Does Time Actually Exist?

[olivebird111]

lets imagine we have a parallelogram X<br />it is noted by points A,B,C,D<br /><br />we do know that parallelograms extend forever, but we use points to note certain special positions in that such plane<br />we also use points to establish which way the plane goes, each plane is unique unless it is overlaping another one, (of course lol)<br /><br />such as: points A, B, C, D<br />time is like that same thing, it is unique, 10:00 is just 1 pt on that 1 plane, which extend forever<br />we do know that 11:00 is larger than 10:00, so in a parallelogram its like a point (-1,-2), auxillary point named F, which have a greater length than A because its further away from point B, or C, or any other point that is not named. <br />SO...<br />time exist, but we cant see the whole picture, why? because time is infinite, like planes,<br />but time exist as in unique points that are defined in that such plane

 

[marcel_leonard]

I don’t quite get your analogy about the parallelogram but let me just say that space/time are both concepts we as human beings have yet to figure out; just like a lot of things [i.e. Dark Matter, Gravity, and God ] we pretend to understand but really don’t get it… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[imverygood_0000]

no i dont favour ur idea.do if time would have not been in existence then their was no meaning of our life.So u mean we r only illusion ,our every activities r only illusion.

 

[imverygood_0000]

but my brother what do u think about "parallel universe".<br /><br />"i dont know why will the cat die if i shot the box in which i placed dog".

 

[imverygood_0000]

i want u shoud first know abot parallel universe.<br /><br />"i know if coin is tossed then its a chance that i will won,but i would have won in some other universe & i really favour my lost"

 

[imverygood_0000]

i dont know what u think of time,but i m sure u cant stop the time.Can u?

 

[imverygood_0000]

i want to ask one thing from u if their r laws governing microscopic particles then how can we r governed by two laws or vice versa.or the case is that we r governed by two laws.

 

[imverygood_0000]

thats only the ???why the universe is governed by 2 laws i.e.micro & macro.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">imverygood_0000 - i want to ask one thing from u if their r laws governing microscopic particles then how can we r governed by two laws or vice versa.or the case is that we r governed by two laws. </font><br /><br />This thread is almost two years old. I don't have any clue which post of mine you're responding to. Actually, I just clicked on this thread to check for a heartbeat. .. can't be too careful with zombie-threads rising from the grave you know...<br /><br /><br />Classical Mechanics does an extremely good job of dealing with the interactions of large bodies. From pears to planets, that's about all you need unless you are doing some extremely detailed work. But, once you get into the quantum world and its effects, some things are no longer applicable. That's where Quantum Mechanics kicks in.<br /><br />Of course, someone could come along and develope a nice, concise and workable theory of everything.... which is what many physicists are trying to do. Then, we'd just have one nice set of rules to go by that work across all spectrums. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

The almighty everything theory may just be a matter of how we look at space/time; if we discover that the universe is one of multiple dimensions that we can literally quantum leap through wouldn’t that be interesting? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Does time actually exist?</font><br /><br />Read this phrase:<br /><br /><font color="black">We expect the future and soon the future becames present and we then remember the past.</font><br /><br />All this happened within this phrase. You expected something while you were reading it came to reality and then after you read it is no more than a memory.<br /><br />During this period the river of time continued flowing undisturbed or did it? <br /><br />Well since you read it something changed in the universe. Some matter became energy (I hope the effort was not that much) and the fabric of spacetime has to deal with this change.<br /><br />Einstein field equations say "in very simple terms" that:<br /><br /><font color="black">Spacetime Curvature=Matter Content</font><br /><br />It would be more appropriate to say that gravitation is curved spacetime caused by matter and energy but I hope you get the point.<br /><br />Well matter changed so spacetime curve must have changed and, although we will ever know, there is a small chance that this exercise may have unleashed something spectacular in some remote spot of the universe.<br /><br />At least may it make someone laugh at the end of the netline. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Does time exist? Time is like the air that we breath, the atmosphere of the universe and reveals itslef through gravity as events and its consequences follow the geodesics of spacetime. <br /><br />Time does not only exist, time is existence.

