviors. If that is true, and the only thing that exists is your mind. Then why are we having this conversation? Why don't all the things you want come true? Are you holding yourself back or is that evidence that there is something more than just your mind?

The "I think therefore I am," concept is related to what I believe about the universe in general.


no photo
Thu 02/24/11 11:47 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Thu 02/24/11 11:51 PM

I think therefore I am - kind of idea?

Thought it was funny. You said, "but I don't agree with that idea, at this time." laugh

Well as far as space in relation to dreams I would have to agree with you.

The danger is that when you go into those ideas, you can argue that the only real existence is your mind. Your mind is creating all this other stuff in this apparent world. Then you get into the problem of individual thoughts and behaviors. If that is true, and the only thing that exists is your mind. Then why are we having this conversation? Why don't all the things you want come true? Are you holding yourself back or is that evidence that there is something more than just your mind?

The "I think therefore I am," concept is related to what I believe about the universe in general.




My personal theory of everything is extremely complicated and multi-dimensional and is probably a drop in the bucket of the true nature of reality. (Infinity is a mind boggling thing.)

I don't think of "mind" as "your mind or my mind." Just as "mind."

I suspect that the mind is universal and works like a computer. It is a body or vessel or machine for the operation of consciousness. Within that universal mind, intelligence and consciousness operates. It manifests bodies and environments for the incubation of conscious life forms.

Within a dream, nothing really exists, or at least what we think of as existing... except maybe the people you interact with. Those people are aspects (or psyches) of your own self, and perhaps they could also be real people who you communicate with through the mind.

Our bodies are made up of atoms which look like tiny solar systems. The atoms are made up of nothing but energy and empty space. We are made of ..... nothing. Light maybe....

Let there be light...








no photo
Fri 02/25/11 12:15 AM
Everything is relative to everything within the physical (this is just postmodernism), but nothing is relative if there is an absolute against which to compare, but this can only be something that transcends the physical. In other words, if you are an atheist, everything is relative, which in fact makes no sense because the very statement "everything is relative" has no meaning because truth is not absolute, and if you are a theist, then nothing is relative and everything is absolute... which makes sense until you have to somehow prove the existence of God.

So there, problem solved... just decide which category you fall in and end the thread.

no photo
Fri 02/25/11 08:13 AM

Everything is relative to everything within the physical (this is just postmodernism), but nothing is relative if there is an absolute against which to compare, but this can only be something that transcends the physical. In other words, if you are an atheist, everything is relative, which in fact makes no sense because the very statement "everything is relative" has no meaning because truth is not absolute, and if you are a theist, then nothing is relative and everything is absolute... which makes sense until you have to somehow prove the existence of God.

So there, problem solved... just decide which category you fall in and end the thread.


Gee thanks for solving the problem and killing the thread. ohwell sad

Let's not.

And I don't think it is as cut and dried as the question of whether there exists a God somewhere.

There is only one absolute.

I exist. bigsmile


no photo
Fri 02/25/11 12:14 PM

How does the 'movement' of Cherenkov radiation through water compared to the phase volicity of light in the same medium compare with relativity?

Does it fit?

Or is it actually moving faster than light in that same medium. (reactor water). (i.e. does it change the 'relativity' for its 'special circumstance')?
Slowing a ray of light down is doable, traveling faster then the slowed down light is doable. Traveling faster then the vacuum speed of light is not based on our current well developed/supported theory.

paul1217's photo
Fri 02/25/11 07:13 PM
Edited by paul1217 on Fri 02/25/11 07:45 PM



Never mind.

I started this to have a philosophical discussion on the perception of time and how it affects our lives. It could have been an inteteresting " What if" conversation. Won't happen now.


I don't understand why you would say this after Bushido's post. Is it because facts got involved?


No,

Because the posts pretty much closed the discussion.

More along the lines of, "You're wrong, here's why."


How about this scenario to rekindle your philosophical discussion. Time is a tool, a theoretical manifestation, invented by man to help him explain his observations in the physical world. Time is also the one tool that man uses that he can in no way prove experimentally without the stumbling point of using what you are trying to prove in your proof.

For the moment let's work with the assumption that time does exist.

Next let us agree that all matter that has mass and energy is not only subject to the effects of time, but also to the "Theory of Relativity that utilizes time to define the relationship between Mass and Energy. I think we can all agree that the Theory of Relativity although still a theory has withstood rather extensive experimental and observational testing.

We all learned early in school chemistry that all Matter that exists is made up of the same three, experimentally and observationally (o&m) confirmed particles, the proton, neutron and electron. The only difference between different atoms, molecules, compounds...... up to and including all substances including life forms such as human beings is the interaction of energy between these particles. Are we all in agreement so far. Getting into sub atomic particles would require a teem of Quantum Physicists to argue this out for years and we are off on a Philosophical tangent now.

