Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Still Waters

Scientists predict time will stop completely

153 posts in this topic

I turn 63 this summer. My time is clearly running out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you want me to type slower ? my statement was about personal perception awareness understanding feeling

not a scientific fact that can be measured people experience time in different ways. Their is no grand unified theory of

time only symptoms of the reality of it we perceive and measure which lead to aspects of it being verified.Phenomenon

can also be unexplained untested but still occur that the bit your confusing yourself on

I'm not talking about personal perception, if you had put more time in reading than drumming away with misconceptions, you might have understood that.

Do yourself a favor and find out what scientific phenomena is.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about personal perception, if you had put more time in reading than drumming away with misconceptions, you might have understood that.

Do yourself a favor and find out what scientific phenomena is.

I'm not talking about personal perception, if you had put more time in reading than drumming away with misconceptions, you might have understood that.

Do yourself a favor and find out what scientific phenomena is.

Misconceptions that's not nice how about a original thought. Its called theoretical science anyone can do it beware its not a safe as following standard procedure as yourself i have explained the meaning of phenomena scientifically and the one your not sure on unexplained one the principles behind it are understood the other they are not as i have said their is not much more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misconceptions that's not nice how about a original thought. Its called theoretical science anyone can do it beware its not a safe as following standard procedure as yourself i have explained the meaning of phenomena scientifically and the one your not sure on unexplained one the principles behind it are understood the other they are not as i have said their is not much more

How about getting your facts straight first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenomenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i laughed when i read spanish universities roflz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another hot and furious discussion about Time somewhere else here at UM. I wouldn't think Time were such a controversial subject!

To me, ``now'' only makes sense as an origin for space-time coordinates. If you and I meet today, and make plans to have lunch together at Bill's Diner in one week from ``now'', but then I decide to go on a merry 99.99999%-of-light-speed trip to Alpha Centauri tomorrow (and come back the next day), while you stay put on Earth, then ``one week from now'' will be quite different for you and me and we would both end up eating alone.

Yes, we both agree on that "now" when we make the appointment. But, while I'm sitting in Bill's Diner waiting for you to show up, let's say I experience a "now" moment and I say "now!". Whenever in time you reside, you experience that same "now" moment as I do, irrespective of our different rates of elapsing clocks. You would always experience and say "now!" at the same moment as I would.

It would seem, if I say "now!" at 12:00 in my frame of reference, you would be saying "now!" at say 2:00 from my frame of reference, if I could see your clock. So our "nows" would seem not to coincide.

However, would we not both be saying "now!" simultaneously, even though our clocks do not agree on the relative moment we say it? Can your "now" be two hours later than my "now"?

I just think "now" is the edge of time as it passes into the future, so to say. It intervenes all clocks at the same moment, irrespective of their local rates of duration in different frames of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I turn 63 this summer. My time is clearly running out.

Atleast on this site escher you will use it wisely as i am finding out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i give in give me the facts !! i might not respond till tomorrow

well come on i think your splitting hairs here !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of have a problem with this theory. Time only exists because we exist. Doesn't it? I mean, who's telling any kind of time if there's not someone there to count it? What would time be without someone or something to count it? Questions, questions, questions. Maybe the question should be - Does time really exist at all?

I read several similar statements in these comments that time only exists when somebody observes it.

False.

Time simply is. It needs no observer. If nobody "counts" time, time passes exactly as it would if somebody was "counting" it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, would we not both be saying "now!" simultaneously, even though our clocks do not agree on the relative moment we say it? Can your "now" be two hours later than my "now"?

Every event has an explicit space-time coordinate. However the exact position of that coordinate in space or time varies depending on the reference frame of your origin.

If you argue that events local to different reference frames can be simultaneous, then your definition of ``simultaneity'' involves connecting the two space-time events with a line of arbitrary slope.

If that definition holds, then a Pharaoh 3000 years ago saying ``now'' also coincides with you saying ``now'' earlier today and someone in the Andromeda galaxy saying ``now'' 5 000 000 years in the future (with these dates defined by my current reference frame).

In other words, it seems like your idea of the ``present'' is a surface in space-time of arbitrary shape. In that case, any space-time event can be connected to any other space-time event, and satisfy your definition of simultaneity.

In my definition, which I believe is the accepted definition in physics (I will freely admit that I am not an expert in relativity or cosmology), ``simultaneity'' is a perception based on a person's location, two people will only agree on simulaneity if they compare their observations when (however briefly) they are immediately next to each other in space-time (the closer the better).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read several similar statements in these comments that time only exists when somebody observes it.

False.

