Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Time: is it "for realz"? A jolly good discussion lies within.

24

Posts

  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    And the Big Bang is just Theory. It's not Fact.
    Einstein is God. Abloo abloo abloo. LOLZ.

    Einstein's GR produces an approximation that is an order of magnitude more accurate than Newtonian physics. But it's not perfect. Hence big pieces are missing out of the bigger picture.

    Therefore, GR (and through association the Big Bang) are both still subject to being disproven.

    In fact, it's quite necessary to physics that GR is eventually disproven and replaced with a more accurate theory.

    Octo -> Show me a bottle of dark energy.

    Dark energy's aggregate effects are currently only noticeable over light years. If you get me the bottle, I'll get you the dark energy.

    Second, GR and SR have a better approximation than just one order of magnitude over Newton's laws from our observations. In fact, if you knew anything about the subject at all, you'd know great concern is that it and other theories work too well.

    Dark energy and dark matter are only proposed by astronomers because they can't account for the shapes of spiral galaxies and the changes they observe in the light coming from supernovae.

    The theories work well. But they are not complete.

    Einstein's spacetime is a bastard unit because it's mostly a mathematical convience. There's no aether, so there's nothing there. And the idea of 'curved empty space' is extremely oxymoronic. But since GR seems to work 'fairly' accurately, the implication is that there is something there other than 'nothing', despite Einstein's claims to the contrary.

    By the way... I find it funny you'll argue against a cyclical universe with that avatar.

    Che Guevara on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Its somewhat amusing that Time is always considered as a single dimension with the multiple frames of reference for where the zero point is, and where negative and positive values come into effect.

    If Time is relative to perspective, how do we know it isnt moving backwards in the same way its moving forwards? That the universe is constantly moving from entropy to the big bang at the same time its moving from the big bang towards entropy. Are the big bang and entropy actually the same point in time and thats where the cyclical comes into play?

    Also, is it Newtonian physics that stated that every action had an equal and opposite reaction, except of course gravity and magnetism. Would you be able to append time onto that?
    Or are all of the different forces of friction, inertia, momentum, etc just adding up to one constant in Einsteins physics?

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Dark energy and dark matter are only proposed by astronomers because they can't account for the shapes of spiral galaxies and the changes they observe in the light coming from supernovae.

    Wrong. Dark energy was a mechanism proposed for equilibrium against gravity. Our initial error was that we grossly underestimated it, proven by accelerative expansion of the universe. Change in light from supernovae is just one more test whose results verify that dark energy is real.

    Dark matter has been seen (big picture):
    1e0657odx.jpg
    The theories work well. But they are not complete.

    Einstein's spacetime is a bastard unit because it's mostly a mathematical convience. There's no aether, so there's nothing there. And the idea of 'curved empty space' is extremely oxymoronic. But since GR seems to work 'fairly' accurately, the implication is that there is something there other than 'nothing', despite Einstein's claims to the contrary.

    We don't have anywhere that's empty space. There's always something zipping around in what you might consider "empty space" that's going to help bend it. But, maybe you have some novel theory why you don't fly off of the earth? Intelligent falling?
    By the way... I find it funny you'll argue against a cyclical universe with that avatar.

    I kinda like alchemy.

    Octoparrot on
    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Its somewhat amusing that Time is always considered as a single dimension with the multiple frames of reference for where the zero point is, and where negative and positive values come into effect.

    If Time is relative to perspective, how do we know it isnt moving backwards in the same way its moving forwards? That the universe is constantly moving from entropy to the big bang at the same time its moving from the big bang towards entropy. Are the big bang and entropy actually the same point in time and thats where the cyclical comes into play?

    Also, is it Newtonian physics that stated that every action had an equal and opposite reaction, except of course gravity and magnetism. Would you be able to append time onto that?
    Or are all of the different forces of friction, inertia, momentum, etc just adding up to one constant in Einsteins physics?

    Does my hand have an equal and opposite reaction?

    Does light?

    Does a ham sandwich?

