TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- debating time itself
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Harley, do us all a favor and delete this thread.. people are ruining this for the rest whoi actually want to have an opinion withough getting criticized by the high and mighty. Fucken A you people, whats so bad about having a fun talk about a "mind boggling" topic. And Vivid Boy, everyone is ignorant about time and space and shit like that, everyone except for stephen hawking... lay off, man.

-M

and why is it al minnesotans who have to defend people's rights to speak their mind or speak period. if it werent for assholes that go around accusing people of being stupid and shit like that this place would be waaaaaaay better.

you know what smellsexcellent not once did i call anyone stupid and not once did i ruin this thread...i had already said this thread has some nice ideas on it....all i was saying was read up on it...if u guys have a fuckin problem with reading up on a topic then maybe not only are u ignorant but also thick headed as well...jesus ppl like read what is said not what u think ppl said...and tta apologized for his flaming...i never flamed one person so im not going to apologize... and not everyone is ignorant in the ways of time read up on it and u will find there are laws on it as well...proven facts abt it...

TIMEnly a concept
dont know how else i could explain this. its ONLY a concept that describes the rate of change or change itself. the past present n future only exist because me made up the concept of time. centuries decades hours minutes seconds its all a concept just a label for that general naturally ocurring thing called progression and passing of days and months, which also happen to be man made terms, concepts once again

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy you know what smellsexcellent not once did i call anyone stupid and not once did i ruin this thread...i had already said this thread has some nice ideas on it....all i was saying was read up on it...if u guys have a fuckin problem with reading up on a topic then maybe not only are u ignorant but also thick headed as well...jesus ppl like read what is said not what u think ppl said...and tta apologized for his flaming...i never flamed one person so im not going to apologize... and not everyone is ignorant in the ways of time read up on it and u will find there are laws on it as well...proven facts abt it...

"maybe not only are u ignorant but also thick headed as well"
thats a flame.. even though its out of context its what youre sayin about us... and anyways, im not just talking about you. More than one person, now including me, is perpetuating this argument and it sucks to argue over such a trivial commment in the first place. I was just noting my observation that ive been seeing a lot of "flamers" in here that flame people for stupid reasons. seriously im not talking about you only.

Another good discussion topic: if we all "just got along," would life be interesting?

So everyone can we just stop bitching and keep talking about time?

So no worries ok,
Marc

random info on black holes

I'm not studying any science (unless you include economics), but I have always found black holes and other trippy modern-physics-related stuff interesting so I thought I would include some stuff about black holes as their seems to be some confusion.

A black hole is an extremely small region of space-time, with a gravitational field so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape. Black holes can be formed by the death, or gravitational collapse of a massive star. When such a star has exhausted its internal thermonuclear fuels at the end of its life, it no longer produces the expansive force (a result of normal gas pressure) that supports the star against the compressive force of its own gravitation. The core of the now �red supergiant� collapses causing a massive explosion called a supernova. If the core remaining after a supernova is more than three solar masses (three times the Sun) the star continues collapse without limit to an indefinitely small size.

