152 replies to this topic

[sepulchrave]

Blizno, on 26 June 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Alas, you don't know that "your" IS NOT "you are" and that "their" IS NOT "they are", sigh.

I also doubt that the Universe exists based on "principals".

"Principles", on the other hand, seem far more likely to be responsible for the Universe as we know it.

[StarMountainKid]

chezarelli said:

you know how the universe actually operates and is all mathematic but you know your wrong but you actually don't understand all
the principals behind it that they have not even discovered yet but you know their wrong as well ?

Well, I devised this Discalimer of mine from a helpful Supulchrave post (all Sepulchrave posts are helpful and knowledgeable), because I admit I am not a theoretical physicist, and my knowledge of science is limited to layman's information that I have learned through the years. I use my limited knowledge and my imagination to develop ideas of my own that most likely are not a description of how the universe actually operates.

I think others who lack a rigorous scientific education speculate as I do. These are our personal thought experiments. I don't think this a bad thing if our personal hypotheses are an honest method to try to gain a better understanding. Holding on to our speculations without facts to back them up is different.

[StarMountainKid]

Sepulchrave said:

How can you say that they experience their ``present moments'' simultaneously?

In the two light scenario, Observer A sees the left and right lights flash at the same time.  Observer B sees these lights flash one hour apart, as you say.

If both observers are in the same space-time frame of reference, it doesn’t matter when they see the lights flash by their clocks. A will say he sees the lights flash “now” at 12:00. B sees the lights flash later, one hour apart, say beginning at 2:00.

When A sees the lights flash he experiences “now” at the same moment B experiences “now”, the only difference is B hasn’t seen the lights flash yet. When B sees the first light flash, his “now” is still the same as A’s “now”.  The same applies when B sees the second light flash one hour later.

By their clocks these “now” moments of the flashes are out of sync, but both being in the same time zone, so to speak, their “nows” are always the same, irregardless of when they see the lights flash by their clocks.

One could say when they see the lights flash it is “now”, and these “nows” are out of synch, but at what time by their clocks they see the flashes does not alter their in-synch “nows”.

When B sees the lights flash later than A, his “now” is still coinciding with A’s “now”, he just sees the lights later that A does.

[chezarelli]

StarMountainKid, on 26 June 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Well, I devised this Discalimer of mine from a helpful Supulchrave post (all Sepulchrave posts are helpful and knowledgeable), because I admit I am not a theoretical physicist, and my knowledge of science is limited to layman's information that I have learned through the years. I use my limited knowledge and my imagination to develop ideas of my own that most likely are not a description of how the universe actually operates.

I think others who lack a rigorous scientific education speculate as I do. These are our personal thought experiments. I don't think this a bad thing if our personal hypotheses are an honest method to try to gain a better understanding. Holding on to our speculations without facts to back them up is different.

i see just asking why you posted an example then retracted your whole idea/ concept/theory i would not say you held on to it to long or faced to much ridicule
i thought it was a good example i to am not  qualified  and speculate on quantum theory i am not deterd so quickly as 90% of the people on this site cant post undeniable
evidence against most theory's they to speculate against speculation in some areas especially time

[logan valenti]

StarMountainKid, on 18 June 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

This is interesting. A sort of entropy for time. Or, as space and time are inseparable, as space stretches, why wouldn't time stretch as well?

[logan valenti]

Time would stretch its just that as the universe expands it would eventually rip space and time even if time survived after the universal expantion the universe would get smaller and crunch with time crushing with it

[logan valenti]

StarMountainKid, on 26 June 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Well, I devised this Discalimer of mine from a helpful Supulchrave post (all Sepulchrave posts are helpful and knowledgeable), because I admit I am not a theoretical physicist, and my knowledge of science is limited to layman's information that I have learned through the years. I use my limited knowledge and my imagination to develop ideas of my own that most likely are not a description of how the universe actually operates.

You don't need knowledge you need to ask. Asking brings knowledge to you

I think others who lack a rigorous scientific education speculate as I do. These are our personal thought experiments. I don't think this a bad thing if our personal hypotheses are an honest method to try to gain a better understanding. Holding on to our speculations without facts to back them up is different.

Edited by logan valenti, 26 June 2012 - 11:14 PM.

[logan valenti]

Skeptic Chicken, on 19 June 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Wait, does this mean that we'll all just freeze completely if their theory is correct? (Emphasis on "is")

[logan valenti]

No if there's no time than there is probably no space either sooo if there's no time than there's a big probability that everyone is dead

[TattooMommy28]

This is b.s. I dont care what they say

[Junior Chubb]

JuniorChubb predicts this thread will never stop.

[StarMountainKid]

chezarelli said:

you know how the universe actually operates and is all mathematic but you know your wrong but you actually don't understand all
the principals behind it that they have not even discovered yet but you know their wrong as well ?

I see what you mean. I don't say I know how the universe actually operates, and I'm not sure I'm wrong, but I probably am, and I don't know the all the principles behind it, and I didn't say I know they are wrong. I'm just trying to understand things better by asking speculative questions.
and;

Quote

i see just asking why you posted an example then retracted your whole idea/ concept/theory i would not say you held on to it to long or faced to much ridicule
i thought it was a good example i to am not  qualified  and speculate on quantum theory i am not deterd so quickly as 90% of the people on this site cant post undeniable
evidence against most theory's they to speculate against speculation in some areas especially time

I don't think I retracted anything. I am not deterred quickly, as I keep bothering Sepulchrave and others until I am satisfied I understand the subject a little better.  I agree that we mostly speculate against speculation around here. This is one reason people come here, I think.

Anyway, thanks for responding to my posts, it's been an helpful conversation.

Junior Chubb said:

JuniorChubb predicts this thread will never stop.

Yeah, time is such an ethereal thing that effects everyone, so it's wide open to speculative interpretation. I think Einstein had the best definition: "Time is what we measure by our clocks." I think he said that. I could be wrong there, too.

[Seeker79]

Time can't begin or end. I suppose at the end of the universe ( if there is such a thing) if there is no potential for change in anything, then time might be considered ended. But obviously PRE BB there was a potential for change, and there is no reason to assume there won't be another one. It's a bit  presumtuouse to declare absolutes when we have boundaries of available knowledge. So arrogant.

[sepulchrave]

StarMountainKid, on 26 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

One could say when they see the lights flash it is “now”, and these “nows” are out of synch, but at what time by their clocks they see the flashes does not alter their in-synch “nows”.

When B sees the lights flash later than A, his “now” is still coinciding with A’s “now”, he just sees the lights later that A does.

I don't really understand your definition of ``now'', I guess.

For me, ``now'' is inextricably linked to the concept of ``the present'', which I define as the space-time hypersurface with a common time coordinate, based on my reference frame.

Someone moving with a relative velocity to me will have a different time coordinate, and therefore define the present as a different hypersurface.

Our two hypersurfaces could coincide at a few points, but not at every point. Therefore somethings that seem to be happening in my present could seem to happen in the past (or future) for a different observer.

Yes, every event has a unique point in space-time, and with complete information about that point every observer would compute the same space-time interval (with respect to some arbitrary, but common, reference point) - but for me ``now-ness'' is only a property of the time coordinate.

[justcalmebubba]

Okay so i guess its safe to say at sum point its all circleing the drain((blackhole)) thenonce the "suck factor" is over  we'll come out the other side in 1 very large clump of goo and since most this we know at sum point repeat  it self one could only hope or have faith in the thought life will restart and at some point in the future's future we'll all be reading this post again at sum point right???
  NOTE TO FUTURE SELF...do not marry that damn harpy ~~