    Octoparrot on
    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Its somewhat amusing that Time is always considered as a single dimension with the multiple frames of reference for where the zero point is, and where negative and positive values come into effect.

    If Time is relative to perspective, how do we know it isnt moving backwards in the same way its moving forwards? That the universe is constantly moving from entropy to the big bang at the same time its moving from the big bang towards entropy

    Because we have no point of reference for that, and since time is relative to the observer (not to mention we lack the apparatus or the comprehension), we can't see that.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    Its somewhat amusing that Time is always considered as a single dimension with the multiple frames of reference for where the zero point is, and where negative and positive values come into effect.

    If Time is relative to perspective, how do we know it isnt moving backwards in the same way its moving forwards? That the universe is constantly moving from entropy to the big bang at the same time its moving from the big bang towards entropy. Are the big bang and entropy actually the same point in time and thats where the cyclical comes into play?

    Also, is it Newtonian physics that stated that every action had an equal and opposite reaction, except of course gravity and magnetism. Would you be able to append time onto that?
    Or are all of the different forces of friction, inertia, momentum, etc just adding up to one constant in Einsteins physics?

    Does my hand have an equal and opposite reaction?

    Does light?

    Does a ham sandwich?

    Masturbation, squinting, and deliciousness.

    Next question.

    Evil Multifarious on
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Its somewhat amusing that Time is always considered as a single dimension with the multiple frames of reference for where the zero point is, and where negative and positive values come into effect.

    You might as well say that 2.57pm is amusing because we have different time-zones.
    If Time is relative to perspective, how do we know it isnt moving backwards in the same way its moving forwards?

    It's not moving. Period.
    Also, is it Newtonian physics that stated that every action had an equal and opposite reaction, except of course gravity and magnetism. Would you be able to append time onto that?
    Or are all of the different forces of friction, inertia, momentum, etc just adding up to one constant in Einsteins physics?

    The "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" applys to a system as a whole, not to a specific force.

    An object sat on a table experiences an upward force from the table that is "equal and opposite" to the downward force of gravity. Push the object off the table and you remove the upward force so the object accelerates.

    Gorak on
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    Dark energy and dark matter are only proposed by astronomers because they can't account for the shapes of spiral galaxies and the changes they observe in the light coming from supernovae.

    Wrong. Dark energy was a mechanism proposed for equilibrium against gravity. Our initial error was that we grossly underestimated it, proven by accelerative expansion of the universe. Change in light from supernovae is just one more test whose results verify that dark energy is real.

    Dark matter has been seen (big picture):
    1e0657odx.jpg
    The theories work well. But they are not complete.

    Einstein's spacetime is a bastard unit because it's mostly a mathematical convience. There's no aether, so there's nothing there. And the idea of 'curved empty space' is extremely oxymoronic. But since GR seems to work 'fairly' accurately, the implication is that there is something there other than 'nothing', despite Einstein's claims to the contrary.

    We don't have anywhere that's empty space. There's always something zipping around in what you might consider "empty space" that's going to help bend it. But, maybe you have some novel theory why you don't fly off of the earth? Intelligent falling?
    By the way... I find it funny you'll argue against a cyclical universe with that avatar.

    I kinda like alchemy.

    I dark energy is still theory. It's an extrapolated fudge factor as we have no mechanistic physical basis for it's existence or transmission. (Unless you want to propose an aether.) Those Dark Matter lensing pictures are also experiencing quite a bit of debate. MOND is the alternative to the necessity of the existence of dark fudge factors, which just implies that we really don't understand gravity.

    As for the empty space argument, it still doesn't follow because it's required that the background spacetime is a real physical element while still being immaterial and empty.

    I like alchemy too.

    Che Guevara on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

    Drez on
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    As for the empty space argument, it still doesn't follow because it's required that the background spacetime is a real physical element while still being immaterial and empty.

    I like alchemy too.

    If you don't believe that spacetime "exists" as a sort of meta-substance, then do you believe that the universe is infinite in size?

