Does Time Actually Exist?

[marcel_leonard]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If&nbsp;A were true and&nbsp;If B were true wouldn't C be true?&nbsp; Ah, probably?&nbsp; But we have no possible way of knowing if A and B were true so what is the point.If pigs had wings and the gravity of earth was 1/10 of what it currently is wouldn't pigs be able to fly?&nbsp; Maybe.These types of conjecture pale next to using science to understand the real universe we live in, IMNSHO. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Think for a moment that you were immortal and you observe the lives of four different beings. A 1000 year old Redwood tree, an 85 year old Mountain Gorilla, a 300 year old Sea Tortoise, and finally a 10 year old boy&hellip;</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Although all these living creatures would one day die; since death was impossible for yourself; you wouldn&rsquo;t worry as much about time, as the 10 year old boy who knew that in another 65 orbits around the sun that on average he would one day probably die. </font></p><p><br /><img style="width:356px;height:259px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/6/ec87a085-bf77-41b0-8653-be252d1b9b4f.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="245" height="182" /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[amaterasu]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My point with this&nbsp;discussion was to try and stimulate the conversation about whether, or not time actually existed. Think for a moment that you have be just turned 21 years of age, now think for a moment that for next 4.5 billion years you remain looking and feeling 21 years of age. How much would time matter then?The main reason that our understanding of Physics seems to breakdown; when we study the subatomic, and then compare it to the cosmic observations in scale, is largely because we really don&rsquo;t fully understand the basic laws of physics. Our understanding of modern physics is really not that much different then Midevil Catholic scholars that attempted to translate the original book of Moses&rsquo; Genesis from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek, and finally into Latin&hellip; <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV><br /><br />but clocks do not measure the passage of time, only intervals of it.&nbsp; likewise, there's no such thing as a super long ruler that can measure the entire universe.&nbsp; your average rulers can only measure intervals/distances in space.<br />unfortunately for Moses or medieval Catholic scholars, there were no atomic clocks or airliners to see time dilation themselves in their time.<br />although, didn't the Greeks treat space as a dimension?&nbsp; it seems to me, Einstein was no different from them,&nbsp;treating time as one, no?<br /><br />as for your God who exists outside of the frames of reference and yet would interfere with the laws of physics when things go *wrong*, i dunno what to say... apparently&nbsp;He/She/It would never be subject to change in the light of new knowledge, would He/She/It not? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[skeptic]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but clocks do not measure the passage of time, only intervals of it.&nbsp; likewise, there's no such thing as a super long ruler that can measure the entire universe.&nbsp; your average rulers can only measure intervals/distances in space.unfortunately for Moses or medieval Catholic scholars, there were no atomic clocks or airliners to see time dilation themselves in their time.although, didn't the Greeks treat space as a dimension?&nbsp; it seems to me, Einstein was no different from them,&nbsp;treating time as one, no?as for your God who exists outside of the frames of reference and yet would interfere with the laws of physics when things go *wrong*, i dunno what to say... apparently&nbsp;He/She/It would never be subject to change in the light of new knowledge, would He/She/It not? <br /> Posted by amaterasu</DIV></p><p><font size="2">It reminds me of a discussion a had with some theologians about the impossibility of God foreseeing the future.&nbsp; One theologian responded that God is outside of time and can see all of history including past, present and future.&nbsp; I suggested to him that it would then be improper to refer to God acting in time and all verbs that imply the passage of time would be inappropriate to be used with God, verbs such as chooses, plans, decides and saves.&nbsp; Though he wouldn't concede his point of God being outside of time he continued using verbs implying God's actions take place in time. </font></p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think for a moment that you were immortal and you observe the lives of four different beings. A 1000 year old Redwood tree, an 85 year old Mountain Gorilla, a 300 year old Sea Tortoise, and finally a 10 year old boy&hellip;Although all these living creatures would one day die; since death was impossible for yourself; you wouldn&rsquo;t worry as much about time, as the 10 year old boy who knew that in another 65 orbits around the sun that on average he would one day probably die. <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV><br /><br />I know that I am going to die and I don't worry about time, unless I am late to an appointment and in that case my mortality&nbsp;is not really any part of my&nbsp;concern.&nbsp; I also don't imagine a sea turtle worries about time - could be wrong though.</p><p>Also for clarification, the oldest gorilla on record&nbsp;lived to be&nbsp;44 years old.