Scientists predict time will stop completely

[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]

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 June 26, 2012 by logan valenti

[logan valenti]

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]

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;

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.

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.

[White Crane Feather]

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]

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 ~~

[chezarelli]

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 ~~

you may have already married her if your reading this post again bubba do want to make suck anymore but !!

[StarMountainKid]

but for me ``now-ness'' is only a property of the time coordinate....

We've probably exhausted the subject, so I won't leave a last word here. I understand your definition of the present moment, and from its perspective it is correct. But, I also consider my definition of the present moment to be correct in my own mind's perspective.

I always feel more secure when you post on subjects around here. Hopefully, it keeps us hypothesizers more honest, or at least better informed.

.

[Junior Chubb]

JuniorChubb predicts this thread will never stop.

Maybe I was wrong...

[StarMountainKid]

Maybe I was wrong..

I can always think of more stupid thoughts to post, but modesty's prevents me from getting in any deeper than I already am.

[+DieChecker]

WHAT? Time has not Stopped YET!!!

Somehow I feel cheated.

[Harte]

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 ~~

The bolded portion is the one to stress.

The rest is claptrap.

At least you got that last part right!

Harte

[+DieChecker]

Damn it!! It's been two more days and Time has STILL NOT STOPPED!!! ARRRGGGHH! When will it end????

Wait? Maybe never..... ???

But... but... but... the crazy azz article said....

[Junior Chubb]

Damn it!! It's been two more days and Time has STILL NOT STOPPED!!! ARRRGGGHH! When will it end????

Wait? Maybe never..... ???

But... but... but... the crazy azz article said....

Looks like you're going to have to keep on checking those die for a little while yet.

[tank6boss]

We've probably exhausted the subject, so I won't leave a last word here. I understand your definition of the present moment, and from its perspective it is correct. But, I also consider my definition of the present moment to be correct in my own mind's perspective.

I always feel more secure when you post on subjects around here. Hopefully, it keeps us hypothesizers more honest, or at least better informed.

I was thinking, if we toss out the "consistent histories" way of thinking of it, the way two entangled particles respond one to the other could be your definition for Now.

I find the discussion fascinating because it made me realize that everything we know about time is a result of it passing. With the exception of Now everything else is differential, e.g. a starting and ending point. Thus, time is always a span! Even its units are a span. A minute is 60 seconds... much like dimensional units are. There is the exception--but not really an exception--where we try to put a label on Now. It is 9:13. But by the time I label it, it is no longer the same "Now" as when I started.

Now is similar to a point in space. Consecutive points bring about a dimensional span. The same with Now and Time. But like you say we can hold a position in a dimension but not in time. But actually we can't hold a position in a dimension, either. We are always in motion from the spin of the Earth Etc....

Perhaps Now is not Time!, but something else that is so much like Time that we confuse the two as one. I would be for investigating that in our attempts to understand time better. And the future is really only the span we expect to have after something else has occurred and which is a "from some beginning to its end". So, all we end up with are these spans of time we call the Past. We anticipate having another past event of some duration and that anticipation we call the Future. So, Pasts go by regularly and since we expect more of them we call that the Future. But does the Future truly exist?

Hummm...

[StarMountainKid]

I find the discussion fascinating because it made me realize that everything we know about time is a result of it passing. With the exception of Now everything else is differential, e.g. a starting and ending point. Thus, time is always a span! Even its units are a span. A minute is 60 seconds... much like dimensional units are. There is the exception--but not really an exception--where we try to put a label on Now. It is 9:13. But by the time I label it, it is no longer the same "Now" as when I started.

Yes, 'now' is interesting. I think 'now' is perhaps what time is. There must be a 'now' for anything to happen. Without a 'now' could time exist at all?

On the other hand, does 'now' have a duration? (Planck time units?) If time is quantized, then the duration of each quanta of time is the envelope within which events occur.

