100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is time travel possible? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So, what exactly is the definition of time? Its not often you will find me being serious on here but I will be just for you. You may want to have a look at Einstien as he did quite a bit of work on time. basiclly the definition of time is, a measure in which events can be ordered, so from past to present. It measures intervals between events and also the length of events. that is very basic but there you go |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, what exactly is the definition of time? Its not often you will find me being serious on here but I will be just for you. You may want to have a look at Einstien as he did quite a bit of work on time. basiclly the definition of time is, a measure in which events can be ordered, so from past to present. It measures intervals between events and also the length of events. that is very basic but there you go That is another way of saying that time is a metric. Basically, time is the measurement of the movement of celestial objects. One Year is defined as one complete trip around the Sun by the Earth. One Day is defined as one complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. One Lunar Month is defined as one complete trip by the Moon around the Earth. One Light Year is defined as the distance that light travels while the Earth is making one complete trip around the Sun. Hours, Minutes and Seconds are fractions of a Day. The speed at which a person or an object travels does not affect how fast that the Earth travels around the Sun. Nor does it affect how fast that the Earth spins on its axis. Perhaps speed will affect how a clock functions. If such is the case, then speed causes a clock to malfunction, not cause time to speed up or slow down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, what exactly is the definition of time? Its not often you will find me being serious on here but I will be just for you. You may want to have a look at Einstien as he did quite a bit of work on time. basiclly the definition of time is, a measure in which events can be ordered, so from past to present. It measures intervals between events and also the length of events. that is very basic but there you go That is another way of saying that time is a metric. Basically, time is the measurement of the movement of celestial objects. One Year is defined as one complete trip around the Sun by the Earth. One Day is defined as one complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. One Lunar Month is defined as one complete trip by the Moon around the Earth. One Light Year is defined as the distance that light travels while the Earth is making one complete trip around the Sun. Hours, Minutes and Seconds are fractions of a Day. The speed at which a person or an object travels does not affect how fast that the Earth travels around the Sun. Nor does it affect how fast that the Earth spins on its axis. Perhaps speed will affect how a clock functions. If such is the case, then speed causes a clock to malfunction, not cause time to speed up or slow down. don't those Clocks operate on the Decay of certain Isotopes? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
vegansoul
on
Sun 11/02/14 04:29 AM
|
|
Manchester lol - Coronation Street ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
vegansoul
on
Sun 11/02/14 05:07 AM
|
|
More or less I get it now. So a motion slows down the time, right????? Yet, is it speed, acceleration, or direction of movement, that slow down the time? What if you move millions times the speed of light (in theory of course), will the clock stop? and if you go even faster will it go backward? The faster you go the slower your 'clock' seems to be going compared to identical one left on Earth so twin in spaceship ages less than twin left on Earth. However the faster you go the more your apparent mass increases, so it's harder and harder to get extra speed (Force = mass x acceleration so as mass increases harder to force it to accelerate more) in relativity theory, the limiting speed anything could reach would be the speed of light ( c ) because as anything approaches this speed it's mass approaches infinity - well that's the maths anyway. However quantum effects seem to be propogated thousands of times faster than c & the Universe itself is expanding at a faster rate than c - interesting stuff but I doubt anyone (including the top names in Physics) really inderstands it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, time travel is fictional. It is just that clocks function weirdly at fast speeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, time travel is fictional. It is just that clocks function weirdly at fast speeds. It is not fictional at all. If you can place yourself far into the future by traveling in time at a different rate than the destination, you have time traveled. It really is that simple. And there is nothing "weird" about relativity. Space/time is the fabric of the universe. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it fictional, unreal, non-existent, or anything other than something you don't understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time is a metric, not a fabric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time is a metric, not a fabric. Making definitive statements to try to show that you "know" something which your posts show that you do not understand are a metric. Space/time is the fabric of the universe. Einstein understands it better than you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sun 11/02/14 08:23 PM
|
|
I am sure that plenty of people are experts on a particular paradigm pertaining to time.
