King Fluffs Posted June 19, 2012 #26 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If time froze, some people would be stuck in very awkward and embarrassing snapshots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasty Gash Posted June 19, 2012 #27 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'm a bit skeptical of this theory. There really isnt a lot of information they give here. Even in a setting of absolute zero where molecules are frozen still, time is still passing, isnt it? Thats an interesting thought-experiement. What is motion? Change in position with respect to time, right? If there is no motion, there is no time. Try to think outside of tri-space. Try to image time as sort of a fourth dimension where something moving in time is moving along that fourth dimension. If it stops moving along that dimension, time for it has stopped. NOTE: references to concepts such as time, position, motion, etc here are to be construed as being as perceived by tri-space-thinkers. You humans gradually are learning to think beyond such constraints. Please don't permit the lazy, superstitious and unenlightened to curtail your mental growth and knowledge-stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted June 19, 2012 #28 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Since everything thing would not stop at one time, would there not be massive collisons folowed by massive compression, followed by a Big Bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmazedHuman Posted June 19, 2012 #29 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Frankly, this theory makes a little sense as the Big Bang theory. As for that...what was there to explode? Nothing comes from nothing. There had to be something there to create a Big Bang. What? As for this time..'time emerged with the Big Bang'? Well, duh...no universe, no time. However buying the idea that the universe is not expanding but time slowing down is a tad thin. They need to go back to the drawing board and think up some different nonsense theory that nobody can prove. Edited June 19, 2012 by AmazedHuman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted June 19, 2012 #30 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Frankly, this theory makes a little sense as the Big Bang theory. As for that...what was there to explode? Nothing comes from nothing.Who said anything about an explosion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwin Posted June 19, 2012 #31 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Word play. Another example of circular reasoning which once again proves that there is a flaw at the heart of our current physics. ie Newtonian physics. If you need to make something up to fill a void in the theory, ie dark energy, that's perfectly fine. It's going to take a long time to correct our skewered physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasty Gash Posted June 19, 2012 #32 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Frankly, this theory makes a little sense as the Big Bang theory. As for that...what was there to explode? Nothing comes from nothing. There had to be something there to create a Big Bang. What? As for this time..'time emerged with the Big Bang'? Well, duh...no universe, no time. However buying the idea that the universe is not expanding but time slowing down is a tad thin. They need to go back to the drawing board and think up some different nonsense theory that nobody can prove. "Big Bang" is a misnomer. There was no "explosion" but expansion of the Universe. The Universe is all there is and it is not expanding "into" anything since there is nothing outside of it. You Humans have that theory pretty much correct but you need to work on it a little more. As for "Nothing comes from nothing": Dr. Lawrence Krauss explains it rather well in his book A Universe From Nothing. There also is a video on YouTube by the same name were he explains how it can happen. Unless you have studied the subject yourself, via scientific education and scientific research, I don't believe you have much standing declaring it all "nonsense". One should understand an argument before dismissing it. So take a look at the video and if it makes you curious, read the book. The idea that time is slowing down is a hypothesis now - it hasn't been promoted to a theory. You ought to look up the scientific definition of the terms. And please don't declare a hypothesis unprovable just because you don't understand it or don't believe it yet. Remember that the idea that the Earth and planets orbit your Sun once was thought preposterous (however I have yet to find evidence that it ever was seriously thought that the Moon was made of green cheese). Dr. Krauss is on the right track but his knowledge, indeed, that of humanity is in its infancy. You need a few hundred years more before you really begin to understand. Please don't permit the lazy, incurious, superstitious and unenlightened to curtail your mental growth and knowledge-stores. And be prepared - for you will discover things far stranger than you can imagine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 19, 2012 #33 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I think this is way overstated. Even if time is slowing down, our reference to it is "inside" so we're not going to notice. Light will still travel at the same speed. Our clocks and the decay of helium isotopes are still going to appear to be at the same rate. Net affect on us will be zero, unless we live long enough to get to where there will be a Big Crunch. The only way I see time stopping, is if everything contracts back together into a singularity. Since the data that I've seen says that the universe is still expanding and most likely will keep on expanding. There is no threat of the End of Time. If there is real proof of the contraction of space and time, then time could eventually stop. "Center of the Universe"???? WTF??? Last I heard, the universe appears to be moving away from us on all sides at the same speed. And that no Center has ever even been suggested to exist. I guess I will go on a Google hunt. WIth language like that, I usually just dismiss such an article. If the most basic concepts are ignored, then the fine details are probably a lot worse. http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Universe Edited June 19, 2012 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted June 19, 2012 #34 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I would like to weigh in with a couple of (factual and/or scientific) points: This is not news. The paper was published in 2008 (here, or there is an arXiv version here). The paper does not suggest time will stop. There is a difference between time-as-a-geometry and time-as-a-consequence-of-entropy. Resolving these two distinct measures of time is a big problem in physics. This paper deals with the former concept. The paper talks about the possibility of changing the signature of the space-time metric (and, importantly, only