 

[marcel_leonard]

I don’t think we’ve figured out what space/time, or even what exactly the universe is; if anything we are probably more confused than ever. It is quite possible that are brains haven’t matured to the level where we can talk intelligently enough about these subjects. <br /><br />Einstein wrote about the theory of energy being equal to matter times the square of the speed of light; at a time when the fastest most people could travel was at the speed of a horse drawn buggy. Yet he lived long enough to see the sound barrier broken, and men orbit the earth. Who knows what we will see before our time here is up? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Einstein wrote about the theory of energy being equal to matter times the square of the speed of light; at a time when the fastest most people could travel was at the speed of a horse drawn buggy. Yet he lived long enough to see the sound barrier broken, and men orbit the earth. Who knows what we will see before our time here is up? </font><br /><br />And he is still 99.9% accurate in most areas...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[ianke]

A minor correction for you marcel_leonard. Albert Einstein died in april of 1955. Gregarin(sp?) didn't orbit the earth untill 1959. <br /><br />You were spot on about the rest though.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Hang on the ride will be wonderful! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I apologize for the error the point I was trying to make is why are we so arrogant and sure of our limited physics. Why are we so sure that Einstein’s theory is foolproof? It would seem that the scientific community has more faith in E=mc^2 then they do in the existence of an almighty, all seeing, all knowing, and eternal creator of the universe that seems to be completely immune to the effects of time … <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[tropicalzone]

you can't see directly but you can see its passage by the wrinkles on your face and the increasing no# of grey hairs!!

 

[ianke]

Hello marcel_leonard,<br /><br /><br />There are few things that are fool proof. A fool could mess up the equation E=mc^2. They get equations wrong all of the time.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />In all seriousness though, E=mc^2 works with astonishingly accurate results. The atomic bomb works almost exactly as predicted by the great Albert E. Our sun works on the very principle of the above equation. these are observations a scientist can and does make in an empirical environment. This does not take faith to believe in. It is observed, and therefore, one need not boubt.<br /><br />I will agree that our knowledge of physics may well be in an infant state, however; we are growing exponentially in our scientific knowledge. <br /><br />On the other hand, "an almighty, all seeing, all knowing, and eternal creator of the universe that seems to be completely immune to the effects of time" takes a modicum of faith to believe in his/her existance. Faith by its very nature is to believe in something that you can not see proof of. <br /><br />As for the "eternal creator", I will assume that you are a believer from the tone of your question. Well I believe that too, but it does take, as I have stated above, a different set of eyes(so to speek). <br /><br />So, in response to your question above:<br /><br />1. Science deals with what can be proven by repeatable sets of tests and observations. Therefore, theories like those of Einstein's have proven themselves time and time again to be correct. They may not hold for all things such as the very small realm of quantum mechanics, but they do work well in almost all cosmic realms.<br /><br />2. Since scientists are interested in the physical facts, it then needs to reduce its questions to that which is testable. God does not fit in the catagory of testable in a scientific sense.<br /><br />3. I believe you are correct in thinking many scientists do not believe in God,but not all. I'm am sure that you will find that not all scie <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I will agree w/ you that trying to prove the existence of a almighty creator of the universe is not a scientific argument, but it is a valid question that relates to the existence of time. Since the early generations of mankind civilizations have believed in some form of immortality or eternity. This flies in the face of the concept of time. My guess is that the reason we have difficulty w/ the concept of time has something to do w/ either an immortal creator of the universe or an eternal universe. If you go all the way back to the moment of the Big Bang what is lighting the fuse? In my mind something from nothing which is current excepted theory of the creation of the universe doesn’t sound very scientific at all… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

I’m not sure if I agree w/ the flow of time as being linear; for the simple fact that we age so quickly compared to other organisms. You’ve heard the old adage “if the walls could talk.” Well according to the fossil record they can, and they tell us by observing the radiation of lead that the earth was created some 4.5 billion years ago; because that is how long it takes uranium to loss its radio activity.<br /><br />Now what if you could live for 4.5 billion years you would look at time a lot differently…<br /> <br />

 

[ianke]