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know that I am going to die and I don't worry about time, unless I am late to an appointment and in that case my mortality&nbsp;is not really any part of my&nbsp;concern.&nbsp; I also don't imagine a sea turtle worries about time - could be wrong though.Also for clarification, the oldest gorilla on record&nbsp;lived to be&nbsp;44 years old.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /><br />I worry about time when I don't want my toast to be too burnt! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>My philosophy on time is that it definitely does exist, simply due to the fact that our preception of it can change on a day-to-day basis. For example, when we have too much time, it ticks by ever so slowly; then, when we don't have enough of it, it ticks by ever so quickly! </p><p>If you have several hours to kill, and nothing to do, those several hours seem to take an eternity. Yet, if you are running late to work, or you have only two hours to run several errands, the time that you have seems to flash by in the blink of an eye. </p><p>Additionally, when we are doing things that we don't always enjoy (work, school, etc.) time takes forever - I experience this a lot in my lecture classes! Yet, when we do things that we love (being with a significant other, going on vacation, etc.) time flies by us as if one week&nbsp;is more like one hour!</p><p>IMO, these every day examples&nbsp;are some of the most obvious to help explain Einstein's&nbsp;theory of Relativity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the purpose of physics you can measure time, and that is enough.&nbsp; The question of "existence" is a question of philosophy, and the sub-discipline of ontology.&nbsp; Debates regarding ontology tend to be prolonged and the next conclusion that I see coming from such a debate will be the first one.&nbsp; Those discussions are simply not productive.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I am beginning to see what you mean, DrRocket.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />&nbsp; I must admit I do sometimes have trouble separating science from philosophy, as you will have no doubt noticed in some of my other posts. I am glad you are here to clarify certain points and to point out where I sometimes go wrong (I will steer clear of mathematical definitions in future!) - we lost some of our "experts" when the forum software changed and it is good to have someone such as yourself here, keeping it real. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well I've got a quesion for that. If time and space are so intrinsicallly linked then tell me:When space is looked at on a microscopic scale it seems to be extremely chaotic and unorderly. Is time the same way?Say we look at a really short piece of time like&nbsp; picosecond ( 0.000000000001 seconds) in this period of time will things move like still images? jumpimg from place to place? Or very smoothly? In other worth would inertia not be that big of a deal. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>Well, they are linked in relativistic terms, but applying relativity to such small scales doesn't really seem to work, hence the problems unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So I cannot answer your question - perhaps someone else can shed more light on this. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[lildreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I worry about time when I don't want my toast to be too burnt! My philosophy on time is that it definitely does exist, simply due to the fact that our preception of it can change on a day-to-day basis. For example, when we have too much time, it ticks by ever so slowly; then, when we don't have enough of it, it ticks by ever so quickly! If you have several hours to kill, and nothing to do, those several hours seem to take an eternity. Yet, if you are running late to work, or you have only two hours to run several errands, the time that you have seems to flash by in the blink of an eye. Additionally, when we are doing things that we don't always enjoy (work, school, etc.) time takes forever - I experience this a lot in my lecture classes! Yet, when we do things that we love (being with a significant other, going on vacation, etc.) time flies by us as if one week&nbsp;is more like one hour!IMO, these every day examples&nbsp;are some of the most obvious to help explain Einstein's&nbsp;theory of Relativity. <br />Posted by weeman</DIV></p><p>my two cents</p><p>we perceive events in milliseconds - that's due to physical limitations of our design.</p><p>If we were to perceive events in microseconds - all the way to Planks Constant then what seems like a smooth analog event would drag on to a period where I would kill my self from boredom waiting for the event to complete itself.</p><p>work&nbsp;back the other way if we perceive events on&nbsp; a time scale of 1 million years per event then we would of witnessed only&nbsp;165 events or snapshots since the restart that took place from the last extinction. We wouldn't even acknowledge anything else in-between.&nbsp;</p><p>we confuse events with time - events can occur in serial fashion parallel and or instantaneous with overlapping universes and dimensions. Don't forget to include all permutations and combinations of those concepts.</p><p>what we call time imo is actually a default value given to Existence or what we call our current state of Reality.</p><p>What I mean by that as long as you have even 1 dimension you have Existence and as long as that exists then there is the capacity to segregate events ie time.</p><p><br />- now immortality was bantered about...