Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Is Time Travel Possible

comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
edited May 2006 in Philosophy
Well is it? I want to hear your thoughts and why.

Comments

  • MagwangMagwang Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Forward yes, backwards no.

    According to Einstein's Relativity Theory, one could travel close to the speed of light and return to Earth and everyone would be older.

    But that would be one bitchin-fast space ship woo hoo! :rocker:
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Why can't we go back in time?
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Linear time is simply a succession of events. So, going backwards would not really be possible. Time isn't really a 'thing' but rather a terminological designation which refers an implied continuity of moment to moment events.

    As far as the Einstein thing is concerned, unless you can develop propulsion that can go at negative speeds (which really isn't even theoretically possible, or conceivable for that matter), then one could not acheive an opposite result as the one described by Magwang.

    _/\_
    metta
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Has it been proved that time exists or doesn't exist?
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Has it been proved that time exists or doesn't exist?

    yes, or no. Whichever you prefer :tonguec:

    _/\_
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited April 2006
    To be a little more helpful, I would say that time has not been disproven. I would just say that it only exists on an implicit level or insubstantial level. Just like space doesn't really 'exist' in a substantial manner. Space/Time only exists as a useful designation which denotes the relationship one object/instance to other objects/instances, and is also purely a mind element that requires a distinguishing mind for existence.

    Does this help, or the opposite?

    _/\_
  • questZENerquestZENer Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Time is not unified. There are many different 'kinds' of time--and not only are each one culturally constructed, they also vary between individuals within cultures. People who live a traditional Amish life in Pennsylvania and Buddhists who live in Bhutan live and experience what we would call 'time' in very different ways than we do who chat on this board, disconnected from one another physicially yet connected in some 'space' online.

    The notion of 'time travel' suggests an absolute, idealized category of a unified temporal unit.
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited April 2006
    So does relativity mean that some people go through time faster than others?

    Touch a hot pan and a second can seem like an hour. Touch a hot woman and an hour can seem like a second.
  • edited April 2006
    My simple answer to this is: If time travel (backwards) were possible, wouldn't someone have come back to tell us about it??
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited April 2006
    Yes, it is possible to travel in time.

    I did it this morning.

    I left the house at 6:30 - and got to work at 6:50.

    In that period of time, I was travelling to work.

    Spooky, isn't it?

    -bf
  • XraymanXrayman Veteran
    edited May 2006
    I heard about 10 years ago that an experiment was performed inside some laboratory that time travel (from one side of the small room to the other) was possible-don't or can't really give you any further data on it-sorry.

    my 2 cents worth is. No, in fact time is our (human) measurement-what relevance would our "second" be to an alien (if they exist), or to the rest of the universe. from their reference point our second may be their "Year". sorry, I can't help.

    This is one for STP or maybe ZMG.

    regards.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    'Time' is just a label we put on the chronological measurement we impose, in order to bring some semblance of structure to our lives...it is necessary in order to know when your dental appointment is, when your train leaves, and when to buy a gift for your beloved's birthday....
    This is the only way in which 'Time' can be physically related to...

    We also have 'Psychological' Time... this is largely engineered through memory of the past, and desire and planning for the future...But they are intangible, innaccessible and merely figments of our thought processes and imagination.

    In essence therefore, 'Time' is merely a spatial continuum... it doesn't exist in a concrete sense.
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited May 2006
    If time didn't exist then we can do what we did yeterday differently, right? We can become younger or become older at a whim. I believe time does exist. Maybe how we measure it compared to how an alien measures it may be different but it still exists.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    Well, to be honest, I can't be asked to argue the toss...
    I'll leave it to you...
    see here and go from there.....
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Senescene itself is observed only in higher-evolved species.. Which may mean that for amoebas and gang they can't experience Time.. However Space is universal (so is "No Space" :rockon: antimatter).. Guess we'll need more research on this.. My guess is that Time exists.. But just like Mass in String Theory..
    And about people coming from the future to visit, I subscribe to parallel universes! :p
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    I declare officially to all that I would like to withdraw the content of my previous post regarding Time existing as a component of String Theory, because I feel that that was some stupid spontaneous right-brain flabbergastingly-disgusting unorthodoxly-unorthodox pseudoscientific theory. :p (Right-brainers rock! No offense meant! I'm one myself!)