for a space-time that exists in anti-de Sitter space). It does not postulate any kind of particle or field dynamics, or the consequences of changing the signature of the metric with respect to those physical objects. Also: They say that light moves slower near the center of the universe (hence, time moves faster there). Perhaps they could extrapolate these observations and tell us where this center is located? There is no centre of the Universe, and Senovilla et al. certainly don't claim there is one. That part is entirely shoddy journalism. Also, since according to their theory time decelerates towards the outskirts of the universe, wouldn't this indicate that time is not constant throughout it, and that time would only stop at the edge instead of the entire universe ending in a snapshot? Time, in the context of this research anyway, is part of the geometry of the Universe. The perception of the flow of time depends entirely on one's reference frame. If time is a spatial dimension and if it were to stop then would we cease to exist? Is time dimensional or perceptional or both? Time would not stop. In this paper, they suggest that the particular aspect of space-time geometry that makes time special would change (this is called the ``signature of the metric''), and therefore time would no longer behave the way we - as denizens of a particular region of the Universe - are used to perceiving it. I would like a more detailed explanation myself. Perhaps by the "center of the universe" is meant the more distant from the Earth, although that could also me the "outskirts". While I have no idea what the terrible copy writer for the the OP meant, I am completely certain that Senoville et al. do not mean that there is a ``centre of the Universe''. I suspect they are addressing how the Hubble flow seems to increase the further into space we look. I find it hard to understand the idea that time does not exist, or is only a product of the mind. On the quantum scale, there is no special direction of time, yet on this scale events seem to move forward in time. Perhaps that is because on the macro scale, entropy is a determining factor for the arrow of time moving into the future, and we only directly experience events on this scale. I agree, anyone who says time is a ``product of the mind'' is trying to sell you some New Age hokum, or has no understanding of physics, or both. There is, however, an issue with relating the Quantum concept of time as providing the direction of entropy gain with relating the General Relativity concept of time as a dimension of space. If this is found to be true maybe the phenomenon of "missing time" described by people who claim alien abduction are correct. Perhaps a higher intelligence has indeed the power to manipulate time as we understand it. Nope. I'm a bit skeptical of this theory. There really isnt a lot of information they give here. Yeah, and most of the information has nothing to do with the actual science in Senoville et al.'s paper. Even in a setting of absolute zero where molecules are frozen still, time is still passing, isnt it? Thats an interesting thought-experiement. Good question. From the perspective of this paper the answer is ``yes'', because this paper only deals with time as a part of the space-time continuum. From the other perspective, I would guess that the irreversibility of time (and entropy) are the reasons why absolute zero is not possible to achieve. Edited June 19, 2012 by sepulchrave 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varelse Posted June 19, 2012 #35 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I hope these yahoos aren't being taken seriously. EVERYTHING comes to an end EXCEPT time and space. They are the biggest constants in the universe. What's so hard to understand about infinity? Just because there's no one to track time doesn't mean it isn't always passing. Imagine billions and billions of big bangs "going on" across the vast infinity of space. Then we'll talk about time ending. Edited June 19, 2012 by Framling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted June 19, 2012 #36 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If time does stop, I hope it's before I have to go to work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted June 19, 2012 #37 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Frankly, this theory makes a little sense as the Big Bang theory. As for that...what was there to explode? Nothing comes from nothing. There had to be something there to create a Big Bang. What? As for this time..'time emerged with the Big Bang'? Well, duh...no universe, no time. However buying the idea that the universe is not expanding but time slowing down is a tad thin. They need to go back to the drawing board and think up some different nonsense theory that nobody can prove. The Big Bang Theory actual makes a ton of sense. Not to mention ALL of our celestial observations support it. As for 'nothing comes from nothing', I am assuming that you are not a particle or theoretical physicist and do not know about virtual particles or quantum vacuum fluctuations. Perhaps you should further study the theory and familiarize yourself with the science behind it before saying it "makes little sense." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varelse Posted June 19, 2012 #38 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Frankly, this theory makes a little sense as the Big Bang theory. As for that...what was there to explode? Nothing comes from nothing. There had to be something there to create a Big Bang. What? As for this time..'time emerged with the Big Bang'? Well, duh...no universe, no time. However buying the idea that the universe is not expanding but time slowing down is a tad thin. They need to go back to the drawing board and think up some different nonsense theory that nobody can prove. When the universe begins to pop stars off left and right in another 10-20 billion years the only thing left will be black holes and space debris( random rocks, planet fragments, ect) that will also fall into black holes. Soon enough the larger black holes begin drawing in the smaller ones. Eventually entire galaxies become "black holes" which is a misnomer in itself. Those masses then eventually collide with other black hole galaxies and soon enough you have a black hole crammed so tight it cannot contain itself and reaches a critical mass. Maybe it's the force of the billionth galactic black hole crashing in that lights the fuse. Then expansion of matter and gas begins all over again. Life follows where it can. eta: this is just my best guess. Who knows when it will happen or if it will take a trillion years but i believe this is the basic cycle Edited June 19, 2012 by Framling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted June 19, 2012 #39 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If time is a spatial dimension and if it were to stop then would we cease to exist? Is time dimensional or perceptional or both? both.. because it's consequential? That's my guess. Time is a consequence of matter. Whatever that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artaxerxes Posted June 20, 2012 #40 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I can hardly wait! I'm ready for it to stop right now. How long do I have to wait till it's all finally over? Geez, this is sort of like waiting for the 3:00 bell when you're in grammar school! I want it to happen now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted June 20, 2012 #41 Share Posted June 20, 2012 There is, however, an issue with relating the Quantum concept of time as providing the direction of entropy gain with relating the General Relativity concept of time as a dimension of space. I'm supposing that in unifying quantum mechanics and General Relativity, time would have a new definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alienated Being Posted June 20, 2012 #42 Share Posted June 20, 2012 If time stops, I hope it does not stop while I am on the crapper. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 20, 2012 #43 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) After reading this article, I remain with a couple of questions... They say that light moves slower near the center of the universe (hence, time moves faster there). Perhaps they could extrapolate these observations and tell us where this center is located? Very observant. Here's the statement in the article: Observations of supernovae, or exploding stars, found the movement of light indicated they were moving faster than those nearer to the centre of the universe. Now, we're gonna have to assume that this gaffe was the reporters doing. I say that because, as reality is currently understood, not only does the universe have no "center," it cannot possibly have a center. Or, rather, the entire universe is it's own center (if you prefer.) Since I think that it was the reporter that doesn't understand this, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the scientists and assume the thing is not just some stupid internet crapola. Harte Edited June 20, 2012 by Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 20, 2012 #44 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Interesting theory. Expanding and then collapsing of the universe makes a lil sense, but the article is very very short. Maybe because the journalist didn't get the theory enough to write more about it. I guess they're not saying actual time will speed up...but the illusion of time will become more rapid to us. (In a million years or so im guessing) They mention that the growth of the universe is slowing....do they imply that the universe will start to shrink to the eventual "snapshot" then? I assume they do since "time" will cease to exist, and for time you need distance. Because this completely opposes redshift...which would make no sense at all. I dno....very confusing theory, would like to see a more in depth-article. Now it just seems like two scientists who want to rebel. Prof. dr. Wubbo J. Ockels is a Dutch physicist, and also the Netherlands original astronaut. He is a Professor of Aerospace Sustainable Engineering and Technology at the University of Delft, and tries to stimulate a mentality change among Dutch citizens. In his mind-bending TEDxAmsterdam talk, Ockels explains how ‘time’ is created by human beings, as a way our brains can make sense of gravity. The speed of light is constant, because it is made by us: it’s the clock by which we have calibrated our existence. Based on this premise, Ockels proposes a new way to explore life in our galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted June 20, 2012 #45 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Word play. Another example of circular reasoning which once again proves that there is a flaw at the heart of our current physics. ie Newtonian physics. If you need to make something up to fill a void in the theory, ie dark energy, that's perfectly fine. It's going to take a long time to correct our skewered physics. That doesn't make sense, how is an observed phenomena circular reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatsinausername Posted June 20, 2012 #46 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Good old scientists, making stuff up again trying to validate their "jobs" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Chubb Posted June 20, 2012 #47 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Don't worry, if time stops we have got Uri Geller to get it going again... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezarelli Posted June 20, 2012 #48 Share Posted June 20, 2012 A phenomena is a fact that is observed to exist or happen no one observing no phenomena only the living experience time it a matter of every living things perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Right Wing Posted June 20, 2012 #49 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Interesting theory. Expanding and then collapsing of the universe makes a lil sense, but the article is very very short. Maybe because the journalist didn't get the theory enough to write more about it. I guess they're not saying actual time will speed up...but the illusion of time will become more rapid to us. (In a million years or so im guessing) They mention that the growth of the universe is slowing....do they imply that the universe will start to shrink to the eventual "snapshot" then? I assume they do since "time" will cease to exist, and for time you need distance. Because this completely opposes redshift...which would make no sense at all. I dno....very confusing theory, would like to see a more in depth-article. Now it just seems like two scientists who want to rebel. [media=] [/media]Prof. dr. Wubbo J. Ockels is a Dutch physicist, and also the Netherlands original astronaut. He is a Professor of Aerospace Sustainable Engineering and Technology at the University of Delft, and tries to stimulate a mentality change among Dutch citizens. In his mind-bending TEDxAmsterdam talk, Ockels explains how ‘time’ is created by human beings, as a way our brains can make sense of gravity. The speed of light is constant, because it is made by us: it’s the clock by which we have calibrated our existence. Based on this premise, Ockels proposes a new way to explore life in our galaxy. That connects the mind to fabric of reality. Next time I'm in a car crash and things are running in slow motion I will know the effect is real. If time flow can manipulated by the mind then the force of gravity can be too as they're connected. That means telekinesis is about manipulating the curvature of space-time by altering how time flows for a location. Edited June 20, 2012 by Mr Right Wing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfknight Posted June 20, 2012 #50 Share Posted June 20, 2012 In Theory.No Dark Matter. I want the drugs these guys are taking. What a total waste of Time 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now