Everything thats something is made of techno science psyco hard ta understand stuff..

yes very scientific of me i know... ok so heres my question..

What is "TIME" made of.

Cheese.

neurons

That is something for the Mother Universe to hold secret and for us to.... well probably.... never find out. Questions like that are ones that you should always ponder about but never ponder about getting the answer for it will probably never happen. ;) ;)

Later

Well maybe it doesn't exist , it is just some kind of energy that could form forces as it is manipulating by the effect of other things that we call matter...Just kidding. I think thats the only way to create a relation between things or answers to our questions.
Without it we couldn't leave in peace in terms of going crazy. Because of it the societies can develop a system that just leads them to an ordered life. I dont know:( :rolleyes:

;)


Merry Xmas everyone.

I think it is an efect that will end when matter doesnt exist anymore...

Does time flow if there are no humans there to measure it? ...hmmm...

Can information flow between two time periods? May be...

Does time flow if there are no humans there to measure it? ...hmmm...

Of course. If it didn't then the universe would only be a couple of million years old instead of the 12-15 billion.

Maybe we can just ask 'WHAT IS TIME?' first before talking about what it is made of!;)

I think the same , Dreamsa and Boris2;)

hey All

Hmmmmm....
So What you are saying is no-one has a clue?

Hey , Im not having a go at anyone... I dont know either,
but I do know its not made of cheese ADAM you funny bugger!

I guess its one of those questions like...

"How do women talk on a mobile phone, apply make up and drive a car all at once"...

lol

cheers

I guess its one of those questions like...

"How do women talk on a mobile phone, apply make up and drive a car all at once"...



May be women know how to control time? :D

Can information flow between two time periods? May be...

How about when we view distant stars? We are seeing them in the past, so the information is traversing two time periods. The star as it was and our present.


So What you are saying is no-one has a clue?

True. We only notice the effect.


I think it is an efect that will end when matter doesnt exist anymore...

I agree. This would be the thermodynamic arrow of time, where systems go from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. Like a hot cup of coffee getting colder. If there is no matter in the universe then thermodynamics has no place to work.


Maybe we can just ask 'WHAT IS TIME?

Have a lookie here and then come back here and explain it to the rest of us;)

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/time.htm

Time is considered a dimension. If we use definitions that dimensions are a number of co-ordinates you can use to uniquely describe a position, then we live in a 4 dimensional space because we can define our position in 3 spatial co-ordinates and 1 time co-ordinate.

However, time is treated differently than the spatial dimensions. Distortions in the three spatial dimensions, and in mass and energy, can be seen undistorted when bringing two frames of reference to the same state of motion, but time, once distorted, does not come back to its initial state.

Information on the passage of time is delayed because light travels at a finite speed thereby causing the delay. You can look up, down, right, left, forward and backward, but you can only look to the past. What is *really* happening is irrelevant, because we can never detect it, and it will never affect us in any other way than what it does. :D

http://www.libidium.net/resource/anime/clocks/clock001.gif

The time would run slower neara massive body.Because there is a relation between energy of light and its frequency.As it travel to a strong gravitational field, it will lose energy, thus lowering its frequency.

Is this mean that time can be manipulated or that it will try to fit in the enviroment in which it is?

However, time is treated differently than the spatial dimensions.
This dimension is different as we can only travel through it in one direction, when we pass one point, we cannot get back to that point again in the time axis.
;)

Time flow differently in different environment!:cool:

How does time react around a black hole?
I think i read that a black hole has a major effect on time by speeding it up, is this correct?

cheers

I THOUGHT THAT TIME RAN SLOWER INSIDE A BLACK HOLE BECAUSE OF THE STRONG GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS.

TIME CAN CHANGE IF YOU ARE HANGING OUT IN STRONG GRAVITY , IT DOESNT RUN FASTER IT WILL RUN SLOWER. EINSTEIN PROVED THAT TIME CAN TWIST...

SOMEBODY?:(

Instead of speeding up, time slows down near a black hole. Time slows down in a gravitational field, as the black hole has very strong gravitational field. So near a blach hole, time is slowed down to a great extent. ;)

TIME IS NOT A THING IT CANT BE MADE AND DESTROY:)

I THOUGHT THAT TIME RAN SLOWER INSIDE A BLACK HOLE BECAUSE OF THE STRONG GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS.

Not only inside but also near a black hole will time be slowed down!

;)

Time is an abstract concept brought into being to confuse and trap us.

Just kidding:)

Time is a dimension, so you might as well ask what is up made of.

Time is a dimension seems to be a very vain idea. Can you give a more solid or more physical meaning?;)

Perhaps we need to look at the definition of 'spacetime'. Spacetime is a geometry that includes the three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension of time. In Newtonian physics, space and time are considered as separate entities and whether or not events are simultaneous is a matter that is regarded as obvious to any competent observer. In Einstein's concept of the physical universe, based on a system of geometry devised by H. Minkowski, space and time are regarded as entwined, so that two observers in relative motion could disagree regarding the simultaneity of distant events. In Minkowski's geometry, an event is identified by a world point in a four-dimensional continuum.

Minkowski geometry unifies Euclidean three dimensional space plus time (the "fourth dimension") in Einstein's theory of special relativity.

If you are interested in learning about time, I recommend the following book:

http://www.platonia.com/timeusa.jpg

In addition to giving an in-depth overview on all previous views on time (classical, Einstein's general relativity, etc) the author asserts his view, with evidence, that the universe is in actuality timeless.

What is *really* happening is
irrelevant, because we can never detect it, and it will never affect us in any
other way than what it does. --------------------------------------------------
There must be a way to detect what is really happening maybe not through the electromatic spectrum. We just have to find the right medium! maybe physiological energy hmmmm. Just because we can only detect light doesn't mean thats all there is

On top of that there is talk of multiple 4 dimensional worlds inside a 5 dimensional structure. Wonder what we should call the 5th dimension?

It all depends upon our percievances,we are modelled to look at this world in a 3D way,whereas this world could have limitless dimensions,that we off course are unable to comprehend,the idea comes from "flatland analogy"...
and each of these dimensions may be vibrating at different frequencies,hence the idea of a parallel universes crops up...

bye!

Well this topic has managed to extrude further than it's original intended route. Lets see what I can add, Which might mirror that of others, but similarity just adds to a more conclusive image.

Time is just a measurement, it doesn't have weight, it doesn't have resting mass. It's something we use to define other things like speed or distance, and without this measurement our lives would still be bound to something that involved "Timing".

When the discussion moves towards "Spacetime" it gets difficult to explain, but I shall try my best.

Firstly, understand that Space is Multidimensional, due to it being void of matter (Admittedly not Zero-point energy) it can allow numbers of dimensions that people can't percieve (well most people).

For an explaination of such dimensional "folding" the following is an attempt for an easy Spacetime translation.

*Take a metre long piece of string, and at one end you wiggle it, so that a wave carries right down the string.

The string has Three dimensions, it's width, Height and Length.
When you wave the string, at one given instance "Time" the string is located in once spacial positioning, and in the next instance it's located somewhere else.

It's possible to increase the dimensions that the string exists in, but this involves folding the string in two. The understanding then is that the first end that was being shook, continues being shook, and the other end is also shook, but at a different time.

This causes a 9 dimensional setup, and can be percieved as basis for "Relativity" (Of course the string can be folded many more times and it's ends and bends can be located anywhere within (spacetime).*
[I personally prefer one of Eschars Paintings for a Relativity diagram, one with stairs that lead in every direction on the floors, walls and ceiling of a room.]

I wish it could be explained more simply.

Spacetime was mentioned in one descriptive piece as light being measured not just as it travels to bounce off a wall, but during it's return so as to get an idea of an objects distance.

Razz,

Time is just like any spatial dimension. The only difference is that you can't control the value, at least not yet. All other perceived differences are only the results of human perception.