    Now for a more left-brain and objective post... :rockon: (Left-brainers rock too! No offense! LOL!)

    And about Time Travel... I think there are two types of Time Travel methods being investigated mainly:

    (i) Wormholes
    (ii) Light-Speed

    Wormhole proponents seem to believe in the existence of a spatial time dimension, believing it to be be like a spring, where one can "hop back and forward" time in a straight line across different parts of the coil height, but while we cannot, we must travel along the coil of the spring.

    Light-speed proponents to me seem like they are more interested in Einstein's Relativity Theory, and seem not to believe in the existence of Time. Rather, time to them seem to stretch as some kind of t= d/v equation (where d = displacement, v = velocity, t = time), a human derivative, and by changing the value of v, they can affect the way time is perceived, and thus creating an illusion of some "lapse" in time when actually... I think it's the job of the guys in Oxford to come out with a term for this "lapse" which really isn't legally a "lapse".

    Elaborating further from my combined left logical and right brain creative thinking, I see how these "time lapse" people argue. Suppose I were to have 10 men chopping down 8 trees in two days. How many men should I have if I were to conduct another logging session simultaneously somewhere far away, to chop down 40 trees in this two days, rather than just the 8 wrinkled trees? (Alright, it's direct variation all you maths whiz!)

    So we Let number of men to be m, number of trees be t. Thus m = kt, where k is a constant.

    Substituting m=10, t=8 into our equation above, we have 10=8k, which brings us to a constant of 5/4, which brings us now to our revised equation of m=5t/4.

    Understand? Good if yes, ask if no. :P Now since we want to see how many men we need to chop down 40 trees, we shall substitute our t=40 right?

    Thus we see now m =(5/4)(40)=50. Thus we now need 50 men instead of the 10 men. So what does this mean?

    Now look at it this way. The men are the working units - the more there are, the more work done. Agreed?

    Parallel this with velocity. The faster, the more displacement. Ignoring the fact of negative displacement here for practical reasons, I go on further to conclude that even in these 2 days some impartial guy (to simplify matters let's just call him God... No no! I'm not trying to get started with theology here!) is gonna observe that in the SAME EXACT timeframe, the SAME ACTIVITY, there is MORE STUFF being carried out.

    So if we now parallel the trees with the experience of life itself, or rather what we'd commonly mistakeningly see as Time, which is in fact the EXPERIENCE OF LIFE ON A LINEAR BASE ITSELF, we can see how the whole thing works. Time passes slower, but does it go slower really? No! But it EXPERIENCES MORE? Get it? Yes? No? Welcome to Ajani's Law of Experience. Woah.... :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

    As for the wormhole proponents, I do not have much knowledge on how they are dealing with it but I do know that they have some solid scientific proof for that. Perhaps both are right, only working on different perceptions of Time. Time perhaps, exist not on a Universal scale but what we have is in fact Experience as I have shown above, and that Time actually exists on a Multiverse scale rather. Therefore it is perhaps true that Space-Time and Time itself both exist, only that we may have to rename Space-Time for more accurate definitions.

    Of course, I may be no scientist, but the previous paragraph is what my right brain has spurted out in a moment of spontaneous creativity and my left brain has validated as legally logical. And it's gonna be how I'll explain to people about Time in the future. Thanks all for this thread for making me THINK today. :):p :rockon:

    Any supporters/skeptics/critics of this Ajani Law of Experience? :)
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Yes.

    I think "7" was the answer.

    -bf
  • Argon.AidArgon.Aid Veteran
    edited May 2006
    As it would be,

    Give us a picture that a child can understand

    -Ar.Aid
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Well.. I did try...
  • Argon.AidArgon.Aid Veteran
    edited May 2006
    To the original question,

    Time travel can be made possible, but in our current situation it's not.Mainly to a few reasons. Some of you may here this before but I shall reiterate this.