    Evil Multifarious on
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Octoparrot wrote: »

    Does my hand have an equal and opposite reaction?

    Does light?

    Does a ham sandwich?

    Moving your hand would have the force of movement, against which the opposite reactions would be friction with the air, inertia and eventually momentum

    I was talking about forces not objects.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Octoparrot wrote: »

    Does my hand have an equal and opposite reaction?

    Does light?

    Does a ham sandwich?

    Moving your hand would have the force of movement, against which the opposite reactions would be friction with the air, inertia and eventually momentum

    I was talking about forces not objects.

    I wanted to make the implication that magnetism or gravity isn't enough information. Whatever system these things are involved in, they're the mediators for a force exchange.
    Gorak wrote:
    The "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" applys to a system as a whole, not to a specific force.

    Octoparrot on
    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Who's debating these dark matter pictures? Gene Ray? David Icke?

    MOND is on the fringes of acceptable theory.

    Octoparrot on
    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    As for the empty space argument, it still doesn't follow because it's required that the background spacetime is a real physical element while still being immaterial and empty.

    I like alchemy too.

    If you don't believe that spacetime "exists" as a sort of meta-substance, then do you believe that the universe is infinite in size?

    Sure.

    I believe spacetime exists 'in principle' as a mathematical model of the underlying background of the universe itself, with this order being expressed in the spontaenous creation of virtual particles through vacuum energy.

    Che Guevara on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    MikeMan wrote: »
    And the Big Bang is just Theory. It's not Fact.
    Einstein is God. Abloo abloo abloo. LOLZ.

    Einstein's GR produces an approximation that is an order of magnitude more accurate than Newtonian physics. But it's not perfect. Hence big pieces are missing out of the bigger picture.

    Therefore, GR (and through association the Big Bang) are both still subject to being disproven.

    In fact, it's quite necessary to physics that GR is eventually disproven and replaced with a more accurate theory.

    Octo -> Show me a bottle of dark energy.

    Jesus Christ, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • strakha_7strakha_7 Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Time is how we measure the intersection of events and/or objects and a way to quantify what passes between intersections. That's what I think anyways.

    strakha_7 on
    Want a signature? Find a post by ElJeffe and quote a random sentence!
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Zero tolerance policies are almost invariably terrible.

    One might say I have zero tolerance for them.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I don't think most people in this thread do.

    Are there any actual scientists here who would care to contribute or are we only going to get half-baked opinions from people with no education in these fields?

    sanstodo on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I don't think most people in this thread do.

    Are there any actual scientists here who would care to contribute or are we only going to get half-baked opinions from people with no education in these fields?

    Everything I've said in this thread is based on the writings of Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, and Brian Greene.

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited July 2007
    We have a few actual physicists on this forum, but we tend to stay away from pseudoscience with the same vigor that we avoid "real life Star Trek lolz"

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Are there any actual scientists here who would care to contribute or are we only going to get half-baked opinions from people with no education in these fields?

    050708_foxworth_vmed.widec.jpg
    "If the idea of a Higgs boson particle makes you horny, you might be an astrophysicist."

    Just Like That on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    If yer gunrack has a gunrack on it...

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    MikeMan wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    And the Big Bang is just Theory. It's not Fact.
    Einstein is God. Abloo abloo abloo. LOLZ.

    Einstein's GR produces an approximation that is an order of magnitude more accurate than Newtonian physics. But it's not perfect. Hence big pieces are missing out of the bigger picture.

    Therefore, GR (and through association the Big Bang) are both still subject to being disproven.

    In fact, it's quite necessary to physics that GR is eventually disproven and replaced with a more accurate theory.

    Octo -> Show me a bottle of dark energy.

    Jesus Christ, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Tell me what gravity is and I'll agree with you.

    Tell me what mass is and I'll accept that you're smarter than Einstein.

    Che Guevara on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited July 2007
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    At least a tree you can describe from start to finish.

    You can't describe how gravity operates or it's mechanism for transmission.

    Che Guevara on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    At least a tree you can describe from start to finish.