Tom

WHAT a terrible STUPID question!

science has never been able to tell WHAT something is

tell me, of what are subatomic particles made of???

what is an electron for example?
scientists define it as a 'probability', not as it is some kind of "stuff"

just think twice before asking something

A better question would be, What does time do and how can we define it, or even better, is there Time at all (Julian Barbour)?

personally I think Time does not exist
Motion is everything and time is what we make out of the uniform motion of clocks
in that sense, time does exist, but for mathematical purpose only, not as some dimension
when clocks go slower, this has nothing to do with the 'flow' of time, this is because a clock is just a device that can be influenced with kinetic energy, etc.
it is a physical effect

I've never understood how brilliant people like Einstein were able to be so idiot to believe that a clock really measures Time.
That dumb idea is the beginning and the end of his special relativity.

All clocks do is chop time up into chunks in a way we can understand in a futile attempt to make it more perceivable.
Why do boring afternoons last a lifetime?

Time is what you make of it.

kmguru

What should we call d5?

Green.

:)

Here's something that I have been thinking about for years and still can't quite get a grip on.


Years ago I read a book on black holes. In the book was a description of what would probably happen if you could find a black hole massive enough that you could get inside the event horizon without the tidal forces tearing you apart. I don't know if it is accurate or not but the author of this particular book indicated that once you passed the event horizon, time and space switched places. Whereas in normal space you can go any direction in space but only one direction in time. Inside the event horizon you can only go one direction in space, towards the singularity, but can go any direction in time.

How this applies to the current discussion I am not sure, except that to me it implies that time is just another kind of space that we don't normally have access to except for the one dimension/direction.

chipsanddust,

What you may be referring to sounds a like a white hole or possibly what Kerr geometry describes as a 'ring singularity' and what is referred to as 'negative space.'

Have a look at these:

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/jebornak/html/rotating.html

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/jebornak/html/inside.html

Flamethrower:

Thanks for the links. Very good stuff.

Time is natures way of ensuring everything does not happen at once.

I always thought time was something humans created. Is it really a force or a dimension? Or is it just something we have developed to make are lives easier? Is life really easier with time? Just some food for thought.

Well obviously time was invented by humans insofar as the definition of an "hour", a "year", a "minute"... Names and labels are given to anything by humans to describe the world around them. A tree existed before the first people named it so. "A rose by any other name..."

But we wouldn't have invented clocks if it wasn't to measure that thing we know as time. There is that sense of change, what people perceive as the "flow of time" that we all experience, this one-directional, seemingly constant and unstoppable experience that has been known as time since the ancients. It's the question of exactly what this time is that we and many other people are debating. (i.e. what causes time, and can this newfound insight into its nature allow us to exploit it in some way to benefit us?) Newton said it was just a framework - absolute time. Relativity says it's the fourth dimension. Whatever it is, I think we all know what we're talking about here. :)

This post was pretty self-explanatory but I wanted to write it anyway. :) Cheers.

Time is what allows us to have now and then
It is the dimension d 1 through 3 move along.

Originally posted by god
What is *really* happening is
irrelevant, because we can never detect it, and it will never affect us in any
other way than what it does. --------------------------------------------------



Is it possible the reason why physicists have not been able to devise an experiment that can measure, observer or detect the physical properties of time is because it is not as Relativity suggests a physical dimension? If we define time, only as a measure of the sequential ordering of casualty it would not have any physical properties because it is a measurement. Also as mentioned earlier in this discussion time has only been experiment observed to move only in one directionk, forward. However relativity predicts that time should be able to “move” in two directions forward backwards. The fact that there is no experimental observation what so ever to support the relativistic prediction that time moves backwards would seem to undermine its credibility. However if one defines time only as the sequential ordering of casualty it could not be reverse or move backwards because one could not reverse the causality of an event after it has occurred. This definition of time would be more in line with the experimental observed properties of non-reversibility of time because it defines time as being nonreversible. Please see <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter16.htm> Chapter 16</a> for details. A

Jeff

I got this strange idea while reading this thread.
time goes forth in our universe and we observe it, but does time go forth in black holes? can we really (when we find one) tell that, because the black hole has a seperate reality, time than our universe and if it maybe goes backwords to our own time........hmmm very advanced timetravel comes in mind. (requires a great leap in technology) or maybe particles sucked in from the future get to our time...

If the universe were a a wheel, one side matter and the other anti matter . And energy between the two absorbed the like counterpart until the point where matter on both sides equaled out. when this equalization occurs a big explosion occures seperating matter and anti matter once again. Then time would be a point on the wheel ever renewing. If this is the case then travel in time could occure once you were able to move faster then the spin of the wheel.:bugeye:

READ THE FOLLOWING BOOK...

The Universe in a Nutshell

By: Stephen Hawking

JimmyJames, wtf? I've got that book, why do you put it here??? it has got nothing interesting to tell about time
worthless book it is, pure for the cash $$$$$$$

good tip: skip through a book before buying it - always ;)

Time is a strange thing... if we interchange time and location in the following sentence:

an object can be on the same location at two different times

we get:

an object can at the same time be at two different locations

The first we agree all upon, but the second... Maybe the last holds for foton-pairs


Greetings,


Han.

I am not done with it yet... but so far I think it is a pretty good book. If you ask me.

time isn't really made up of anything, time is simply explained as a thought, or theory, that humans have taken to explain the way we pass along, time is all in the brain, somthing that we have been told since our birth, so it is imbedded into our minds and we know no other way. so we begin to think of time as a thing, or an object, when time is a thought

Welcome to Sciforums, theoreticalametuer.

Time, like god, does not excist. Stop and think about it.

time is a 4th vector of a particular area in/out of the/ space

just my definition

Welcome to sciforums, theoreticalametuer.

an interesting concept......

I have given the idea of time... much thought again of late... probaly proving I have to much of it too waste. lol

I guess I didnt write this post initialy to get an answer as much as i wrote it to see the responses.

For all that we as a species assume to know about most things, the only fact in my opinion, that can be relied upon fully, is that all things are indeed possible, no matter how inept they may seem.

We in our infinite wisdom believe we understand and comprehend science and indeed life to a degree that allows us to make statements of fact about almost any subject.

I believe its simply not possible for us to stamp an absolute definate answer upon any subject, including time.
This comes from two ideals i hold...

1) reality is based upon perception.....perception is what helps us form opinions, .... since no two people perceive life, events and information the same way.......Reality is more likely to be a personal definition of what we perceive to be factual or true in our own individual opinion.

2) Those that do infact believe they know everything, should also know they do not.... some things cannot be answered, for we as a species have a level of comprehension that is limited.
I could show you a few simple examples.. but at this point I will leave things as they are... enough said.

Just understand... its great fun and quite normal to ponder, to try and make sense of all that we encounter in life.... as long as we keep an open mind.

cheers
RazZ

thank you for the wonderful welcome!

Time is just another dimention we homies kick it on. We travel along it just like we travel along the other 3 dimensions. Its not "made" of anything. It's just something that we can interact with just like the other 3 dimensions we reguarly interact with. Its "made of" the same stuff space is, and interacts with gravity the same way.

I'm glad we only have the 4 dimensions we regularly interact with. My car would be much less fun in a calabi-yau (sp)configuration.

-IggDawg

In one of his essays, Einstein said something like the following.
When an individual thinks about the events in his life, he can order them using a criteria of before and after. He can assign numbers to the events in such a way that he considers an event with a larger number to have happened after an event with a smaller number.

A device called a clock is a mechanism which provides a systematic way of assigning such numbers to events.

The concept of time cannot be analyzed beyond the above, and if you want a definition of before and after, you are being too pedantic for me.I once took a philosophy course which had a text that took 30 or more pages to describe concepts relating to time. When analyzed thoroughly, it did not describe it better than Einstein did.

Albert was not as difficult to understand as some people think, and he did not waste words or try to sound scholarly.

BTW: I recently read an article which claimed that the concept of time flowing is nonsense. This article said that measurements of time are analogous to measurements of space. When you use a meter (or yard) stick to measure the distance between two objects or events, you do not talk about the flow of distance. Why should you talk about the flow of time?

for interesting discussions on the nature of time check out the september issue of scientific american

I've thought about time a lot. My theory... time is a result of our universe being trapped in an extra dimensional black hole.