    1) Paradoxes
    2) E = mc^2
    Paradox are truths on its head
    That is its simply something mind-boggling. ( For more information on paradox, please read "The Science of Impossibility or The Impossibility of Science")
    Paradox simply are ideas which seem to prevent the probability of time travel occuring. One example is the family paradox. That is lets say a guy name Jack( or Peter or Mary or Jane or Whatsoever-name-you-prefer-to-include-in-this-example;) ) possesses a time machine. He travels back in time(Assuming thats possible) and that for some out-of-this-world-bogus reason, he decided to eradicate his parents.
    Then, he realises something. "If I killed my parents, then where will I be in the future?" Thus if his parents were dead, means he will not be born and thus he will not have the time machine which means he does not goes back in time which means that his parents remain alive which means he will still be born which means he use the time machine and goes back in time and kill his parents ad infinitum. The question is, will Jack cease to disappear?Will he just be pulled back by some force or left behind?
    Thus, there it would be, a paradox. Confusing ain't it?

    The second paradox is the information paradox. In this sense, we say a scientist has formed a plan to built a time machine which h wrote on a paper. He then goes on to built this time machine and then travel back in time where he passes the paper containing the information to a young man. Thus, right now, the young man can simply built a time machine at that moment. The origin of the time machine comes into question. Who is the creator of the time machine and what happenes to the scientist now? Some other paradox are also interesting with some going to such an extent that a being can become his own grandparents and children through time travel. It continues on a state of cycle which seems to show that time travel is not possible under the laws of physics.
    E = mc^2. Few would wonder why this appears together with time. Generally, these equation shows then in order to beat time, one have to be the speed limit of a light beam which is 3 X 10^8. This, based on the equation is impossible as it means the object will have an infinite mass in order to produce the amount of energy required. In other words, speed of light would be the speed limit for those in nature.
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    From what I gather from your post, my brother, you are attacking on the wormhole proponents' ideals of Time since you believe in the existence of paradoxes.

    However, according to Occam's Razor, it seems that both paradoxes and parallel universes are complex logic, but in this case a belief in the existence of Parallel Universes would be alot more plausible.

    For a more scientific view, from what you seem to suggest, you are hinting that there is only one Universe. I wouldn't qualify my Law of Experience as Science, but I believe a similar working in Nature applies.

    I will use your paradox of grandparenting himself for I think that is the most strongest and also the most valid paradox there. A similar rebuttal can thus be used also to overthrow your other suggested paradoxes.

    The fact that the person does travel through Time to become his own grandfather/grandmother only serves to prove that Time exists not in the Universe but in the Multiverse. The paradox you observe here is not a theoretical barrier, but a theoretical observation. It is of a story of a man who CAN travel through Time to create his own self, not a story of a man who WANTS to travel through Time but CANNOT due to this functional argument that works backwards to state that he absolutely cannot become his own grandparent, thus he cannot travel through Time. A true paradox of a theoretical barrer here will work more like he cannot become his own grandparent because he cannot travel through Time.

    Thank you, Argon for giving me a chance to expand my theory. Since we now know that this man can travel to ANOTHER UNIVERSE lying on a different place in the multiversal Time dimension, his existence thus continues linearly undisturbed. You are arguing that he will grandparent himself right? It seems to me, that you are looking for something such as Predestination to exist here. Thus he may not father himself if there is no Predestiny, right? I do trust that you understand this argument now.

    Yes there is predestination, so hence or otherwise he marries his grandmother and himself. I reject this fallacy completely. It is of a clear biological reason I do so. His DNA is different from his grandfather's for sure. What he and his grandmother will produce is eventually a genetically-defect baby, or if the gene structure is so by chance significantly different after a generation in between, then the baby will be normal. But EVEN IF predestiny still applies, you can see that after the baby grows up to marry the man's mother, their baby is still not the man himself. Genetically-speaking this paradox is non-existent, for genes are one thing that are controlled by events of chance, and the starting gene information is not the exact same to start with, even if I were to allow the control of these chance events. If by some reason you doubt that my current argument is flawed, I have more below to conclude.

    So what if he grandfathers a CLONE of himself through some weird, chance genetic pooling? What does this entail?

