Time and the Universe

Post Reply New Topic

Is this it? Is this the most pretentious thread ever?

The Earth is flat when one considers the Time aspect of the time/space variance. Some interpretations of relativity state that if you move an object, you also move the entire Universe simultaneously. Our Sun and Earth orbit a common center versus either actually being the center. If the present effects the future and the future can eventually be shown to effect the past, the present can effect the past. I do not believe in paradox other than the one we inhabit. Perhaps we are all within a constant state of super position.

Wait, how can the future affect the past? That's impossible, unless causality moves not just in one direction but many different directions. And where can I get some of the weed you're all smoking?

That is nonsense. Simulteneity is local and relative, not absolute. There is a time asymmetry in thermodynamical processes. Things cool off sponteneously, they do not heat up sponteneously. In the course of time entropy increases in close thermodynamic systems. It never decreases by itself.

How can the present effect the past. All transfers of energy are forward in time. Signals travel from the transmitted to the receiver.

ruveyn

in my world of thought..
time is relative to the observer.

time is only the presentation of information that arrives at the speed of light.

so time is a series of reality gradients that are observed by a mind in response to information arriving at their sensorial boundaries at the speed of light.

if something is moving away at the speed of light, then time halts in our relative appreciation of the flow of events in the other world because we can not be passed information as to its actuality faster than at at the seed of light.

but there is a universal "instant" that all things in history happen within, and that is a point of universal consciousness.

points have no substance. they are a zero dimensional seed of their triad plane of dimensions they found.

dark matter is matter which does not shine light.
it is matter which is cold.
more than 98% of the matter in the universe (i believe) is cold (-270) and not currently involved in interactions.

dark matter can not be detected by visual telescopes because of it's non luminosity, and it can not be detected by radio telescopes because it is dead in the electromagnetic spectrum. no heat (IR).. no radio waves or microwaves.

but it's mass is evident in the procession of the heavens. it seems to be the stuff that pulls galaxies together much faster than if there was a void of empty space between them. it explains many confounding trajectories that deviate from nominal expectation.

stars and their effects are the only matter that is not dark. even the earth would be dark matter if not near our sun. (actually it is dark matter regardless)

stars are so rare a semblance of matter that they really are "stars".

but given an infinitude of possibility, there will be countless stars.

I think both statements could conflict with each other, I believe the illusion of motion such as a film, can be used as a case against the existence of time, an author, a physicist, I don't remember who, who wrote a book about it, said that time is a constant change between parallel universes, which are infinite, giving the illusion of the progression of time, it seem to fit with the illusion of motion from film, which of course, I don't buy what the author says, as interesting that may sound, it's something that can never be verified nor observed.

An exceedingly amusing post displaying total confusion.

The confusion may be illusory.

Explain! Explain!

I do not have the same perception of time as normal people do so my opinion may not apply to anything but for as long as I can remember I just perceive of 'time' as being another way of describing or measuring 'change' so for me time doesn't actually pass or move or anything like that but everything around me changes which is basically the same thing but seen a little differently.

You have ensnarled yourself in such a mess of non-sequiturs I really see no way of untangling you.

I don't see why not, you can just elaborate, if you think this is purely about trying to refute you, you are wrong, I was merely discussing this, pointing a view and perspective, and I am more than willing to accept my mistakes in any discussion on the PPR forum, if I made one, I surely believe that I may be wrong, most of the time, what I wonder is, if I could safetly say this to resemble an ad hominem, it seems so, which I would find quite amusing.

I don't see such a mess btw, but I'd like to be proved wrong.

Last edited by greenblue on 10 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ORLY?

Like what?

I'm terribly sorry but first you present a theory that time is some sort of motion between parallel universes and then you indicate that you have no acceptance of that which means you have presented nothing. A three dimensional object is a cross section of a four dimensional continuum. What we sense as a passage of time is merely the passage of our perception through this four dimensional continuum and we perceive at right angles to the time dimension which means a cross section of the four dimensional continuum. What causes this perceptive travel is a mystery to me and although I have questioned scientific sources on the matter I have received no satisfactory answer.

well, I admit that it seems that I could make this kind of contradiction, and I have realised that, usually I do this when I try to take an impartial position and contemplate both sides in an argument, I can admit to be bad at it. Anyway, in my post I wasn't trying to support this theory, I was just trying to illustrate that a film's illusion of movement, could be used as an analogy in this theory, which the theory itself I don't support.

What makes you think motion is an illusion??? What about NON-Inertial motion?

I think people here are taking the idea of time as a fourth dimension a bit too literally. If we observe two events, a distance apart in space, and a period apart in time, we can use a technique called tensor calculus to calculate the 'interval' in time-space, which (I think) is a set offour numbers. We can then use the reverse process to calculate the apparent distance and period apart for a different observer, in a different place, moving at a different velocity relative to the events.
This 'interval' is the true physical relation of the two events, whilst our perception of the relation, of distance and of time, is really a perception of our relationship to the interval.
That's not the same as living on a cross-section of a four dimensional continuum, or whatever.

That sounds like a challenge to me.