I started thinking about this after reading about multiple dimensions referred to in string theory (see "The elegant universe"). I wondered why we don't see these dimensions. String theory suggests that they are very very small circular dimensions. But I wondered why they couldn't be very large. Maybe we don't "see" these dimensions because they are time-like in nature. That is, we move through them in one direction and therefore we do not have a way to measure them... or in fact we measure them as time.

Then I read that when you enter a black hole (assuming you could), you are drawn to the singularity (center). This motion towards the singularity (center) is inevitable. In fact, this motion (dimensional direction) can be thought of as becoming time, since you are always drawn in one direction. Therefore, if you enter a black hole (past the event horizon), we could think of it as entering a 2-dimension universe. Where the normal 3rd dimension (towards the center) is now a one directional time dimension.

Of course, we don't live in a 2-dimensional universe as I described above. But, if the universe does contain more spatial dimensions (as string theory implies), isn't it possible that our entire universe is actually contained within a giant 4 dimensional black hole? In this case (following the thinking above), 3 dimensions would remain available for us to observe, but we would constantly be pulled in the 4th dimension in one direction. This single directional dimension is what we observe as time.

My actual theory is a bit longer then this. It includes explanations for the expanding universe, the speed of light (speed limit), increase in entropy, time-dilation (special/general relativity). It suggests that time really runs backwards, there is no real motion in the universe. It does not explain: our temporal awareness of time and why we have free choice.

...but I'll save myself the embarrassment of going on.

Time is made of illusionary stuff.

It does not exist outside the human head, so never let it go because if you do eventually you will not exist.!

i don't really think time is a fundamental dimension.

i think motion is a fundamental dimension. motion and distance/space. time is calculated by dividing space with motion. time is considered to be a dimension because this better suits human way of experiencing the universe.
space and motion are sine and cosine of the same angle when considering relativism.

I've thought about time a lot. My theory... time is a result of our universe being trapped in an extra dimensional black hole.

I started thinking about this after reading about multiple dimensions referred to in string theory (see "The elegant universe"). I wondered why we don't see these dimensions. String theory suggests that they are very very small circular dimensions. But I wondered why they couldn't be very large. Maybe we don't "see" these dimensions because they are time-like in nature. That is, we move through them in one direction and therefore we do not have a way to measure them... or in fact we measure them as time.

Then I read that when you enter a black hole (assuming you could), you are drawn to the singularity (center). This motion towards the singularity (center) is inevitable. In fact, this motion (dimensional direction) can be thought of as becoming time, since you are always drawn in one direction. Therefore, if you enter a black hole (past the event horizon), we could think of it as entering a 2-dimension universe. Where the normal 3rd dimension (towards the center) is now a one directional time dimension.

Of course, we don't live in a 2-dimensional universe as I described above. But, if the universe does contain more spatial dimensions (as string theory implies), isn't it possible that our entire universe is actually contained within a giant 4 dimensional black hole? In this case (following the thinking above), 3 dimensions would remain available for us to observe, but we would constantly be pulled in the 4th dimension in one direction. This single directional dimension is what we observe as time.

My actual theory is a bit longer then this. It includes explanations for the expanding universe, the speed of light (speed limit), increase in entropy, time-dilation (special/general relativity). It suggests that time really runs backwards, there is no real motion in the universe. It does not explain: our temporal awareness of time and why we have free choice.

...but I'll save myself the embarrassment of going on.

WOW. That theory makes a lot of sense :bugeye:

Two things though;

1) won't the blackhole have to be a WHITEhole in order to explain the expansion of the universe? (This isn't really a theory-buster; it's just a suggested improvement.)

3) Doesn't this violate the concept of non-absolute time as put forward by the theory of relativity? In this blackhole-universe, there are no worldlines for any of the particles...

P.S: I don't see why this doesn't explain free will and awareness of time; they can fit easily into your theory.

time is made of the same thing movement is made of. because time is a measurement of motion. so i guess time is made of energy.

THOU

SHALL

NOT

COMMITETH

THREAD

NECROMANCY!

Thus sayeth the PRINCE.

Seriously: -5 year old thread-.

Everything thats something is made of techno science psyco hard ta understand stuff..

yes very scientific of me i know... ok so heres my question..

What is "TIME" made of.

asking what time is made of is like asking what the x coördinate is made of... time is a way for us to measure life cycles and events... we invented it. 'time' just happens IMO

Time is simply made of a nonspatial one-dimensional continuum, in which events occur in an apparantly irreversible succesion ......

Spacetime takes a little longer to explain, so I will just give you a link :

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

sugar and spice, everything nice (just like little girls) - That is why women take so long to get dressed, go to bath room etc. They are made of time.


PS - Ask a dumb question - get a dumb answer.

Time is made of space. Space is made of time. People are made of space/time.

Hum,
i reckon so.

WOW. That theory makes a lot of sense :bugeye:

Two things though;

1) won't the blackhole have to be a WHITEhole in order to explain the expansion of the universe? (This isn't really a theory-buster; it's just a suggested improvement.)

3) Doesn't this violate the concept of non-absolute time as put forward by the theory of relativity? In this blackhole-universe, there are no worldlines for any of the particles...

P.S: I don't see why this doesn't explain free will and awareness of time; they can fit easily into your theory.

Answer 1) I'm not a huge fan of wormholes. So I can't answer that question. I do not believe the observable universe is closed. I believe there is a much bigger container which holds our universe. So in my opinion, matter captured by a blackhole does not need to appear somewhere else in the universe. This may bother space travel fans and conservation of energyist, but not me.

Answer 2 (3)) No it doesn't violate relativity. First particles entering a black hole do have a worldline. We just can't observe them when observed from outside the event horizon.

The other interesting fact about this idea is that any attempt to stop moving (accelleration in any direction) toward the singularity (center) actually increases the rate at which you reach it. In other words, acceleration = slowed time or forward time travel. Special relativity suggests the same type of effect. I wouldn't know how to calculate if these effects match in scale.

My bloated theory involves a thought game of falling all the way into the black hole. The entire universe is crushed down to the singularity. This point is the begging of time as we know it (big bangish). Then reverse everything to move forward in time. Since we are still under the event horizon, we would not experience the barrier of the event horizon. Instead all light reaching us would have originated from the singularity.

In this backwards world, our future is already written and therefore I can not explain free will. Or the reason we seem to be aware of states of this universe pulling away from the singularity instead of towards it.

Expanding Universe: They say that not only is the universe expanding, but it is accellerating. What the? This thought experiment explains it by showing that the surface area of the universe will expand at an accelerated rate based on a constant increase in the radial distance from the orgin (singularity). For example: I mean that if you continue to increase the radius of a baloon at a constant rate, the surface of the balloon will increase at an accellerated rate.

PS: I wouldn't base my reputation on this theory.

Time is simply made of a nonspatial one-dimensional continuum, in which events occur in an apparantly irreversible succesion ......

Spacetime takes a little longer to explain, so I will just give you a link :

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

My conjecture gives reason to this, implying that time is a spacial dimension. The reason we observe it as "non-spacial" is that we are pulled in one direction due to a great force (like gravity as passing the event horizon of a black hole).

Following this through (only as an analogy) and then reversing it, we see that we could slice up points along this dimension starting from the singularity and assign this as a time dimension. Then working backwards from the beginning of time (singularity) that slices (time) along this dimension would result in the effects we observe from time. That is: we can only observe, but not effect the past. 2) we can not observe, but have an effect on the future.

Yet, it doesn't begin to explain our temporal observation of time. But then again... what in physics does?

Answer 1) I'm not a huge fan of wormholes. So I can't answer that question. I do not believe the observable universe is closed. I believe there is a much bigger container which holds our universe. So in my opinion, matter captured by a blackhole does not need to appear somewhere else in the universe. This may bother space travel fans and conservation of energyist, but not me.

Answer 2 (3)) No it doesn't violate relativity. First particles entering a black hole do have a worldline. We just can't observe them when observed from outside the event horizon.

The other interesting fact about this idea is that any attempt to stop moving (accelleration in any direction) toward the singularity (center) actually increases the rate at which you reach it. In other words, acceleration = slowed time or forward time travel. Special relativity suggests the same type of effect. I wouldn't know how to calculate if these effects match in scale.