    Simple. According to my Law of Experience (I don't think it's Science. I prefer to call it a derived observation.), there is no such thing as Time in the Universe (both his original Universe and his destination Universe where he grandfathers himself). In his destination Universe, the grandfather (meaning the man who time-travelled) simply lives on while his grandson (his chance clone) lives on as well. I do not see any paradox if we remove Time from the equation and replace it with Experience.

    The Jack's Hand thingy is just another of the functional arguments. In Science I believe we have no need for functional arguments that are common in Theology.

    Now for the E = mc^2 problem, I think that Time Travel here splits into two realms according to my Derived Observation.

    The wormhole proponents are now the Time Travellers while the light-speed proponents are now the Experience Dilaters, note that these terms are used for practical reasons.

    The wormhole proponents are those who really do travel through Time via the multiversal dimension of Time itself, ENTERING A PARALLEL UNIVERSE, and not making use of the universal observation of Experience.

    The light-speed proponents are those who do not make use of the multiversal dimension of Time and DO NOT ENTER A PARALLEL UNIVERSE, but instead use the E = mc^2 equation to have More Experience, and thus creating the illusion of more time.

    To unify these two terms together I shall not use Time Travel for it will lead to confusion with the worm-hole proponents but I shall use a non-mandatory term I shall designate as Chrono-Shying (not in any way trying to be literally accurate! :p ).

    For Chrono-Shying to occur still, the speed of light barrier remains there to be broken. However it is of agreement now that we do not require to reach the speed of light really, but just a large fraction of it. This is of course in reality possible, if only NASA funding could increase.

    To state that mass would reach infinity is an over-simplification. I do believe that there are ways undiscovered still by physicists to release a burst of energy enough to propel a vehicle into light-speed for even just that instantanteous second. I think gravity, being a force of weight, has a small nanoscopic period of "lag" whre it does not act on any weight at all, just as a moving bowling ball presses on the rubber below it only when it presses down on it, not when it's moving. A nanoscopic, strong burst of energy can just throw a vehicle, undeterred by gravity into a wormhole down for time travel. It is highly difficult, but I never said it would be easy.

    Anyone wish to comment further to allow me a chance to expand my theory? I am interested in opening up the Time Dimension based on the spring into two dimensions.

    Hmmm... I don't think this qualifies as a new scientific model right? It has been proven already, am I wrong? If it has not been proven, hmm..... :rockon:
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited May 2006
    To state that mass would reach infinity is an over-simplification. I do believe that there are ways undiscovered still by physicists to release a burst of energy enough to propel a vehicle into light-speed for even just that instantanteous second. I think gravity, being a force of weight, has a small nanoscopic period of "lag" whre it does not act on any weight at all, just as a moving bowling ball presses on the rubber below it only when it presses down on it, not when it's moving. A nanoscopic, strong burst of energy can just throw a vehicle, undeterred by gravity into a wormhole down for time travel. It is highly difficult, but I never said it would be easy.

    I think you meant:

    To statify that massification would reach infinitification is an over-flatulentization. I do believify that there are ways, yet!, unsiscovered by physitologists to releasify a burstification of energy enough to propelifontify a vehiculizing into light-speed for even just that instantanificationinzing second. That would be, as we say, an effort in fertility. I think gravity, or brevity, being a force of over-weight, has a small colonoscopic period of "lagation" where it does not act on any weight-loss program at all, just as a moving bowling ball presses on the jimmy hat below it only when the pressionization descendes upon it - heh heh heh... not when it's moving. See what I mean? This is the monkey we must get off our bat if we want to prescribify to this theory. "The", not "a", nanoscopian burst of energy can just throw a vehicle, unreturd by gravity into a wormhole down for time traveloscopification. It is highly difficult, but I never stated it would be easy.

    -bf
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    Oh yes.

    That's much clearer.

    So that's a 'probably', then?
  • comicallyinsanecomicallyinsane Veteran
    edited May 2006
    No it's just someone who isn't taking the conversation seriously. I'm out of here.
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Oh... comic.

    Don't go away. Please?

    I can't help it! I'm a jerk! Plus, reading all of this, I feel like I'm trapped in a Star Trek Convention.

    -bf
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Oh damm. Well, again I tried to make it accessible.

    In short, I am contradicting Argon by stating that Time Travel is possible.