    You can't describe how gravity operates or it's mechanism for transmission.

    You.. you don't know that a tree is composed of the particles and forces described in physics?

    You cannot fully describe a tree without talking about its gravity and mass and so forth.

    Incenjucar on
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    At least a tree you can describe from start to finish.

    You can't describe how gravity operates or it's mechanism for transmission.

    You.. you don't know that a tree is composed of the particles and forces described in physics?

    You cannot fully describe a tree without talking about its gravity and mass and so forth.

    Wow. Thought of that one all by yourself, did you?

    And trees grow upwards because they hate gravity. If it wasn't for that blasted gravity they'd grow like pretzels.

    Che Guevara on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Wow. Thought of that one all by yourself, did you?

    If you didn't post stupid things nobody would have to give obvious replies.
    And trees grow upwards because they hate gravity. If it wasn't for that blasted gravity they'd grow like pretzels.

    Okily dokily.

    Incenjucar on
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Wow. Thought of that one all by yourself, did you?

    If you didn't post stupid things nobody would have to give obvious replies.
    And trees grow upwards because they hate gravity. If it wasn't for that blasted gravity they'd grow like pretzels.

    Okily dokily.

    Am I going to have to start highlighting my text so people can tell when I'm using sarcasm?

    You can describe the processes that allow a tree to grow, live and die without mentioning gravity.

    Everything in the Universe is affected by gravity... if you want to pick nits, there's nothing in the entire Universe you can describe 'completely' without the fundamental understandings that the Standard Model still hasn't provided.

    Che Guevara on
  • strakha_7strakha_7 Registered User
    edited July 2007
    You don't need to be a physicist to debate the nature of time, do you?

    From my view our shared perception of time (24 hours, 7 days, 12 months, 4 seasons, 365 days, lunar periods, etc) stems from a few cement facts:

    The period of the earth's travel around the sun is 365.25 days.
    The period of the moon travel around the earth is around 28 days.
    The period of the earth's rotation is about 24 hours.

    Beyond that everything is completely arbitrary from my view. Life has evolved on this planet to perceive time in a certain way - 24/7/365 etc. * This is because our environment has demanded it. A planet further from the sun with a long period of rotation around the axis with a very small moon might be 34/3/507 if humans had evolved on it.

    What is the standard unit of time? According to wiki, "Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." Sounds like a very complicated way of saying it's arbitrary to me.

    Time is subjective to the situation which demands its measurement.

    A bit more on how I view time, maybe:

    Everything is a string in space. We only ever see the cross section existing in the "present," even though all states of that object/person/event are there (birth, growth, life, death). Like quantum objects, observing something localizes the "string" to a precise instance. That is what we see. We then take other objects with a somewhat constant "string" to measure our intersections with other objects.

    The moon, the earth, the tilt of the earth: all these things are strings that could be said to move like a wave in a regular fashion, oscilating from one extreme to the other. We use our constant intersections with these strings/waves to measure our less regular intersections with other strings/waves. Thus we were doing, in 5000 BC, the exact same thing with the Moon or the tilt of the sun (easy) that we do now with the decay of a caesium-133 atom (hard). All we have accomplished is to make the process too complex for the average person to understand.

    We use the periods of "predictable" strings to measure our string's interaction with other strings. That is all time is.

    Putting on my dragonscale, flame-proof plate now.

    EDIT: added some material at the *

    strakha_7 on
    Want a signature? Find a post by ElJeffe and quote a random sentence!
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Zero tolerance policies are almost invariably terrible.

    One might say I have zero tolerance for them.
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    We have a few actual physicists on this forum, but we tend to stay away from pseudoscience with the same vigor that we avoid "real life Star Trek lolz"

    I end up shouting at people. I'll explain something in a simple, generalised way to answer a question and some smartarse will bring up some irrelevant point they saw on discovery channel, use it to "rebut" whatever I said and muddy the issue.

    Gorak on
  • DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    At least a tree you can describe from start to finish.

    You can't describe how gravity operates or it's mechanism for transmission.