My bloated theory involves a thought game of falling all the way into the black hole. The entire universe is crushed down to the singularity. This point is the begging of time as we know it (big bangish). Then reverse everything to move forward in time. Since we are still under the event horizon, we would not experience the barrier of the event horizon. Instead all light reaching us would have originated from the singularity.

In this backwards world, our future is already written and therefore I can not explain free will. Or the reason we seem to be aware of states of this universe pulling away from the singularity instead of towards it.

Expanding Universe: They say that not only is the universe expanding, but it is accellerating. What the? This thought experiment explains it by showing that the surface area of the universe will expand at an accelerated rate based on a constant increase in the radial distance from the orgin (singularity). For example: I mean that if you continue to increase the radius of a baloon at a constant rate, the surface of the balloon will increase at an accellerated rate.

PS: I wouldn't base my reputation on this theory.

1) I still think worldlines wouldn't exist in your blackhole universe. It's true that wordlines exist in our universe's blackholes, but that's because the space inside the blackhole still has some semblance of time. Your universe EXPLAINS time as an inverse function of some sort of attraction; this means that events are like particles traveling up the time axis without tracing a wordline behind them.

2) If you explain time as an inverse attraction, then I still think that we would have free will. Just like (prior to observation) quantum particles have a superposition of states and paths, every particle in the blackhole-universe would have a superposition of possible FUTURE paths that leads it to it's current state.

Problems or not, I'm still impressed by this universe. It explains time as a fundamental force instead of a dimension; the dimensional theory of time assumes that time is completely separate and non-interchangeable with the spacial dimensions (except in blackholes). This universe is simply a 4D universe with a central point of origin. It's like a polar co-ord conversion of our cartesian model of the universe :D

Welcome to these forums. Unlike you, few appreciate how tough it is to accept both physics and the reality of genuine (non- illusionary) free will.
... I can not explain free will. ...
I published: Reality, Perception, and Simulation: A plausible Theory
in the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest back in 1994.

I have posted a condensed portion of that paper related to how "free will" could be consistent with the laws of chemistry / physic that determine ALL the processes occurring in the brain.

See the computer section forum "Intelligent Machines" / the thread "Can machines know?". It is post # 17 but even condensed, it is still a long read. I do not think I should re-post it here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1031482&postcount=17
is a direct link. Again I thank Kazakhan for showing me how to make one.
(This post has been edited to remove the prior attempts to direct link.)

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1197407&postcount=72
I just right-clicked the count number and copied the link location, never done it before but I assume it works...

That gives a single page so there's also this :-
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1197407#post1197407

Right-click the links & get the properties for the full URL I'm sure you can work out the rest ;)

1) I still think worldlines wouldn't exist in your blackhole universe. It's true that wordlines exist in our universe's blackholes, but that's because the space inside the blackhole still has some semblance of time. Your universe EXPLAINS time as an inverse function of some sort of attraction; this means that events are like particles traveling up the time axis without tracing a wordline behind them.

2) If you explain time as an inverse attraction, then I still think that we would have free will. Just like (prior to observation) quantum particles have a superposition of states and paths, every particle in the blackhole-universe would have a superposition of possible FUTURE paths that leads it to it's current state.

Problems or not, I'm still impressed by this universe. It explains time as a fundamental force instead of a dimension; the dimensional theory of time assumes that time is completely separate and non-interchangeable with the spacial dimensions (except in blackholes). This universe is simply a 4D universe with a central point of origin. It's like a polar co-ord conversion of our cartesian model of the universe :D

Polar coordinates: exactly! I didn't mention that but that is exactly what I am talking about. Polar coordinates is the best way to define anything entering something like a black hole.

For those who don't know polar coordinates, it is a way of defining space with angles and a single distance. We use polar coordinates to define locations on earth, ie: longitude/latitude. Your longitude/latitude is equivelent to the angles of someone pointing at your current location from the center of the earth. Longitude is the amount of east/west angle and latitude is north/south angle. If we just add a length value (radial distance) from this center-earth point we could define any point on the surface or interior of the earth. We could even extend this length out so far as to describe any point in the universe.

An interesting fact about this is that if there was a black hole singularity at the center of the earth and the earth were sucked into it, our angular polar coordinate (long/lat) locations would not change. However, we would notice a change in our relative cartesian coordinates (X,Y,Z values).

In this thought experiment we are describing the 3 spacial dimensions as 3 angular values and time as the radial distance.

2) Not an inverse attraction: I thought this originally too. But it is incorrect. A reverse of gravity is not repulsion. It is still an attractive force in reverse. Gravity is time independent. Forwards or backwards gravity works the same. This thought game doesn't imply that the universe began with an outward force, instead it is the reverse observation of a highly attractive and inevitable force. So even in reverse, the singularity is pulling back on us and slowing our escape. BTW: The proposed "force of time" may or may not be gravity. I just use gravity and black holes as an analogy.

One other consideration: If time began at the singularity within the event horizon of a black hole and nothing can come out of a black hole, then won't everything eventual stop and rush back in? ie: won't time effectly slow and stop and then rush backwards? Not really. Since things can fall into a black hole in forward time (space ship enters and never returns), we can see that in a reverse senario things could come from the singularity and never return.

A new idea: The speed of light is linked to the escape velocity for our current distance from the singularity. That is, our current escape velocity from this 4d black hole is equal to the speed of light. This is why it is impossible to "move" faster then the speed of light. That is anything moving faster then the speed of light would effectively be able to move back towards the singularity and therefore move backwards in time. This also implies that the speed of light is changing over time (assuming the speed of light is always moves at maximum relational speed). In the beginning (big bang time), the escape velocity would have been much higher and therefore light would have a higher speed. As we move farther away (forward in time), the escape velocity decreases and light slows down. So we should be able to see light slowing down in the future, and observe faster then (current) light in the past.

If the speed of light is not attached to the escape velocity and is instead constant, then at some time in the future we will be able to shine light into the past. ie: we will be able to see into the future. A space craft moving near light speed would be able to travel into the past. This doesn't sit well with me. So I instead expect that the speed of light is intrinsically attached to our current escape velocity and thus decreases over time.

It is supported by a theory mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#The_varying_speed_of_light _cosmology

...but this does not cause a problem with causality (as mentioned), since the "time-force" was proportionaly strong back then.

Polar coordinates: exactly! I didn't mention that but that is exactly what I am talking about. Polar coordinates is the best way to define anything entering something like a black hole.

Glad to see we're on the same page :D


2) Not an inverse attraction: I thought this originally too. But it is incorrect. A reverse of gravity is not repulsion. It is still an attractive force in reverse. Gravity is time independent. Forwards or backwards gravity works the same. This thought game doesn't imply that the universe began with an outward force, instead it is the reverse observation of a highly attractive and inevitable force. So even in reverse, the singularity is pulling back on us and slowing our escape. BTW: The proposed "force of time" may or may not be gravity. I just use gravity and black holes as an analogy.

That's why I used the phrase 'inverse attraction' not 'repulsion'. The force you describe isn't exactly the same as antigravity (and even if it is, it doesn't explain the formation of our blackhole universe anyway without whiteholes...).

Also, it's pretty obvious it's an analogy ;)

But I still think the problem of geodesics isn't adequately solved. Assuming that the particles are PARTICLES flying out of the blackhole violates the non-simultaneousness of General Relativity. Maybe particles can be explained as long strings or something...:confused:

Glad to see we're on the same page



That's why I used the phrase 'inverse attraction' not 'repulsion'. The force you describe isn't exactly the same as antigravity (and even if it is, it doesn't explain the formation of our blackhole universe anyway without whiteholes...).

Also, it's pretty obvious it's an analogy ;)

But I still think the problem of geodesics isn't adequately solved. Assuming that the particles are PARTICLES flying out of the blackhole violates the non-simultaneousness of General Relativity. Maybe particles can be explained as long strings or something...:confused:

Glad you picked that up. I sure didn't get that right away :confused:

I don't know much about geodesics. So I don't understand the problem. If you are referring to the singularity itself with infinites... then I will say that I can't really imagine what happens there. ie: at t=0, big bang, creation, etc. The big bang theory has this problem as well I believe.