Albert Einstein�s general theory of relativity explains gravity in terms of space-time being curved in the vicinity of matter, the greater the concentration of matter, the greater the curvature. Imagine space as a sheet of rubber, a massive object (eg Earth) when placed on this sheet of rubber will cause it to curve - hence objects placed in the vicinity of the object will gravitate towards it, following the trajectory of the curved rubber. Thus when the radius of a collapsing star decreases below the critical Schwarzschild radius (explained below), the extreme curvature of space seals off contact with the outside world. The crushing weight of constituent matter falling in from all sides has compressed the dying star to a theoretical point of zero volume and infinite density, pressure and temperature called the singularity (imagine something infinitely small and reaaally heavy being placed on the 'rubber sheet' - the "curvature" produced would be so extreme that it tears the sheet). The former star is now a black hole, a hole in the fabric of our universe.
Details of the structure of a black hole are calculated from general relativity. The singularity constitutes the centre of a black hole and is hidden by the object's "surface," - the event horizon. Inside the event horizon the escape velocity (i.e., the velocity required for matter to escape from the gravitational field of a cosmic object) exceeds the speed of light, so that not even rays of light can escape into space. Any object sucked into a black hole (say for example your favourite forum troll) would be stretched to infinite length and become infinitely thin, an effect some geek decided to aptly call �spaghettification�. The critical radius of the event horizon is called the Schwarzschild radius, after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, who in 1916 predicted the existence of collapsed stellar bodies that emit no radiation. The size of the Schwarzschild radius is thought to be proportional to the mass of the collapsing star (the star�s mass multiplied by twice the constant of gravity and divided by the speed of light squared: 2GM/c2). For a black hole with a mass 10 times as great as that of the Sun, the radius would be 30 km. Only the most massive stars (those of more than three solar masses) become black holes at the end of their lives. Stars with a smaller amount of mass evolve into less compressed bodies, usually either white dwarfs or neutron stars.
The most likely place to find a black hole seems to be in the vicinity of an ordinary star (since a black hole can be detected only by its gravitational effects on nearby matter). If a black hole is a member of a binary star system, matter flowing into it from its companion becomes intensely heated and then radiates X rays copiously before entering the event horizon of the black hole and disappearing forever. The disc of matter spiraling into the black hole is known as an accretion disc. Most physicists now believe that one of the component stars of the binary X-ray system Cygnus X-1 is a black hole. Discovered in 1971 in the constellation Cygnus, this binary consists of a blue supergiant and an invisible companion star that revolve about one another in a period of 5.6 days. When it was discovered, Stephen Hawking (the wheelchair-physicist-dude with the talking computer) won a bet and proudly presented a colleague with a yearly subscription to Penthouse magazine.
Some black holes are thought to have nonstellar origins. In theory, a black hole can form when a mass of any amount is compressed to a sufficient degree. Various astronomers have speculated that large volumes of interstellar gas collect and collapse into supermassive black holes at the centres of quasars and peculiar galaxies (e.g., galactic systems that appear to be exploding). A mass of gas falling rapidly into a black hole is estimated to give off more than 100 times as much energy as is released by the identical amount of mass through nuclear fusion. Accordingly, the collapse of millions or billions of solar masses of interstellar gas under gravitational force into a large black hole would account for the enormous energy output of quasars and certain galactic systems. By the mid-1980s there was mounting observational evidence that a supermassive black hole with a mass four million times that of the Sun exists at the centre of our own Milky Way Galaxy.
The existence of another kind of nonstellar black hole has been proposed by Stephen Hawking (wheelchair dude again, incase you�ve forgotten). According to Hawking's theory, numerous tiny primordial black holes, possibly with a mass equal to that of an asteroid or less, might have been created during the big bang, (for those who dont know- a state of extremely high temperatures and density in which the universe is thought to have originated some 20 billion years ago). These so-called mini black holes, unlike the more massive variety, lose mass over time and disappear. If this were so, many of these black holes could be too far from other matter to form detectable accretion disks, and they could even compose a significant fraction of the total mass of the universe. If you have ever thought black holes are �like gateways into another dimension or sumthin� do not be embarrassed: In reaction to the concept of singularities, Hawking has also proposed that black holes may, rather than collapsing in such manner, instead form �worm holes� to other universes besides our own [insert appropriate spooky soundtrack].

awww...
I was actually discussing with my dad this theory the other day...
like seriously.. i always wonder who really know if there are really 12 months in a year.. 60 minutes in one hour...if birthdays only happen every 12 months... i mean if u really think about it... we are not reallly the age we are supposed to be...and the owrld is not really as old as everyone thinks .. because no one really knows if the the time is accurate...
it is really frustating.. i just blame it on that asshole.. "Edmund hailey" hehehhe

xoxo Ur Dream Grl

During an english class i got told by a physics teacher that time is derived from the speed of light and u can do a simple test to prove it

it was 1 yr ago so i dont remember it that well especially cause i was nearly asleep

but he tried to prove it somehow with a 1 metre long piece of string, with a weight tied to the end of it

swing it like a pendulum (dunno how u spell it, u know this big long things on old clocks) and the time it takes to move from left to right (or vice versa whateva way u push it) it takes exactly 1 second, pending the string stays taught i think or sumthin like that make of it what you will

Ah, nice work Astroboy. Interesting stuff.

quote:

During an english class i got told by a physics teacher that time is derived from the speed of light and u can do a simple test to prove it it was 1 yr ago so i dont remember it that well especially cause i was nearly asleep

Yeah, one second is equal to the amount of time it takes a wave of light (or some other wave, can't remember which one exactly) to pass through either 9 million or 9 billion and something wave cycles (don't quote me on that figure, and no, I can't be arsed to look it up). So in the amount of time it takes this wave (again, I can't remember if it was visible light, or X-Rays or Gamma rays or what) to perform a certain, set number of cycles is officially how long a second is. Thus a second can be measured with almost 100% precision (assuming you have the right tools) though I'm not quite sure how they used to measure seconds before the days of proton accelerators. :-/

And also, don't forget that time in the astrophysical sense is quite different to what it is in the every day sense. It's not just a linear thing (1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds etc.) it's directly linked with the fabric of space and thus, much rather than being considered a seperate intangible element from everything else, it is actually considered the fourth dimension. And don't bother to picture that btw, are brains are incapable of imagining anything beyond 3D, but a good place to start - like Astroboy said - is to remember that the curvature in 3D space is caused by time (the 4th dimension) and picturing a 3D space curved into 4D is the equivalent of seeing a 2D space (a piece of paper, say) curved into 3 (by folding or bending or scrunching etc.).

It is also important to remember, that as time is directly related to space, it too can be contorted (into the fifth dimension perhaps?) in the same way that 1D, 2D and 3D space can be. Travelling at high speeds confirm this phenomenon: tests done using carefully calibrated atomic clocks (one stationed in a jet fighter, the other on the ground) showed that even travelling at the relatively slow speed of Mach II (or whatever speed those planes travel at) time goes slower at those speeds than it does for one in a stationary position. The pilot, when he emerged from the plane after a few hours flight, was about 0.0000003 seconds younger relative to everyone else when he returned. So, theoretically, if you spent your entire life walking at 5mph you would live for a few micro-seconds longer than you normally would (though it doesn't really mean much seeing as the Earth is travelling at x thousands mph in the first place). But still.....