    You.. you don't know that a tree is composed of the particles and forces described in physics?

    You cannot fully describe a tree without talking about its gravity and mass and so forth.

    But we don't need to know what gravity and mass are in order to describe a tree. It's enough that we know what those things do.

    Tree is still a tree whether or not its atoms are little balls on springs, ethereal strings or miniature solar systems... as long as the atoms behave the same in each scenario.

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The fact that you leave out a vast amount of information about the tree does not lead me to believe you have fully described it.

    You have simply made the fair assumption that a whole lot of information is understood as a given and as context.

    For instance, if you described a tree, it would be safe to assume you were talking about a tree on Earth in a fairly normal situation, rather than, say, a tree on a space shuttle.

    A tree on a space shuttle could NOT be described the same was a tree on Earth if it's been growing there for a long enough duration.

    Incenjucar on
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    A tree on a space shuttle could NOT be described the same was a tree on Earth if it's been growing there for a long enough duration.

    Space tree = pretzel.

    Che Guevara on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    At least a tree you can describe from start to finish.

    You can't describe how gravity operates or it's mechanism for transmission.

    You.. you don't know that a tree is composed of the particles and forces described in physics?

    You cannot fully describe a tree without talking about its gravity and mass and so forth.

    Wow. Thought of that one all by yourself, did you?

    And trees grow upwards because they hate gravity. If it wasn't for that blasted gravity they'd grow like pretzels.

    Actually trees grow upwards only if there isn't something blocking them above, because they're trying to get the most sunlight possible. Trees can grow in pretty much any direction in efforts to get more light. If you ever notice trees in a downtownw area that are planted next to buildings, you'll notice that they lean away from the building, because they grew that way.

    FyreWulff on
  • Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    olol metaphysics.

    But what is tree?

    At least a tree you can describe from start to finish.

    You can't describe how gravity operates or it's mechanism for transmission.

    You.. you don't know that a tree is composed of the particles and forces described in physics?

    You cannot fully describe a tree without talking about its gravity and mass and so forth.

    Wow. Thought of that one all by yourself, did you?

    And trees grow upwards because they hate gravity. If it wasn't for that blasted gravity they'd grow like pretzels.

    Actually trees grow upwards only if there isn't something blocking them above, because they're trying to get the most sunlight possible. Trees can grow in pretty much any direction in efforts to get more light. If you ever notice trees in a downtownw area that are planted next to buildings, you'll notice that they lean away from the building, because they grew that way.

    And if you could grow a tree in a bubble in space, provided you haven't equip it with stablization thrusters, it will rotate and spin as it grows.

    Larry Niven used the idea in his book 'Smoke Ring.'

    Che Guevara on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.

    Yar on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
    The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

    electricitylikesme on
  • LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
    The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

    Out of curiosity, would it be correct to state that, if one treats time as a space-like dimension, the velocity of any body is always c? I have no idea what keywords might get me this information, and haven't studied relativity, so I'll ask it here. And you reminded me.

    Linden on
    What if this weren't a rhetorical question?
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
    The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

    Out of curiosity, would it be correct to state that, if one treats time as a space-like dimension, the velocity of any body is always c? I have no idea what keywords might get me this information, and haven't studied relativity, so I'll ask it here. And you reminded me.

    Hm. Hmmm. I feel the urge to play with Lorentz equations but you raise a really interesting idea (at least to me) - connect velocity in all 4 dimensions to the absolute limit and fun stuff could happen I suppose. I really need to do some more reading on relativity.

    electricitylikesme on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
    The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

    Out of curiosity, would it be correct to state that, if one treats time as a space-like dimension, the velocity of any body is always c? I have no idea what keywords might get me this information, and haven't studied relativity, so I'll ask it here. And you reminded me.

    That's basically exactly right.

    As far as I understand it, when you accelerate through space you divert some of your energy FROM moving through "time" at light speed TO moving through space at whatever fraction.

    This is why, when you increase your speed, you move through time slower.

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
Sign In or Register to comment.