Ok, all life, three particles held together by specific energy patterns to create good old man or woman. Now we bring in Mr. Einsteins pride and joy "relativity" and that pesky unprovable theoretical manifestation we call "time". E=mC^2 Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. This simple, elegant, time tested "theory" that holds everything together and in the same instant pulls that pesky unprovable time thing into the equation, may also tell us where and when we may finally find an answer to this question. If I haven't already lost everyone, hold on tight we're almost to the end of the scientific part.

High school chem gave us the three particles and the basic information about the energy binding them together. On to basic High school Physics and the infamous E=mC^2, the conservation of mass and energy. We are all who we are because of the energy that holds us, and those three particles together. And thanks to that little equation E=mC^2 we know, experimentally observed and measured, that Energy can not be destroyed. It can be released or it can be contained and converted into mass, and with the help of Energy, Matter including man or woman.

Now if energy can not be destroyed is it really subject to the effects of that pesky unprovable time thing. We do describe energy's effects, usage and release in respect to time but does time really have any type of effect on Energy. If time has no effect on Energy and Energy is the only thing that makes man or woman, and their collection of the 3 little particle, different than the 3 little particles and the energy in all other matter, then it should follow that once the energy is released it will no longer be confined by the constraints of time.

Finally, here comes the Philosophy, if the Energy that makes us who we are is not affected by the passage of time and what makes us who we are is that Energy then are we truly affected by the passage of time. The only unanswered question that I see is do we maintain an awareness of the energy that makes us who we are after is is released from the matter that makes us what we are.

For the answer to that question I can only quote Philosophical knowledge that the Dali Llama passed on to Carl the Grounds Keeper "Upon your deathbed you shall receive total consciousness" So at least you got that going for you. Good night alllaugh

no photo
Fri 02/25/11 08:46 PM

So, if time doesn't exist, how do we move? Each moment leads to the next. Seems like a fairly linear progression.


Do you dream? Do you walk around in your dreams? Do you have the perception of movement in your dreams? When you dream, does your real physical body walk around or does it stay in bed? If it also walks around they say you have a "sleep disorder."

If you are sleeping, how can you dream and perceive that you are moving through space? What creates that space? Answer: your mind creates it.

I suspect this reality is some sort of dream or holographic projection.



Which is why "space" would have to be both infinite and finite at the same "time"...



no photo
Sat 03/05/11 06:57 PM

I was thinking...

You know the saying, "Time flies when you're having fun," and how "time drags," when you are just waiting for the clock to tick for the end of the day? There are also times you are working and time just is moving much faster than you thought it would and you can't complete your tasks.

If time itself fluctuates and not just our perception, doesn't that mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete? E=MC2.

Since time is multiplied 4 times in this equation, a minor fluctuation in the flow of time would have a significant impact on the results especially when approaching the speed of light.

If this is correct, wouldn't that mean that faster than light travel is not only possible but inevitable?

The problem is in measuring the flow of time. You would have to be able to step out of time to observe the flow of time. You can't measure a foot by taking a ruler and saying that is a foot. You need a standard to tell what the foot is equal to. After the standard is set, then you can take that ruler to measure other things. You can't measure time using time to measure it.

So, how do we know time is constant?


Time is equal to the measure set forth by our Eternal Creator.

AdventureBegins's photo
Sat 03/05/11 07:45 PM
What 'universe' was that 'eternal creator' standing in when he created 'time' and this universe?

Infinity...

For every box you envision...

There is a greater box that contains your vision.

no photo
Sat 03/05/11 09:34 PM
Edited by CeriseRose on Sat 03/05/11 09:48 PM

What 'universe' was that 'eternal creator' standing in when he created 'time' and this universe?

Infinity...

For every box you envision...

There is a greater box that contains your vision.


HE was standing in eternity.

And the box we abide in is time...

Alloted time.flowerforyou

What is outside the box in which we dwell is...eternity.

Eternity has a gatekeeper...

We have absolutely no access to it by our own efforts.

Beyond all bounds is endlessness...


Yes, that's ETERNITY!!!

Now that's...................................rofl ...............

a trip!!! :wink:




AdventureBegins's photo
Sun 03/06/11 12:27 AM
What then 'contains' eternity... for to every 'foundation' there is an earth... to every earth there is rock beneath... for every rock beneath there is a planet... for every planet there is a sun... for every sun there is a universe...

for every universe there is?

no photo
Sun 03/06/11 07:39 AM
Edited by CeriseRose on Sun 03/06/11 07:47 AM

What then 'contains' eternity... for to every 'foundation' there is an earth... to every earth there is rock beneath... for every rock beneath there is a planet... for every planet there is a sun... for every sun there is a universe...

for every universe there is?


.......................................................................>.......................................................................An ETERNITY beyond.........................................................>....



............................................................waving ................................................................................................>
..................