I'm only referring to the time from (near) then until now. I'm suggesting that there is a pulling force against our motion through time which is similar to the pull on an object within the even horizon of a black hole. And that from t=0 until now we remain within the event horizon of this force.

As far as I know physics does not break down when passing through/into the event horizon. It is some time later where time/space become highly compressed (or stretched?) that there is an issue. Also, this event horizon would have to be very large to contain the universe.

I would like to hear more if you can explain or reference (simply) how this defies non-simultaneous(ness).

I wouldn't know how to explain exiting the event horizon, because this would imply the end of time as a one directional dimension. Just as I don't know how to explain time before the beginning of time. But I would guess in this theory that we could see what the beginning looks like at the farthest reaches of the universe in all directions. Not only because we are looking back in time across the universe, but also because all light reaching us has been bent from the singularity... just as all light in a black hole eventually will hit the singularity.

Long strings: I have limited knowledge of string theory. Fun to read about, but I really couldn't offer any thought on how this may/not apply. I get some of the relativity formulae, but string theory is a practice in faith (for me).

Thanks Kazakhan for linking suggestion. It works great and is easy.

Here is link direct link to the essay on how free will can be consistent with physics which controlls all activity of the brain.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1031482&postcount=17

As that post was replying to someone, you may want to begin reading at the bold text:
Genuine Free Will is Possible

I highly doubt genuine free will is possible.

Genuine free will is pretty much a theoretical term. Just like a totaly random process. No totaly random process exists. A totaly random process is one for which there is no number N of processes that can be observed for statistics to predict the next N of processes. Or in other words ANY(small or infinite) number N of processes would always yield a different average result making it impossible to predict the average for the next N of processes.
Such process does not exist and would render any possibility of constant physics rules impossible. Even QM obeys a statistic which probably means there is a way to describe it deterministicaly, we just haven't found it or it lies beyond our perception, beyond what we can observe and measure.
Genuine free will would imply that we sentient beings can come to a decision that completely goes against all physical laws that the decision making mechanism obeys(organs, neurons, cells, electricity, QM).
Something like, if you throw a brick and it suddenly decides it doesnt like earths gravity and "falls" towards the sky instead of the ground.

Futhermore, there is no way to prove our will is genuinely free. There is no way to reverse time to prove you could have decided differently and that it was a pure free will choice, not a consequence of brain activity obeying physics rules.

I highly doubt genuine free will is possible.
...Genuine free will would imply that we sentient beings can come to a decision that completely goes against all physical laws that the decision making mechanism obeys(organs, neurons, cells, electricity, QM)...I thought what this last sentence states for three decades and gave up on trying to see how genuine free will could exist after a few years of considering the problem off and on. I only found a solution by accident while investigating how the visual system works. I tend still to think genuine free will does NOT exist, but you should read my essay on how it COULD be consistent with physics.

I would welcome your comments after you have read that essay. I admit there is a significant price to pay for the existence of genuine free will - namely you must abandon any concept you may now have which identifies yourself as a physical creature as they are all governed by physical laws; but please from these last remarks do NOT conclude my "solution" to the problem has any resemblence to a "spirt world" "soul" "God" etc as I doubt their existing even more strongly than I doubt that genuine free will exists.

I am only stating it CAN be consistent with physics, not that it exists.

I highly doubt genuine free will is possible.

...and...

Genuine free will would imply that we sentient beings can come to a decision that completely goes against all physical laws that the decision making mechanism obeys(organs, neurons, cells, electricity, QM).


Some would suggest that complexity and other emergent properties (such as free thought) may come from simple deterministic processes. Wolfram - I think.

Others say that it could be an effect of chaos, where small chages in initial state result in large scale differences like free thought. ("Signs of Life" - Ricard Sole)

But then again you may be right. They could be looking for a complex solution because (like you and I) they "feel" in control.

If there is no free choice, the big question is: why do we feel control? Is this a natural byproduct of life and increased complexity? An evolutionary outcome? If so, what is the benefit if we can't do anything about it?

Also, if there is no free choice... I'm glad I'm not aware of it. What a horrible trap this life would be to see everything happen and never feel true interaction. Life would be a prison.

So if you ever prove it on paper, I'll believe the formula, but reject it in my everyday life. I may even take up religion.

... if you ever prove {no free will} on paper, I'll believe the formula, but reject it in my everyday life. I may even take up religion.No need to become that desperate. :D

Read section "Genuine Free Will is Possible" (bold title text) stating half page down at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1031482&postcount=17

I don't know much about geodesics. So I don't understand the problem. If you are referring to the singularity itself with infinites... then I will say that I can't really imagine what happens there. ie: at t=0, big bang, creation, etc. The big bang theory has this problem as well I believe.

I would like to hear more if you can explain or reference (simply) how this defies non-simultaneous(ness).

First, I have to apologize and admit that I often use the term 'geodesic' and 'worldline' interchangably. Which would be confusing. My bad.

When a body accelerates according to Einstein's theories, it's frame of reference starts undergoing a lorentz transformation. Basically this means that it's 'time axis' an 'space-axis' starts tilting. This explains all motion as simply heading 'forward' in time for whatever direction your time axis is heading. Want to turn left? tilt the 'time-axis' left (accelerate towards the left)...

This creates a weird phenomenon; since you're tilting your axis, your 'time-distance' and 'space-distance' from objects starts shifting (It's the same thing as taking a graph sheet and tilting the y-axis and x-axis; the x and y co-ordinates of points start shifting.)

This means two things; distance between events and time between events is relative. EVERYONE knows about the distance thing (and the cool contractions and rarifactions :D ) The time thing is a little less popular and understood :p

So this means that you can observe a body at two separate time-locations...

Einstein explained this as the body existing in ALL it's space-time locations simultaneously. Which means when it's plotted on the space-time graph, it forms a line. The worldline.

ANYWAY, the blackhole theory states that the particles travelling through time are simply that; particles heading upward through time like it was a spacial axis. Which means they DON'T simultaneously exist in all past and future states


Long strings: I have limited knowledge of string theory. Fun to read about, but I really couldn't offer any thought on how this may/not apply. I get some of the relativity formulae, but string theory is a practice in faith (for me).

When I made the comment on long strings I wasn't talking about string theory. I was thinking about an ACTUAL material string :p . It would act as a worldline in the black-hole-universe.

Time is only the measure of the movement of things.
So many vibration of a cesium isytope(sp?) That is the afisial standard.
But how about at absolute zero? Why can a fertilized egg or sperm through off the ravages of time.
So time is a variable and your relative speed, temperature, and probably gravity alter time. I wonder how fast time is in the sun, probly very fast.
And I think it stops in a black hole.

Time is only the measure of the movement of things.
So many vibration of a cesium isytope(sp?) That is the afisial standard.
But how about at absolute zero? Why can a fertilized egg or sperm through off the ravages of time.
So time is a variable and your relative speed, temperature, and probably gravity alter time. I wonder how fast time is in the sun, probly very fast.
And I think it stops in a black hole.

I do not subscribe to the time = motion concept. For example, imagine that the solar system is very very cold. The sun, earth, planets, etc... all near absolute zero. Things may not change much on earth because of the extreme cold. However, the planet would still orbit the sun at the same rate. Assuming the same mass and trajectory... a year would still be a year despite the slow decay due to the temperature.

In my understanding of relativity, speed has little to do with time dilation. It is an observational effect of constant speed/physics in all constant motion reference frames. And therefore, there is a disagreement on the timing at which events occur. It is only during accelleration change that time dilation is realized. At least that is my take.

One thing about fast/slow time. And I think I have this right. Time only changes in one way due to gravity. That is you advance more quickly through time while experiencing strong gravity. Whether this is called faster or slower depends on which perspective you take. The end result is you would age less then someone who is outside and not "feeling" this accellerated force.

So, for example you could say that someone near a black hole:
- would experience 1 day while observing 50 earth days and therefore travels faster through time.
- would look very slow from earth and experience only 15 minutes on the craft while we lived a whole day on earth and therefore travels slowly through time.