Now is similar to a point in space. Consecutive points bring about a dimensional span. The same with Now and Time. But like you say we can hold a position in a dimension but not in time. But actually we can't hold a position in a dimension, either. We are always in motion from the spin of the Earth Etc..

I'm wondering if a point in space and its corresponding point in time continue to exist as a spacetime unit, so to say. Perhaps the past is only a human concept created by memory. If this point in space continues to exist, why would not its corresponding point in time continue to exist? In other words, all past events in spacetime continue to exist in their own spacetime 'eras'.

We think the past no longer exists, only the present 'now' exists, but this disappearing past is only a human concept, because our consciousness is only aware of the present. If we consider spacetime as a whole, past events in spacetime must still exist, but we cannot access them.

Perhaps Now is not Time!, but something else that is so much like Time that we confuse the two as one. I would be for investigating that in our attempts to understand time better. And the future is really only the span we expect to have after something else has occurred and which is a "from some beginning to its end". So, all we end up with are these spans of time we call the Past. We anticipate having another past event of some duration and that anticipation we call the Future. So, Pasts go by regularly and since we expect more of them we call that the Future. But does the Future truly exist?

Interesting point. Hmmmm.

Of course, I'm only hypothesizing here. If we consider space time as a loaf of bread, one end the past and the other end the present, and we cut a slice out of it, does this slice of spacetime actually still exist in its own context? Is every moment in our lives. or every event in the universe still occurring in its own 'now'?

If all space continues to exist, does all time continue to exist also?

(Edited for spelling)

Edited August 11, 2012 by StarMountainKid

[Indiogene]

...Nothing lasts forever...not even the universe is immortal...or is it? The earth may end, mankind may end and everything we made or on this planet will end...but does it end...will it ever end...and how will it end? Questions on time and space are riddles to never be solved.

[tank6boss]

Another thing that might be worth investigating further is the statement that all space continues to exist. Is the space of the Past and that of the Future, the same space of the Now?

It seems to me to be intuitive that Space continues to exist, but questioning the intuitive seems to pay off so much in the reports of experiments these days.

just trying to be more of a catalyst regarding thought!

[StarMountainKid]

tank6boss, you come up with interesting ideas.

Another thing that might be worth investigating further is the statement that all space continues to exist. Is the space of the Past and that of the Future, the same space of the Now?

Perhaps Past, Present and Future are only human concepts based on our limited consciousness of only the Present. Maybe the true nature of Reality is that all Time already exists, and the 'now' and the passage of time that we experience is an illusion created within our minds.

If this were true, I think all the 'nows' that we experience always exist in their own 'now'. In this sense, each 'now' would be a different space, captured in its own time era of 'now'.

I said that 'now' is only a human concept, but each spacetime era slice could be arbitrarily selected as any duration. For instance, one could (if one could) select an era lasting one minute or one hour or one million years. Each arbitrary era would exist as its own space and time.

The only relationship between eras would be cause and effect on the macro scale, or the evolution of quantum probabilities on the quantum scale.

This is just conjecture on my part, but the idea came to me by reading about the ideas Kurt Godel had about time. I could be misinterpreting Godel's thought, though, of course.

[spud the mackem]

Oh good we all stop ageing,but the busses wont get to you on schedule,as they are always late nowadays.I wish these so called "scientists" would stop spouting a load of moo poo,and come up with something usefull.

[StarMountainKid]

Oh good we all stop ageing,but the busses wont get to you on schedule,as they are always late nowadays.I wish these so called "scientists" would stop spouting a load of moo poo,and come up with something usefull.

There's a hidden agenda in this thread that you have partially exposed. If we can figure out Time here, we can make the buses arrive on schedule. We'll just adjust our local Time to coincide with the late buses. Also, no more being late for an appointment, and no more tedious waiting for the dentist to call our name! How sweet that will be!

So, be patient, we're working on it here without the moo poo scientists. (Plus, patience will not be needed after we UM members get all this figured out.)