</p><p>one person asked if that individual was immortal how would they perceive the universe ...did they grow old before the became immortal, were they born immortal and forever stayed in a infant state...define immortality as infinite existence - imagine a mind that exists for infinity only conscious of itself and nothing else - that would truly be maddening....</p><p>(...getting off soap box walking over to fridge - ...pffftss&nbsp; cracking open cold Corona...walking away..)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, they are linked in relativistic terms, but applying relativity to such small scales doesn't really seem to work, hence the problems unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So I cannot answer your question - perhaps someone else can shed more light on this. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Could there be an unknown force or particle, that causes time? If this is a possibility, then by modifying this force, we could modify time.&nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps we could even jog, shuttle and pause time. Like in the movie Spaceballs, where they already have the movie as a video release, so they can rewind and fast forward to see what's going to happen in the next scene of the still on-going movie.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />&nbsp; </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well I've got a quesion for that. If time and space are so intrinsicallly linked then tell me:When space is looked at on a microscopic scale it seems to be extremely chaotic and unorderly.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>Do you have any real evidence for this statement, or it this just the result of reading speculative popularizations of physics research ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SHU]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could there be an unknown force or particle, that causes time? If this is a possibility, then by modifying this force, we could modify time.&nbsp;Perhaps we could even jog, shuttle and pause time. Like in the movie Spaceballs, where they already have the movie as a video release, so they can rewind and fast forward to see what's going to happen in the next scene of the still on-going movie.&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p><font size="2">We could call them chronotons and they come in&nbsp;quarklike flavours like up, down, fast and pause.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2">It'll never happen but&nbsp;not because reductionism is unwilling.</font></p><p><font size="2">The immediate question is how to remove time from experimentation.&nbsp; How could you get any results without a change in time?&nbsp;&nbsp;Likely that&nbsp;any evidence is beyond our ability to measure so that&nbsp;time will always elude us, except in theory.&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2">There are already speculations, from topology&nbsp;and string fields,&nbsp;on quantum spacetime and emergent spacetime where reductionism reaches a limit and there are minimum "sizes" and periods of time but no definitive limit is proposed.&nbsp; There is a&nbsp;good possibilty that the limits are "fuzzy" or more complex than we can even&nbsp;guess yet.</font></p><p><font size="2">Since space dimensions are perpendicular to each other, does that imply that time is perpendicular to space?&nbsp; Or am I on a tangent?</font></p>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>now immortality was bantered about...one person asked if that individual was immortal how would they perceive the universe ...did they grow old before the became immortal, were they born immortal and forever stayed in a infant state...define immortality as infinite existence - imagine a mind that exists for infinity only conscious of itself and nothing else - that would truly be maddening....(...getting off soap box walking over to fridge - ...pffftss&nbsp; cracking open cold Corona...walking away..) <br />Posted by lildreamer</DIV><br /><br />That got me thinking.&nbsp; I can imagine&nbsp;a day when&nbsp;science will come up with a therapy that will allow you to live for 2 thousand years without any addition aging - and this great discovery will happen when I am 95.&nbsp; Sort of a&nbsp;Woody Allen&nbsp;type of scenario. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[observer7]

--<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Since space dimensions are perpendicular to each other, does that imply that time is perpendicular to space?&nbsp; Or am I on a tangent? <br />Posted by SHU</DIV></p><p>I think you are on a tangent.&nbsp;But it is an interesting tangent.</p><p>The notion of perpendicularity is a separate notion from that of dimension.&nbsp; Spatial dimensions need not be perpendicular to one another, we just usually choose axes to measure space that happen to be perpendicular.&nbsp; Other choices could be made.&nbsp; You can choose spatial basis vectors that are linearly independent but not perpendicular, but they are not convenient.</p><p>Perpendicularity is really associated with a notion of an inner product -- a mathematical construct that permits multiplication of two vectors to produce a scalar, subject to certain rules.&nbsp; That notion can be generalized slightly to include somewhat more general quadratic forms, and that is what is done in relativity.&nbsp; In relativity one deals with the Lorentz metric (a quadratic form defined at each point), which can represented with a diagonal matrix with one -1 and three 1's (or vice versa depending on the convention that one wishes to adopt).&nbsp; And using that metric it does make some sense to say that time is perpendicular to the spatial dimensions, locally. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you have any real evidence for this statement, or it this just the result of reading speculative popularizations of physics research ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Nope. </strong>Pulled it right out of thin air.... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> So no. <strong>I have no idea what Im talkin about</strong>, I'm not even sure what that general statement implies. </p><p>I just heard that things can't be predicted at the quantum level because of... gosh whats that thing called.. oh yeah the <strong><font color="#000080">Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle</font></strong>. Though to be honest I'm not sure how one goes from not being able to calculate the energy and the location of an electron at the same time to saying all of space is chaotic at a microscopic scale. However when I heard about these things called <u>Microscopic black holes</u> and <u>Hawkings Radiation</u> and how the normal Newtonian laws are bypassed by this phenomenon called <strong><em>quantum tunneling</em></strong> I figured: <strong><font color="#008000">"Well there's some evidence!"</font></strong>&nbsp; </p><p>So no. Ofcourse I have no real evidence. <strong>I just read things and see how they fit together</strong>. So if all the pieces of the puzzle make sense in my mind I'll say<font color="#ff0000"> </font><font color="#000000">"Oh well then if space and time are intrinsically linked by the greatest Theorems of the day... then time should exhibit symilar characteristis because there must always be a symmetry, even if we cannot neccessarily see it at first"</font> <strong>And if you think about it Time often defies symmetry</strong> so I try to shackle it down and make it play by the rules whenever I have a chance.&nbsp;</p><p>And just because I have no evidence doesn't make my question any less valid I think. If my question does not relate at all to the matter at hand then <strong>dismiss</strong> it as being off-subject. I try not to claim anything as fact, and <strong>I'm sorry I led people on to think that spacetime being chaotic at microscopic levels was fact.</strong> No it's not fact. It's just a condition I had to set in place to ask the question I wanted. What I meant to say is: </p><p><font color="#008000"><strong>"If these conditions are like this with space then would time exhibit similar chareteristics in its own way?"</strong></font></p><p>However it is a condition that I think is based on the current understanding of the universe, and if not it is atleast the current understanding for the layman. To be honest I don't even know if time and space are even linked anymore at microscopic levels. Maybe they're not, but wouldn't that be an interesting concept! Then I have all these other question:</p><p><font color="#666699">"Why wouldn't they be linked?"</font></p><p><font color="#666699">"What would be the implications if they aren't linked at microscopic levles?"</font></p><p><font color="#666699">"Is time needed at quantum levels?"</font></p><p>See so I come up with question like that off of conditions set im my head which have no basis in fact. Its all like a thought experiment really and I don't intend for any of this to be considered seriously. It may not even relate back to anything real, but if it does then I can understand how.<strong> And if it doesn't then I understand why not. </strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nope. Pulled it right out of thin air.... So no. I have no idea what Im talkin about, I'm not even sure what that general statement implies. I just heard that things can't be predicted at the quantum level because of... gosh whats that thing called.. oh yeah the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle. Though to be honest I'm not sure how one goes from not being able to calculate the energy and the location of an electron at the same time to saying all of space is chaotic at a microscopic scale. However when I heard about these things called Microscopic black holes and Hawkings Radiation and how the normal Newtonian laws are bypassed by this phenomenon called quantum tunneling I figured: "Well there's some evidence!"&nbsp; So no. Ofcourse I have no real evidence. I just read things and see how they fit together. So if all the pieces of the puzzle make sense in my mind I'll say "Oh well then if space and time are intrinsically linked by the greatest Theorems of the day... then time should exhibit symilar characteristis because there must always be a symmetry, even if we cannot neccessarily see it at first" And if you think about it Time often defies symmetry so I try to shackle it down and make it play by the rules whenever I have a chance.&nbsp;And just because I have no evidence doesn't make my question any less valid I think. If my question does not relate at all to the matter at hand then dismiss it as being off-subject. I try not to claim anything as fact, and I'm sorry I led people on to think that spacetime being chaotic at microscopic levels was fact. No it's not fact. It's just a condition I had to set in place to ask the question I wanted. What I meant to say is: "If these conditions are like this with space then would time exhibit similar chareteristics in its own way?"However it is a condition that I think is based on the current understanding of the universe, and if not it is atleast the current understanding for the layman. To be honest I don't even know if time and space are even linked anymore at microscopic levels. Maybe they're not, but wouldn't that be an interesting concept! Then I have all these other question:"Why wouldn't they be linked?""What would be the implications if they aren't linked at microscopic levles?""Is time needed at quantum levels?"See so I come up with question like that off of conditions set im my head which have no basis in fact. Its all like a thought experiment really and I don't intend for any of this to be considered seriously. It may not even relate back to anything real, but if it does then I can understand how. And if it doesn't then I understand why not. &nbsp; <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>OK, so recognizing that the&nbsp;notion that space-time is chaotic cauldron at a very small scale is pure speculation, you might want to read the book <em>Black Holes, Geons and Quantum Foam</em> by John Archibald Wheeler.