BTW: I think the gravity experienced at the center of the sun would have a small effect on time dilation. That is matter at the center of the sun may not be as old as the matter in the center of the earth. But only because it's been experiencing slightly more gravity over millions of years. But, I don't think you would live longer by moving to the center of the sun.

My opinion: Time and motion are forced to be related by the very definition of motion. Velocity = distance over time. However, I don't think time or motion are real. I'm speculating here, but I'm trying to define time as a spacial dimension. One in which a strong (black hole like) force is pulling us through in one direction. Trouble is... if time is spacial then what is that force acting on, if not time? That is, how could you define gravity (or any other force) without time? My theory on this would be that there is no time or motion, but instead forces are simply rules for defining the shape of our universe. Our observation of "time" is a result of consciousness only being able to function in one direction along the spacial time dimension due to the limitations of cause/effect only working in a forward direction. ie: intelligent thought doesn't work backwards through time.

first off, there's no gravity in the center of the sun or earth :)


imagine two heavenly bodies attracting each other. as their distance decreases their motion increases. at the point of impact, distance is 0, motion is maximum. if they just miss each other, they will continue the other way again, motion will reduce, distance increase until maximum distance where motion will be 0.
it is wavelike
everything seems to work that way. a spring, a swing, gravity, electric and magnetic forces, everything.
everything is wavelike, where motion and distance are sine and cosine of an angle.

the two heavenly bodies motion and distance(sine and cosine) are changed as the angle linearly increases. this angular velocity might be considered "real time" or perhaps "progress". what we consider time is the tangens of that angle - distance/motion - sine/cosine.
"progress" velocity - the angular velocity of that angle corresponds to energy.

this kind of approach may yield interesting results.

Everything thats something is made of techno science psyco hard ta understand stuff..

yes very scientific of me i know... ok so heres my question..

What is "TIME" made of.

time is (made of) motion.
as a concept, time depends on the motion of at least one particule in the universe with respect to another particule.

time is (made of) motion.
as a concept, time depends on the motion of at least one particule in the universe with respect to another particule.

I disagree.

Concept:
Imagine a universe consisting of the earth and moon. Also imagine that the only force is gravity. Both the moon and earth are very cold solid object with no internal motion.

The moon revolves around the earth such that the same face always points towards the earth. The earth also revolves on an axis and rate so that it always faces the moon. The orbit of the moon is perfectly circular.

From an outside perspective (also in orbit about the earth) you would suggest that time does not exist since there is no relative motion and gravity is irrelivent or doesn't exist. However if the outside observer viewed this setup from a non-orbit perspective your concept would suggest that time flows and gravity is keeping the moon in orbit about the earth.

That is: relative motion = time, suggests that this system is either void of time or with time/gravity/orbit depending on how you view it.

I do not believe that time on this system is dependent on some third perspective.

I do not believe that time can be stopped by stopping relative motion.

Crazy talk:
My current world view is that motion doesn't exist, but is a result of awareness/logic only being possible along a spacial dimension called time. As a result we observe relative differences with respect to this dimension and declare that we see motion. But it is really like phrames in a movie that are played consecutively in one direction providing us with an illusion of motion.

orbit is motion too. the distance doesn't change, but the angle does, you can't just ignore that.

what kind of silly question is this, time is made of thoughts, it's a mental concept we use to measure motions.

clocks are motion, but motion is illusion created by memory of past positions.

I believe that time is what we make of it. That's all.

orbit is motion too. the distance doesn't change, but the angle does, you can't just ignore that.

I agree that an object in orbit is in motion. What I am saying is that if you view this orbital system from a perspective that is also in orbit (say from the surface of the earth), you will not view any motion. You would have no way to determine whether the objects are still in space (in your opinion) or whether they are in orbit and time exists.

Perhaps this isn't the best analogy since it involves orbit. What I am trying to show is that objects undergoing force can move from a state of relative motion to a system of no relative motion. Circular orbits are an example of this in a perpetual state.

A more appent example is imagining two solid sheres in space. Both objects are close and moving away from each other. However, they are captured by each others gravity. ie: their speed is less then the escape velocity at their current location. So the relative motion between them is continually decreasing. At some point, both objects stop (relative to one another). And since there are no other object in this universe, there is no relative motion at all. Only the force of gravity between them. Does time stop at this point? Immediately after, I would suggest that they begin to approach one another. So I guess time starts again?

So in your opinion, does time stop at the momement that their speeds match? Or does the fact that both objects are undergoing accelleration due to a force matter? Does time stop and then restart at the momement between relative motion... no relative motion... and then relative motion? If time does stop, how can the force continued to be applied at the momement of matching inertia since there is no time for the force to be applied? Or does the force become infinite at this momement? Or does the force become zero and since time has stopped they remain at their distant locations? Or does the universe cease to exist in a meaningful way?

first off, when you see a car move 100m in 5 seconds, those 5 seconds are 5 movements of the clock mechanism. those 5 seconds are 100000 neuron interactions which happen in your brain. all of this is motion.
obviously, we measure time using a reference repetitive motion. we calculate other motion by measuring distance and timing with our reference repetitive motion. or, in other words, how many iterations/movements of the clock mechanism happen while the car changes position for 100m.

we can also define gravity as space-motion deformation rather than space-time deformation.

time is a concept that is intuitive to human minds, but aside from that there is no other reason why it should be considered as a fundamental dimension. it is chosen as such purely for convenience and scientific heritage. unfortunately this intuitive concept of time in our minds begins to cause trouble as it breaks down in relativistic physics.
so, i think time being considered a dimension is a reason for a lot of confusion, paradoxes and problems with current physical theories.

for these reasons your examples are invalid.
two solid 0K temperature objects are hardly conscious of anything.
if there's an observer in this universe, in order for him to be conscious he must not be at 0K temperature. he must sustain repetitive motion of neurons or another processing mechanism to actually notice and be conscious of anything to be "happening". if he satisfies these conditions then he also has an internal "clock" and can observe the two solid bodies continue to attract each other after they reach 0 relative motion.

obviously, the two solids would not "stop in time" when reaching 0 relative motion even without the observer observing them. the fact that the two solids, if they were somehow conscious, couldnt use any other reference motion to time their own wouldnt stop physical laws from happening.
the gravity between them is not a force anyway, but space-time or better yet space-motion curvature. this makes their movement inertial in relativity which does not recognize gravity as a force. which means they never really reached 0 relative motion, they had the same motion all the time, but it only seemed that they are deccelerating through the curved space-time "lense".
the concept of time or motion in such a universe of two solid bodies is kinda hard to contemplate anyway.

for these reasons your examples are invalid.
two solid 0K temperature objects are hardly conscious of anything.
if there's an observer in this universe, in order for him to be conscious he must not be at 0K temperature. he must sustain repetitive motion of neurons or another processing mechanism to actually notice and be conscious of anything to be "happening". if he satisfies these conditions then he also has an internal "clock" and can observe the two solid bodies continue to attract each other after they reach 0 relative motion.


I can't argue with that. If you believe that time requires an internal observer (and you might be correct on that), then there would always be motion within this setup... as I would assume that consciousness requires (neural) motion. I was proposing observing this system/universe from the outside.

If you can imagine the setup I suggest and agree that an internal observer changes the result, then you see my point. Time for the two bodies exists or doesn't exist based on the presence or absence of some 3rd parties (like an observer... or some other 3rd body moving at a different velocity). To me this doesn't make sense as I don't believe the existence of time can be turned on/off by the presence of something else in the system.

Also, I have a problem believing that time didn't exist before consciousness. It's like suggesting that the majority of time from the big bang until life occurred was free of any time, even though astronomical observations appear to show otherwise. Of course I can't back this up, perhaps the whole universe was "alive" from the beginning of time.

However, I do suspect that forward "motion" through time is related to consciousness. So my general belief is "consciousness requires time" but not "time requires consciousness".


the gravity between them is not a force anyway, but space-time or better yet space-motion curvature. this makes their movement inertial in relativity which does not recognize gravity as a force. which means they never really reached 0 relative motion, they had the same motion all the time, but it only seemed that they are deccelerating through the curved space-time "lense".