    Live long, and prosper. :p
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    No it's just someone who isn't taking the conversation seriously. I'm out of here.

    Oh Comic, come on - chill!

    If you look at every single thread, there's a large measure of bantering and joking going on....
    Don't take it so seriously!!
    What happened to the 'Comic' element of your name...?
    You been doin' Pizzas too long, man!! You've got to have a bit of a laugh!
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited May 2006
    I know that I move, constantly, through time. My mind ranges through past, present and future - all being unreal. But Time, as an aspect of the universe "out there", is as much of a given as length or mass. Indeed, without the concept of Time, the fundamental equation of the Theory of Relativity does not work: C, the speed of light, represents distance travelled by light over time.

    Not for nothing is it called the Space-Time Continuum.
  • Argon.AidArgon.Aid Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Eh..Ajani?

    I didn't invent those paradoxes..I read it from somewhere..sheesh..:nonono:

    -Ar.Aid
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Does anyone need a spare flux-capacitor?

    -bf
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Hmm... I'm on my way towards trying to prove the existence of three dimensions of Time!!!
  • edited May 2006
    I know that one interpretation of quantum theory would allow for one to travel to a possible reality that is exactly the same as this one, only a bit lagged (temporally). So you wouldn't really be travelling through time this way.

    I don't know much about this field, though, so please don't take what I have to say too seriously. I only know that you would have to isolate the appropriate quantum wave functions and collapse them by observing them. But you can't really isolate them without observing them, so you run into a problem of how to pick the right ones, how to collapse them, where to look for them in the first place ... bah, in any case, I don't think our current level of technology and understanding would allow for it.
  • edited May 2006
    How would the measured difference in elapsed time between atomics clock when one was orbiting the earth and the other on earth apply to time travel? The subjective experience of being at high speed having lived 50 years while time on earth has seen 500 years (to make up some numbers) would be same as traveling in time it would seem.

    Is it only seeming to be time travel versus real time travel? Whether you some how took a short cut through the time/space continuim or just went really fast would be the same to the traveler.

    Have there been measured a difference in time measurement near large gravitational fields?

    I really thought BF would have said something like he saw a paradox, Dr. Smith and Dr Jones
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    Turn Left at Jupiter, and ask the guy at the Information desk......:crazy: :D
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    You might like my Law of Experience, aing..
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    And there was Silence as Time froze... :p
  • Argon.AidArgon.Aid Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Time - such an intricate topic that it deserves four pages of discussion. But what is time? What really are we viewing and throwing in perspective?

    Time can be thrown in different context. We shall also take a look at the "newly" discovered Law of Experience and what it seems to bring forth.

    Over years, time has been given different perspective. The science of time was born from a young Newton. Time was to be an intricate subject as mentioned above. It was first seen as a river and this is what the view that is commonly liken to. At first, this river was flowing straight. We are all in it, all flowing under the influence of the tide, all simply flowing a straight line.But over time, someone get onto the bank, looks at the river and ask, "What is this force that we are in?" Thus, time was questioned.

    The view now altered, time is now seen as a cyclic action. The rising of the sun and the moon. It was seen as a cycle where everything goes through the same cycle and is repeated. Everything has its oppostie, hot and cold, high and low, slow and fast and soon find themself in a cycle. A second idea was then introduce, one of which was the fact that our world was mainly ideas (somewhat phiosophical rather than scientific).

    So what has time arrived to now? Time is still a river, consisting of whirpools where the water warped upon itself.Lets view the Law of Experience in context. Based on the analogy given, the different groups of men will have different experiences.

    But what is experience? Experience is a wrong word to be stated in this case. Experience involces the emotions, the lessons learnt and all. In other words, while they were doing work, their mind were focuesd on other ideas?Experience does not allow us to note infuse other common ideas into the analogy, it simply expects us to accept that all the men were thinking about the exact same thing with the same work rate. Thats stiffles the creativity of the mind.

    Time would be different to each of the men. Some will find it faster as they looked forward to a healthy meal at home after his work. Others in the smaller group will find that time goes too slowly, they look towards the other big group, they feel discouraged. Now this may seem like experience but did we consider the total time frame?