&nbsp; Wheeler was the last of the great physicists from the early twentieth century, the physicist who first taught courses at Princeton in relativity; a co-author of one of the standard texts, <em>Gravitation, </em>written with two of his students Charles Misner and Kip Thorne; the thesis advisor to Richard Feynman; a major participant the development of the hydrogen bomb; and generally a first-class theoretical physicist.&nbsp; In that book you will see some serious and responsible speculation on what space-time might look like at a very small scale. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[The_Science_Kid]

<p>You have to understand that time is moving<br />if the hole universe dident move at all then time would not move either<br />if you travel at the speed of light you would move so hast that an hour for you might be 100 years for everybody else because the faster you move the slower time goes for you<br />so time is moving</p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have to understand that time is movingif the hole universe dident move at all then time would not move eitherif you travel at the speed of light you would move so hast that an hour for you might be 100 years for everybody else because the faster you move the slower time goes for youso time is moving <br /> Posted by The_Science_Kid</DIV></p><p>Nice idea, there. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>You might want to think more about the idea of movement, it is an interesting subject.</p><p>I must just clarify a point though and that is that you <em>cannot</em> travel at the speed of light, the universe won't let you. You might be able to <em>almost</em> get to the speed of light, but you can never reach the speed of light itself. You might go so fast that 1 second of your time is 1 million years for someone else, but if it <em>were</em> possible for you to travel at the speed of light (which it isn't), then <em>zero</em> seconds of your time would be <strong>forever</strong> for everyone else. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have to understand that time is movingif the hole universe dident move at all then time would not move eitherif you travel at the speed of light you would move so hast that an hour for you might be 100 years for everybody else because the faster you move the slower time goes for youso time is moving <br />Posted by The_Science_Kid</DIV></p><p>Try this:</p><p>1) &nbsp;Formulate a scientific definition of&nbsp; "to move", i.e. define in physical terms what it means for something to move.</p><p>2)&nbsp; Using that defintion, show that time moves.</p><p>I think you will find that you cannot accomplish step 2.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Yagurth]

CAN SOMEONE COME UP WITH A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR BEING LATE FOR WORK BY SAYING THAT TIME DOES NOT EXIST?&nbsp; IF SO I'LL BE ETERNALY IN YOUR&nbsp;DEBT.&nbsp; &nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature">   <p style="margin-bottom:0cm"><font face="Script, cursive"><font size="6" style="font-size:26pt">Yagurth</font></font></p> </div>

 

[amaterasu]

<p>http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=66<br /><br />blimey... is Hawking as far out here as it sounds to me?&nbsp; ;-)<br />he doesn't seem to care in the slightest as to which 'time' exists - actual time or imaginary one.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<p>The real question is will time mean anything to us if we ever achieve immortality???</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[et_earth]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The real question is will time mean anything to us if we ever achieve immortality???&nbsp; <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV><br /><br />You will always have a past.&nbsp; So time will always have meaning to you even if you achieve immortality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Imagine a being who experiences a Skewes number of centuries (10^10^10^34, IIRC) as only mild boredom.&nbsp; His contemplation of our reality would be that our universe transpired (Big Bang to heat death) instantaneously with out duration at all.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Our time is relative; from that "eternal" view point, it does not&nbsp; exist.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[et_earth]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Imagine a being who experiences a Skewes number of centuries (10^10^10^34, IIRC) as only mild boredom.&nbsp; His contemplation of our reality would be that our universe transpired (Big Bang to heat death) instantaneously with out duration at all.&nbsp;Our time is relative; from that "eternal" view point, it does not&nbsp; exist.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by vogon13</DIV><br /><br /><span><p>Time doesn&rsquo;t have much meaning to cartoon characters such as Daffy Duck or Goofy. They simply exist.&nbsp; "I exist" also equals &ldquo;I am&ldquo;.</p></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>