However, if the paradigm itself is flawed, then so much for expertise. By the way, the existence of time and what it is were the subjects of an article published by Scientific American. I read the article, and, believe it or not, there are scientists who support what I have already said about time.  From Psychology Today magazine: "Does Time Really Exist?" In biocentrism, space and time aren't physical things. They're forms of animal intuition. They are - as Kant eloquently pointed out - modes of understanding, part of the mental software that molds sensations into objects. When we feel poignantly that time has elapsed, as when loved ones die, it constitutes the human perceptions of the passage and existence of time. Our babies turn into adults. We age. That to us is time. It belongs with us.
But you might ask "What about clocks?" We have sophisticated machines, like atomic clocks, to measure time. But measuring "time" doesn't prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things. We use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This isn't time, but rather, a comparison of events. We called these manmade devices "clocks." But these are just events, not to be confused with time. Indeed, one could measure time by measuring the melting of ice on a hot day. We might even devise a plan to meet for tea at two ice-cube melts or 50 top-spins, which ever "time piece" you each happen to have on hand. Clocks just have springs and things. People get sidestepped into believing time exists as a physical entity because we've invented clocks. From a biocentric point of view, time is the inner process that animates consciousness and experience. The existence of clocks, which ostensibly measure "time," doesn't in any way prove time itself exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting conversation, I may not meet a vegan on this site but I love the Physics - been out of the field too long to comment but thanks for motivating me to read up on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure that plenty of people are experts on a particular paradigm pertaining to time. However, if the paradigm itself is flawed, then so much for expertise. By the way, the existence of time and what it is were the subjects of an article published by Scientific American. I read the article, and, believe it or not, there are scientists who support what I have already said about time. From Psychology Today magazine: "Does Time Really Exist?" In biocentrism, space and time aren't physical things. They're forms of animal intuition. They are - as Kant eloquently pointed out - modes of understanding, part of the mental software that molds sensations into objects. When we feel poignantly that time has elapsed, as when loved ones die, it constitutes the human perceptions of the passage and existence of time. Our babies turn into adults. We age. That to us is time. It belongs with us. But you might ask "What about clocks?" We have sophisticated machines, like atomic clocks, to measure time. But measuring "time" doesn't prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things. We use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This isn't time, but rather, a comparison of events. We called these manmade devices "clocks." But these are just events, not to be confused with time. Indeed, one could measure time by measuring the melting of ice on a hot day. We might even devise a plan to meet for tea at two ice-cube melts or 50 top-spins, which ever "time piece" you each happen to have on hand. Clocks just have springs and things. People get sidestepped into believing time exists as a physical entity because we've invented clocks. From a biocentric point of view, time is the inner process that animates consciousness and experience. The existence of clocks, which ostensibly measure "time," doesn't in any way prove time itself exists. so,Nuclear Decay is just imaginary then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decay is just imaginary then? Nuclear decay is concrete. Time is abstract. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decay is just imaginary then? Nuclear decay is concrete. Time is abstract. Time is explained in Einstein's words on the previous page. It is a property of the universe that can be described as infinitely variable to every point depending upon that points relation to speed and gravity. Being "different" at virtually every point in space makes the description of it as a metric silly since the "metric" only applies at the point where the measurement was taken. This "variability" is why they have to have different clocks in orbit to compare to the ones on Earth to measure GPS signals. If you knew the difference between how properties are assigned variables in physics you would not refer to time as abstract. The article you referred to is about "biocentrism", not Einsteinien physics. Get a clue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article that I quoted:
But you might ask "What about clocks?" We have sophisticated machines, like atomic clocks, to measure time. But measuring "time" doesn't prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things. We use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This isn't time, but rather, a comparison of events. We called these manmade devices "clocks."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes one second at a time into the future
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article that I quoted: But you might ask "What about clocks?" We have sophisticated machines, like atomic clocks, to measure time. But measuring "time" doesn't prove its physical existence. Clocks are rhythmic things. We use the rhythms of some events (like the ticking of clocks) to time other events (like the rotation of the earth). This isn't time, but rather, a comparison of events. We called these manmade devices "clocks." From the article that you quoted: "From a biocentric point of view..." You either didn't read the article or you don't have a clue what it is saying. The article is NOT about hard physics! It is about biocentrics. Dodo, the reason the article keeps reminding you that the discussion is from the point of view of BIOCENTRICS is to distinguish the discussion from actual physics. Can you say "duh"?  From Wiki: Biocentric universe (from Greek: βίος, bios, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") — also known as biocentrism — is a concept proposed in 2007 by American doctor of medicine Robert Lanza, a scientist in the fields of regenerative medicine and biology,[1][2][3] which sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around. It asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.[4] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Tue 11/04/14 04:32 PM
|
|
Your logical fallacy is "appeal to authority".