I disagree. But I'd like to call in a referee on this. In my call: the two objects at the apex of their seperation are have 0 relative motion. Even though they are experiencing opposite and equal gravitional warping, they are in the same inertial phrame at that moment.

And I disagree with "they had the same motion all the time". They truly are decelerating. I think you are referring to objects in orbit which follow a "straight path" when considering the gravitational pull that occurs on space and time.

But forget all this then. Here is a much more simple example:

1. An object is in the universe with no accellerating or conscious parts to it. Does this body exist in time?

2. Now add a second body in some other region of this universe moving at a relatively seperate velocity. Now does time exist on the first body?

There is the problem. Time exists/doesn't in 1 depending on whether you consider or leave out 2.

The simplest solution is to assume that time requires consciousness and consciousness requires motion and disallow 1 and 2 without an internal observer.

But for me... the tree does emit sound waves as it falls in the forest, whether your there to hear it or not.

Everything thats something is made of techno science psyco hard ta understand stuff..

yes very scientific of me i know... ok so heres my question..

What is "TIME" made of.

Energy, like everything else. Time is energy as it goes from one state into another. Example, the sun will eventually burn out and die with time, as the energy never dies, it only changes states forever, that change of state is calculated as time.

Consciousness is the controller of time. Thus I have the name timetraveler. Does it make sense?

I can't argue with that. If you believe that time requires an internal observer (and you might be correct on that), then there would always be motion within this setup... as I would assume that consciousness requires (neural) motion. I was proposing observing this system/universe from the outside.

If you can imagine the setup I suggest and agree that an internal observer changes the result, then you see my point. Time for the two bodies exists or doesn't exist based on the presence or absence of some 3rd parties (like an observer... or some other 3rd body moving at a different velocity). To me this doesn't make sense as I don't believe the existence of time can be turned on/off by the presence of something else in the system.

Also, I have a problem believing that time didn't exist before consciousness. It's like suggesting that the majority of time from the big bang until life occurred was free of any time, even though astronomical observations appear to show otherwise. Of course I can't back this up, perhaps the whole universe was "alive" from the beginning of time.

However, I do suspect that forward "motion" through time is related to consciousness. So my general belief is "consciousness requires time" but not "time requires consciousness".



I disagree. But I'd like to call in a referee on this. In my call: the two objects at the apex of their seperation are have 0 relative motion. Even though they are experiencing opposite and equal gravitional warping, they are in the same inertial phrame at that moment.

And I disagree with "they had the same motion all the time". They truly are decelerating. I think you are referring to objects in orbit which follow a "straight path" when considering the gravitational pull that occurs on space and time.

But forget all this then. Here is a much more simple example:

1. An object is in the universe with no accellerating or conscious parts to it. Does this body exist in time?

2. Now add a second body in some other region of this universe moving at a relatively seperate velocity. Now does time exist on the first body?

There is the problem. Time exists/doesn't in 1 depending on whether you consider or leave out 2.

The simplest solution is to assume that time requires consciousness and consciousness requires motion and disallow 1 and 2 without an internal observer.

But for me... the tree does emit sound waves as it falls in the forest, whether your there to hear it or not.

I disagree with you. No consciousness, no universe, is my opinion. If there are no ears, there is no sound, if there are no eyes, there is no color, if there are no sensations, there is no pain. The entire universe is simply energy, unless there is perception. That energy is conciousness.

This basically means that the universe is conscious, and it only exists because it is self aware, before it was self aware it did not exist materially, it was the idea that brought the material universe into existance, it was the explosion of self awareness.

What I'm saying is, we are the universe, the universe is us, the universe is inside of us, and inside because of that it's inside of itself, and it does not exist outside of itself, outside of us.


If you can imagine the setup I suggest and agree that an internal observer changes the result, then you see my point. Time for the two bodies exists or doesn't exist based on the presence or absence of some 3rd parties (like an observer... or some other 3rd body moving at a different velocity). To me this doesn't make sense as I don't believe the existence of time can be turned on/off by the presence of something else in the system.

Time is consciousness and consciousness is energy. Energy is matter. Energy therefore controls consciousness, which controls time, and matter, which is energy.

Basically all a mind or brain does, is change the state of energy, your brain changes the state of universal energy, like a CPU in a computer, it recieves energy and channels it. The mind is outside of the brain because you can write, you can store information on paper, or even inside DNA. Life is a container for the mind, for conciousness, for self awareness, and time does not exist outside of that. In fact, nothing exists outside of that.

So the entire universe only exists in your mind. There is no universe outside of it, there is just energy in different forms, and that energy is what you truly are, it never dies, it never grows old, we can call it ether, we can call it the quantum singularity, we can call it the big bang, we can call it God, we can call it non locality, the fact is, we have proven with science that it exists, it's a fact proven. You can look it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlocality

Nonlocality basically says, there is no seperate, seperate is an illusion of distance, distance only exists in the mind, because linear time does not exist for energy.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

This is why the quantum world can break the light barrier, because light is simply an energy wave, you can call it a shape for energy, a shape and direction. Energy itself however on the quantum level, is everywhere in the universe, which means there is no distance, there is no seperate, there is no independent, all is one basically, if you touch something here, you are also touching something over there.

Therefore we have quantum teleportation, we have no time in the quantum world, at least not linear time, based on distance of travel. If everything is one thing, and everything is everywhere at once, time represents the state that energy is in, at a specific moment, but according to quantum theory, there is no distance and there is no seperate, so if the tree falls and there is nothing to percieve it, it does not exist, it's just energy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/


Also, I have a problem believing that time didn't exist before consciousness. It's like suggesting that the majority of time from the big bang until life occurred was free of any time, even though astronomical observations appear to show otherwise. Of course I can't back this up, perhaps the whole universe was "alive" from the beginning of time.

There was no beginning of time. Time is not linear, period, it has no beginning or end, it simply calculates the changing states of energy. The universe went from a point, a singularity, into what we now consider the material universe. It exploded in dimensions. It's still exploding in dimensions all the time.

The energy is essentially everywhere in the universe, the material universe, matter, is like a projection, a hologram, it does not exist outside of perception, and perception is life capable of percieving it. If you believe that the universe exists outside of our perception, then please explain why we are capable of observing? The act of observing is what makes something real, as it does not exist before it's observed. To think otherwise is as irrational as believing that pigs will fly even if you've never observed it.

If pigs CAN fly, obviously something in the universe observed it, and either we discovered it from something else, or it was we who observed it first.

time is made of little bits of sims and soms with a dash of ***... yep, tha's what it is.

Answer 1) I'm not a huge fan of wormholes. So I can't answer that question. I do not believe the observable universe is closed. I believe there is a much bigger container which holds our universe. So in my opinion, matter captured by a blackhole does not need to appear somewhere else in the universe. This may bother space travel fans and conservation of energyist, but not me.

Answer 2 (3)) No it doesn't violate relativity. First particles entering a black hole do have a worldline. We just can't observe them when observed from outside the event horizon.

The other interesting fact about this idea is that any attempt to stop moving (accelleration in any direction) toward the singularity (center) actually increases the rate at which you reach it. In other words, acceleration = slowed time or forward time travel. Special relativity suggests the same type of effect. I wouldn't know how to calculate if these effects match in scale.

My bloated theory involves a thought game of falling all the way into the black hole. The entire universe is crushed down to the singularity. This point is the begging of time as we know it (big bangish). Then reverse everything to move forward in time. Since we are still under the event horizon, we would not experience the barrier of the event horizon. Instead all light reaching us would have originated from the singularity.

In this backwards world, our future is already written and therefore I can not explain free will. Or the reason we seem to be aware of states of this universe pulling away from the singularity instead of towards it.

Expanding Universe: They say that not only is the universe expanding, but it is accellerating. What the? This thought experiment explains it by showing that the surface area of the universe will expand at an accelerated rate based on a constant increase in the radial distance from the orgin (singularity). For example: I mean that if you continue to increase the radius of a baloon at a constant rate, the surface of the balloon will increase at an accellerated rate.