Hello CraigMac,<br /><br />regarding:<br />"I’m not sure if I agree w/ the flow of time as being linear"<br /><br />I do not recall saying much about the linearity of time. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else.<br /><br />While I am here though, time is a linear thing. In fact your post does speak of it in terms that suggest it is. First, The earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. Second, the fossil records of life seem to follow a lineage of what came first etc. Third, we are living in the present. All of the above occurred on a time line that flows from past to present then into a future. That is linear. If linearity of time did not exist, one would be theoretically able to find fossiles before the earth was formed (you see how obtuse the last statement sounds) Time linearity is a fundimental necessity for things to happen. Time is in itself is a means of measuring change from one thing to another.<br /><br />regarding:<br />"Now what if you could live for 4.5 billion years you would look at time a lot differently"<br /><br />This would most certianly change your perspective about waiting in the D.M.V. lines.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Time (even from the perspective point of view) is relative. <br /><br /> I paraphrase here but, Einstein said... 'A man talking to a pretty woman for an hour,it seems like only a few minutes. However, to a man sitting on a hot stove for a few minutes it would seem like way more than an hour. NOW THAT'S RELATIVITY.'<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Ianke <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">marcel_leonard - I apologize for the error the point I was trying to make is why are we so arrogant and sure of our limited physics. Why are we so sure that Einstein’s theory is foolproof? </font><br /><br />Because, it has withstood the test of time and a heck of alot of attempts to disprove or invalidate it. Even though some may disagree about certain specifics, the bulk remains stoic against attempts to disprove it. That's what science is all about. In the end, it may not be right. But, for now, it serves fairly well.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It would seem that the scientific community has more faith in E=mc^2 then they do in the existence of an almighty, all seeing, all knowing, and eternal creator of the universe that seems to be completely immune to the effects of time … </font><br /><br />Science and physics in particular deal with the physical world, not the spiritual. Science may never be able to answer the ultimate question of "Does God exist?" or "Why did God create the Universe?" but it may be able to narrow down how God did it fairly accurately...<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">marcel_leonard - I will agree w/ you that trying to prove the existence of a almighty creator of the universe is not a scientific argument, but it is a valid question that relates to the existence of time. Since the early generations of mankind civilizations have believed in some form of immortality or eternity. This flies in the face of the concept of time. My guess is that the reason we have difficulty w/ the concept of time has something to do w/ either an immortal creator of the universe or an eternal universe. If you go all the way back to the moment of the Big Bang what is lighting the fuse? In my mind something from nothing which is current excepted theory of the creation of the universe doesn’t sound very scientific at all… </font><br /><br />Exactly, what part of time do you believe we have a problem with? Eternity? It's not really very difficult. Forever is just a very, very long amount of time. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />As far as I know, there isn't anything that science maintains which states that the Universe was created from "nothing." As far as theory goes, I'll leave that to the cosmologist. But, more or less, the big-bang theory and its incarnations can be scaled down to Planck-time (the smallest measure of time that is.. measurable). Further than that is where it all comes apart. (AFAIK)<br /><br />Time may be the critical component added into the great mix of gobbley-**** that created this Universe. It may be somewhat unique, scattered only throughout a small portion of the multiverse. Or, it could have been a product of this one. Entropy may exist only here or in similar Universes with similar laws. It's a crapshoot right now because there are limits to how well we can understand something only by inferrences and hints that the laws of our Universe allow us to see. It could be that time is the great fabric on which everything in the multitude of dimensions is written. A few exceptions migh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I don’t see any mechanics in the universe that point to time’s existence. In fact everything I see points to time non-existence. Case/Point: the amount of distance between star systems for one example could only be overcome by beings w/ infinitely long life spans… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[ianke]

I'd be careful with that word "infinitely". That a really long "time"! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Time is that which stops everything happening at once. Distance is that which stops everything happening in one place. Both can be considered as dimensions, but in different ways.<br /><br />Science currently says that we cannot know about anything that happened before the Universe came to be, or that which caused it to be. We can only trace time back to the first event in this Universe. In science, the idea of what was around <i> before </i> the universe began is classed as <b> undefined. </b><br /><br />Science does not say the universe came from nothing, it says we have no way for getting any data as to where the universe came from. We do have M-theory which suggests a possible cause for the universe, but it is not testable as there is no data or observation to test it against. And of course M-theory needs a cause too! What caused the membranes or cosmic strings to come to be?<br /><br />As for theism, if there can be an eternal creator who created the universe, there can be an eternal universe that needs no creator, of which our universe is a part. The second option is far simpler.<br /><br />Using Occam's razor, it is a far more complicated system that contains an eternal creator who contains the complexity involved in being an eternal being and also contains the information and power required to create the universe, than the far simpler system of an eternal universe of which our universe may be a small part of.<br /><br />In both cases we ask where they came from. Where did the creator come from? Where did the Universe come from? If the creator didn't need to come from anything as they are eternal and therefore <i> outside </i> time, the same can be said of an eternal Universe.<br /><br />I know we don't think this Universe is eternal, but it could be part of some bigger eternal system, a system which we cannot know of since it is <i> outside </i> our Universe, just like M-theory's membranes. We have no way to test for it in the same way we have no way to test for eternal <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>