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. (Quote Source) There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism. (Quote Source) ScienceChannel.com has published an article in which the site describes ten cases in which the scientific consensus was wrong. Here is Case #1: You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is ... but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is. Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is). How could they be so wrong? It gets worse. Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long? It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea. I read about this particular case. William Harvey went against the established scientific consensus of his day when he openly disagreed with Galen. As for the definition of time, the fact that physicists use time to predict events (and sometimes objects) doesn't necessarily mean that their definition of time is correct. Scientific consensus has been wrong before. It can be wrong again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your logical fallacy is "appeal to authority". An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. (Quote Source) There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism. (Quote Source) ScienceChannel.com has published an article in which the site describes ten cases in which the scientific consensus was wrong. Here is Case #1: You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is ... but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is. Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is). How could they be so wrong? It gets worse. Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long? It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea. I read about this particular case. William Harvey went against the established scientific consensus of his day when he openly disagreed with Galen. As for the definition of time, the fact that physicists use time to predict events (and sometimes objects) doesn't necessarily mean that their definition of time is correct. Scientific consensus has been wrong before. It can be wrong again. Your logical fallacy is struggling to defend an indefensible position. You state as "FACT" something that is not true and that you do not understand. You then try to prove your false statement by posting an article off the web that you don't understand and, in fact, proves you don't know what you are talking about. Time, as defined by Albert Einstein, is a property of the universe. Einstein's equations and concepts have been proven to the degree that the need for proof IN THIS CONTEXT is absurd. However, you quote an article about biocentrics out of context and try (and struggle and struggle and struggle) to convince the Mingle2 community that you understand physics better than I do (I do have seven years of college physics education you know!). Here are the facts! Biocentrics is not hard physics! Your 'appeal to authority' argument IS total BS. Biocentrics is a philosophy, not a science. There are no scientific facts to back it up. Biocentrics is not used in any serious discussion of hard physics and you do not understand the difference between metrics and properties, or science and philosophy. You have a history of making patently false statements in mingle discussions about physics and having someone like me explain where you are wrong. Physics is a fun topic and there is no reason why you, or anyone else, shouldn't express your thoughts and opinions. However, when you express screwball concepts and false information as FACTS, you can expect to be called out. A comparison of ancient Greece's vision of medicine to Albert Einstein's view of space/time is simply stupid. Einstein's equations on the infinite variability of time and space and how they are parts of the same thing are fundamental to understanding how the universe works. And, for the record, it is you who pulled up the bullchit biometric article to prove your point. I presented Albert Einstein's own paper describing how the use of time was used in HIS theory of relativity to give the definition of time as used in relativity, which is HIS theory. It is, therefore, fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ Metalwing.
I am wondering if you would consider having dreams which are predictive of future events which one has seen occur would be considered a form of time travel. In my opinion, it would make perfect sense although probably not able to be proven as scientific "fact". Just curious. What's your opinion? |
|
|
|
|