Time simply is. It needs no observer. If nobody "counts" time, time passes exactly as it would if somebody was "counting" it.

Time is unique to the perspective of the observer its running at different rates all over the universe depending

where you are their is no exact passing of time unless its being counted .we could be experiencing realtime (time we measure)

compared to someone near the speed of light where it is traveling slower than our pocket we are in at exactly the same time they

are running at different rates.Meaning you only know what is relative to reality if are experiencing it time runs at different rates at the

same time!! it is not constant meaning if someone is not counting it not relative their is no standard speed limit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time is unique to the perspective of the observer its running at different rates all over the universe depending

where you are their is no exact passing of time unless its being counted .we could be experiencing realtime (time we measure)

compared to someone near the speed of light where it is traveling slower than our pocket we are in at exactly the same time they

are running at different rates.Meaning you only know what is relative to reality if are experiencing it time runs at different rates at the

same time!! it is not constant meaning if someone is not counting it not relative their is no standard speed limit

"...their [sic] is no exact passing of time unless its [sic] being counted..."

False. Time passes differently in different reference frames, yes, but "counting" of time is unnecessary. Time passes more slowly on a barren rock traveling very fast away from another barren rock. Nobody is needed to observe this. It just happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every event has an explicit space-time coordinate. However the exact position of that coordinate in space or time varies depending on the reference frame of your origin.

Let us imagine there are two people, A, and B, who are separated by two light hours. However, they both are located in the same space-time frame of reference, so the rate of their clocks coincide, so both of their present moments coincide as well.

Now, a person, C, who is six light hours from A, and therefore eight light hours from B, flashes a bright light.

A will observe the flash at say 12:00 according to his clock. B will observe the flash at 2:00 according to his clock.

Even though the present moment for B’s observation occurs two hours after A’s observation according to their clocks, both will still experience their present moments simultaneously, regardless of the different moments by their clocks they observe the flash.

From C’s perspective, he could either consider A and B’s discrepancy of observation as explained by the above, or that A and B reside in different relative reference frames. In the second case, for C, B’s discrepancy is caused by his clock ticking faster than A’s.

Which of C’s explanations is correct? From C’s perspective, would both of his explanations be correct?

In C’s second explanation, even though A and B appear to reside in different reference frames, their present moment still is simultaneous.

Does this example infer that the present moment is universal, and separate present moments due to relative reference frames is just a matter of perspective?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though the present moment for B’s observation occurs two hours after A’s observation according to their clocks, both will still experience their present moments simultaneously, regardless of the different moments by their clocks they observe the flash.

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

Your argument is fine when you attribute different observers experiencing ``the present'' in relation to a singular event. What about two events?

Observer A sees a light to the left and a light to the right flash at the same time. Observer B sees these lights flash one hour apart. If I understand your logic, both observers experience the flashing of the left light ``simultaneously'', even though different amounts of time may have elapsed for each. But then both observers should experience the flashing of the right light ``simultaneously'' as well.

The difference between these two ``present moments'' is negligible for observer A, and is one hour for observer B.

Does this example infer that the present moment is universal, and separate present moments due to relative reference frames is just a matter of perspective?

No, because in the example above the way the ``present moment'' advances through space-time has arbitrary curvature for different points. By your logic every single event that ever happened or ever will happen exists in the same present moment, because one can always connect any arbitrary set of events with a curved space-time surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us imagine there are two people, A, and B, who are separated by two light hours. However, they both are located in the same space-time frame of reference, so the rate of their clocks coincide, so both of their present moments coincide as well.

Now, a person, C, who is six light hours from A, and therefore eight light hours from B, flashes a bright light.

A will observe the flash at say 12:00 according to his clock. B will observe the flash at 2:00 according to his clock.

Even though the present moment for B’s observation occurs two hours after A’s observation according to their clocks, both will still experience their present moments simultaneously, regardless of the different moments by their clocks they observe the flash.

From C’s perspective, he could either consider A and B’s discrepancy of observation as explained by the above, or that A and B reside in different relative reference frames. In the second case, for C, B’s discrepancy is caused by his clock ticking faster than A’s.

Which of C’s explanations is correct? From C’s perspective, would both of his explanations be correct?

In C’s second explanation, even though A and B appear to reside in different reference frames, their present moment still is simultaneous.

Does this example infer that the present moment is universal, and separate present moments due to relative reference frames is just a matter of perspective?

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I keep forgetting to add this:

"Disclaimer! I am a semi-scientifically-literate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have little knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

Edited by StarMountainKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep forgetting to add this:

"Disclaimer! I am a semi-scientifically-literate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have little knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

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

You are = you're.

They are = they're.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.