PS: I wouldn't base my reputation on this theory.

What if we ARE the singularity? What if time and the material universe is the illusion? have you ever considered that?

What if we ARE the singularity? What if time and the material universe is the illusion? have you ever considered that?

Physicists can't consider ideas that challenge the very foundations of their philosophy/science, otherwise they wouldn't be physicists anymore..

What if we ARE the singularity? What if time and the material universe is the illusion? have you ever considered that?

Yes. In philosophy class. Descarte I believe. Everything could be an illusion. But I never applied this to physics. More metaphysical.

It's interesting to think about, but I find this sort of thinking leads to a lot of dead ends and rarely any practical experiments or uses in "real life" (or rather the "big illusion" if you prefer).

::update:: oops... the response below for vx220...

As far as time = motion. I see that we have a fundemental difference of opinion that can not be resolved. I feel the universe would exist even if it didn't exist in our minds and that there are potentially portions of the universe which exist forever outside our observation. I believe these loctions are real and experience time without our observation. I believe complete destruction of the earth does not mean the end of universal time... even if we were to be the only life in the universe.

But I see I'm not going to convince you. Your view is as valid as mine. It would be nearly impossible to disprove your argument (or prove mine) in experiment, but now I see where you're coming from.

Yes. In philosophy class. Descarte I believe. Everything could be an illusion. But I never applied this to physics. More metaphysical.

It's interesting to think about, but I find this sort of thinking leads to a lot of dead ends and rarely any practical experiments or uses in "real life" (or rather the "big illusion" if you prefer).

::update:: oops... the response below for vx220...

As far as time = motion. I see that we have a fundemental difference of opinion that can not be resolved. I feel the universe would exist even if it didn't exist in our minds and that there are potentially portions of the universe which exist forever outside our observation. I believe these loctions are real and experience time without our observation. I believe complete destruction of the earth does not mean the end of universal time... even if we were to be the only life in the universe.

But I see I'm not going to convince you. Your view is as valid as mine. It would be nearly impossible to disprove your argument (or prove mine) in experiment, but now I see where you're coming from.

Holographic storage. Quantum computers. Quantum teleportation. There are plenty of experiments which prove that there is no solid universe, and that the quantum world (the real world), there is non locality. The fact that observation changes information, and the fact that there is proof that distance and seperateness isnt real, and the fact that if you break a hologram theres infinitely smaller holograms, it basically proves the thesis that "matter" is a hologram. We have teleported atoms, in such a way that one atom was in two places at the same time, this is impossible unless there is just one thing under the surface of it all.


As far as time = motion. I see that we have a fundemental difference of opinion that can not be resolved. I feel the universe would exist even if it didn't exist in our minds and that there are potentially portions of the universe which exist forever outside our observation. I believe these loctions are real and experience time without our observation. I believe complete destruction of the earth does not mean the end of universal time... even if we were to be the only life in the universe.

What I said had nothing to do with the earth, or earth based life. I said the universe does not exist outside of divine observation. Just as a quantum particle comes into existance when you observe it, the universe is the same, it only exists because it has cosmic observation in place to maintain the three dimensional structure of matter.

I'm saying that if there were no observers, the material hologram would collapse out of existance back into a singularity, a quantum dot of absolute unity. I'm saying the big bang is the source of all observation, all life, and the spread of energy which is the spread of life and observation, along with design.

I'm saying that the universe cannot and does not exist without energy. I'm saying matter is energy. I'm saying that observation is the universe, and that which cannot be seen, heard, felt, experienced, or observed, ceases to exist, and the only reason anything exists is because it's observeable.

I don't even mean observeable by humans, I'm saying observable by any potential lifeform of the future, or of the past, or of the present, I'm saying any thing which exists must be observable. This is universal law. Very much like the law of life and death.

So if you believe the universe would exist even if you cannot observe it, it's equal to the belief that there is a heaven or hell, even though you have no way of observing it. Quantum entanglement we CAN observe, quantum particles we have seen teleport, morph, and phase into and out of existance with observation. It's basically a fact at this point. The most important quote I can give to explain it all

Our universe is a quantum dot, a singularity, that expands as observation expands. Motion is not real, because the true universe is just a dot, a 2 dimensional dot, or maybe even a 2 dimensional string. This is if you follow string theory.

The reason I prefer a dot is because, at some point there was a big bang, and a singularity, this much is proven, at some point all of us, all of this, we were just a dot of energy, so small and so tight that it was absolute unity of existance, everything was one dot. If consciousness existed within that one dot, we were one person, one being, one consciousness. This was a timeless moment. The creation of the material 3d universe is what caused the creation of the seperateness of existance, distance, change, because you cannot have a 3d universe without the 4d which is change, so you had 1d dot, which became a 2d string/line, which becomes a 3d sphere, which spins in 4d change, in 5d space (infinite distance in all directions, infinite expansion, infinite sizes).

To help you see what I mean, I'll show you an image.
http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/graphics/smhierarchyanim.gif
http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/graphics/cubanim.gif

The math
http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/overview.html

Wormsworth, you ask me to answer questions that I can not answer. I do not accept the notion of time as you do, therefore I can not answer your questions which imply that time is something everflowing or even absolute and must flow even if there is nothing in the universe. This requires absolute time which is proven false.
Most our dynamic physics formulas are based on time - it is a concept hard and impractical to give up on. But time can basicly be substituted by the reference repetitive motion - clock ticks or whatever. If we do that then all of a sudden all relativistic phenomena and paradoxes of time dilation become much more obvious and clearer.

Relative motion is considered to be the same in both reference frames. Distance contracts. Since the distance contracts - it contracts for our reference repetitive motion(clock ticks or whatever) also which makes the clock tick rate change when compared to the static clock tick rate that didnt experience distance contraction - this is the time dilation.

I would rather define the universe with everflowing angular dimensions.

Take those two solid bodies of yours. Their attractive motion is a wave like motion. For each position of the two bodies, their distance is sine of the angle and their motion is cosine of the angle. As the "relative" angle for the two bodies system progresses linearly their distance increases and their motion decreases. At maximum distance the angle is 90 degrees and continues to progress over 90 degrees. At that point the motion goes into negative and distance starts to decrease as they follow the sine and cosine of the angle. The amplitude and frequency of this wavelike motion is the total energy of the system. Amplitude is the initial kinetic energy of the bodies when they started separating, frequency is the mass - gravity.

It is a bit mind melting to apply this way of thinking to more than two bodies.

It's interesting to think about, but I find this sort of thinking leads to a lot of dead ends and rarely any practical experiments or uses in "real life"

The purpose of science is to understand the universe, practical and useful things are just side effects.

I started a TIME EXPLAINED thread a while back, basically saying time, like heat, is a "derived effect" of motion:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59521

Farsight

Please stop spamming the forums!

As I understand it, Time is the timing among infinitely many superpositions, that exist between total symmetry (no superposition is distinct) and total broken symmetries (each superposition is collapsed into a unique universe).

Both superpositions and unique universes are the result of the association between locality and non-locality.

For more information, please look at:

1) Locality and Non-locality logical foundations:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf


2) Time/Space relations:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf


3) Awareness:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TAP.pdf

ShadmiDoron

Please stop spamming the forums!

DH,

My stuff is deeply connected to this thread.


Please show us that it doesn't !

Please show us that it doesn't !

No thanks. Your stuff is complete gibberish. "Nothing" and "something". Please. You, as the proponent of a new concept, need to show that it this concept is meaningful and is tied to reality.

Your stuff is complete gibberish. "Nothing" and "something".

No, it is "nothing" or "something", and, is far as I can see, it is beyond your personal abilities to grasp it.

I see that you also know what reality is:


...tied to reality.


So, please explain us what do you mean by "tied to reality"?

Motion.Without motion time does not pass

Motion.Without motion time does not pass

Yes, there has probably been quite a bit of motion during the nearly six (6) years since this thread was last active.

Welcome, bfc, sorry to be a prat.

If you have something to say on this subject, please start a new thread. This one was started over 10 years ago!