    Imagine all these happened while a constant ocsillation is going on or a ticker-tape timer. As the unbiased observer will note, the ticker tape won't slow down when you move from one site to another. It still goes by the same rate. Number of drops per second remains the same. The rate of oscillation remains the same.

    Time is somewhat related to light. That is, if the light ray reflected of a watch is frozen, it will never reach our eyes and as a result, we see the watch stuck in the same frame. Experience? Not really. A police chasing a car travelling at the speed of light would seems as though everytime he caught up with the car, it simply speeds away at the speed of light. Later an observer told him that from his view, they seem to be neck and neck. In fact, if we were to see a watch on the police hands and the expressions on his face, it would simply be frozen in a frame.

    Generally, my point is: time is like gravity. Its just a term. It is not a discovery. Nobody knew why things keep falling to the ground until the word or term "gravity" was invented. Nobody knew what we went through, why the seasons go by and all until the term "time" emerged.

    Infact, it doesn't even deserve the capital "T" inside Time. Lets just call it time and leave it as it is shall we?

    -Ar.Aid

    Disclaimer: No Malice or Offense was intended and I hope none is taken.
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Argon.Aid wrote:

    Generally, my point is: time is like gravity. Its just a term. It is not a discovery. Nobody knew why things keep falling to the ground until the word or term "gravity" was invented. Nobody knew what we went through, why the seasons go by and all until the term "time" emerged.

    Infact, it doesn't even deserve the capital "T" inside Time. Lets just call it time and leave it as it is shall we?

    -Ar.Aid

    Disclaimer: No Malice or Offense was intended and I hope none is taken.

    People knew why things fell to the ground before a "label" was created for this phenomena.

    Did creating the label "gravity" all of a sudden define to people why water fell out of a bucket when turned over? Why a stone would remain on the ground where you placed it? Why water ran downhill? Why fruit fell from a tree?

    Oddly enough, it is possible to know many things without the benefit of a label - because it simply "is".

    -bf
  • edited May 2006
    if you moving fast enough, then you will age slower.. hence the people in orbit above us aging slower so technically if you move fast enough over a period of say 100 years.. you won't have aged.. unfortunately thats only moving forward and its about the only possible form of time travel that doesn't involve nonsense... aparently theres a design for a time travel machine, but it would span the size of the galaxy or something
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    I am aware I did not invent Time Argon, or even discovered it, for this is purely my own unproven hypothesis. Again also, I chose Experience to serve as a label bf had talked about. Speed is something objective, free from the complications of a human mind. Thus I believe when I say Experience, I do not talk about its sapience and sentience, if it even has any. Interesting post, however. :rockon:
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    And as Gravity is a working force of Weight, are you thus paralleling their nature as being forces? Or in your opinion, Time is just a linear progression of events that we have chosen to labell it in the same way as we seem to "invent" the term Gravity, may I know?
  • edited May 2006
    Argon.Aid wrote:


    Time would be different to each of the men. Some will find it faster as they looked forward to a healthy meal at home after his work. Others in the smaller group will find that time goes too slowly, they look towards the other big group, they feel discouraged. Now this may seem like experience but did we consider the total time frame?

    you are saying that time is different for all people, at times it feel faster and at other times its is slow.. this is our own perception of time. . i suppose its all we can know for sure, so technically you are correct, time is specific to each person at any given time..
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    To be exact, when Time seems to be the subject here, we focus on two sides of the same coin: Psychological Time, caused by chemical responses in the brain as our neurons behave as the "internal clock-hands" that move at a speed proportionate to adrenaline supply and stuff in a cyclic path, and the Scientific Time of Relativity, Wormholes and stuff. Well yes, technically he is right. =)
  • Argon.AidArgon.Aid Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Let's just put it this way, if time travel was possible, we would have been swarmed by visitors from the future. I believe someone iterate this point before,heh.

    What I mean is that, nobody knew what to call this event. In fact, If Newton decided to say "Lets call it Tearity" or some weird name, we would be calling it otherwise. Same goes for time. Its just a term coined. What we are looking at is not to rename time, but instead to dwell deep into it.

    -Ar,Aid
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Parallel worlds! :p
Sign In or Register to comment.