Mind-boggling shite.

Hmmmm.... I must be feeling messier than I thought. :-/

Well I hope the rest of you can understand that, cos I sure as hell can't.

Yeah cool topic, heheh, one of those thoughts that are a complete mind-fuck, like what happens after you die. But i was thinking about this, and you find most people relate time to the speed of light then i thought that the speed of light will never be broken. The way i see it, is that if you break the light barrier, you're breaking the time barrier which is what all physics comes down to in the end. So if you managed to do this, you'd probably create something like the original big bang.

But i reckon we'll all find out about the ways of the world when we die. Not from god or any religious stuff, i just reckon we will. Heheheh, that brings on another subject, what happens when you die?


Pointy

hmm.. i dont see why traveling faster than the speed of light is such a big deal.. your not going to dissappeear into thin air or anthing.. because just casue you cant see something, it doenst mean its not there. so lets say you are travelling faster than the speed of light.
you will not beable to see anything, but its still going to be there.. does anyone understand what i'm saying?

the only theory i've ever "made up" is that if we went back in time, that there would be no paradox theory.

Paradox theory is DUMB!!!!

Paradox theory is like you couldn't kill your grandpa, because that would mean you wouldn't be born. that is a very humanized scientific approach, and is totally rediculous. Same thing with meeting yourself. You would meet yourself in the past, of course! it's just identical atoms. Remember, time is a different dimension, so things work differently.

We CAN go back and forth through time, imo. We just need an INSANE ammount of energy. And I mean insane.

quote:

Originally posted by randummboy ... so lets say you are travelling faster than the speed of light. you will not beable to see anything, but its still going to be there.. does anyone understand what i'm saying?

well in what direction are you traveling? cause if there is light coming towards you, youll be able to see it. its the shit behind you that you wont see(cause it cant catch you)...i think/

quote:

Originally posted by randummboy hmm.. i dont see why traveling faster than the speed of light is such a big deal.. your not going to dissappeear into thin air or anthing.. because just casue you cant see something, it doenst mean its not there. so lets say you are travelling faster than the speed of light. you will not beable to see anything, but its still going to be there.. does anyone understand what i'm saying?

Its not about travelling "faster than light". It's that most modern Physics ceases to make sense at speeds faster than the speed of light. Many formulae produce non-sensical results. For all intents and purposes the state of Physics at the moment is such that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible in this universe.

quote:

Originally posted by davinox the only theory i've ever "made up" is that if we went back in time, that there would be no paradox theory. Paradox theory is DUMB!!!! Paradox theory is like you couldn't kill your grandpa, because that would mean you wouldn't be born. that is a very humanized scientific approach, and is totally rediculous. Same thing with meeting yourself. You would meet yourself in the past, of course! it's just identical atoms. Remember, time is a different dimension, so things work differently. We CAN go back and forth through time, imo. We just need an INSANE ammount of energy. And I mean insane.

Alright explain this to me:

I invent a time machine and decide to go back in time and kill Hitler before he gains power in Germany. If I do go back and succeed then he would never have been in power, the holocaust and WWII will (most probably) never have occured and the period would have not been a particularly interesting one in history. Now fast forward to my birth. I grow up never having known about WWII or the holocaust. I will probably never have heard of Hitler, so when I finally invent my time machine I do not go back to kill Hitler because I don;t even know that he ever existed. But if I do not kill Hitler then he is still alive (in 193x) and does gain power etc... But if he's alive then I do know about him and do go back to kill him... but if I kill him then I don't know about him and.......oh dear I think I've gone cross-eyed again .

quote:

hmm.. i dont see why traveling faster than the speed of light is such a big deal.. your not going to dissappeear into thin air or anthing.. because just casue you cant see something, it doenst mean its not there. so lets say you are travelling faster than the speed of light. you will not beable to see anything, but its still going to be there.. does anyone understand what i'm saying?

Yeah but it's basic physics though dude.

The faster an object travels, the greater its mass becomes. If an object were to travel at the speed of light, the mathematics break down, and it has a theoretically infinite mass (I say theoretically firstly because it is impossible for an object to travel that fast, and secondly because no object can have an infinite mass anyway). With black holes they speak of an "infinity" - or a singularity - where the object becomes infinitely dense, but I don't think it's the same thing when it comes to travelling at the speed of light. You just can't do it unfortunately.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy Alright explain this to me: I invent a time machine and decide to go back in time and kill Hitler before he gains power in Germany. If I do go back and succeed then he would never have been in power, the holocaust and WWII will (most probably) never have occured and the period would have not been a particularly interesting one in history. Now fast forward to my birth. I grow up never having known about WWII or the holocaust. I will probably never have heard of Hitler, so when I finally invent my time machine I do not go back to kill Hitler because I don;t even know that he ever existed. But if I do not kill Hitler then he is still alive (in 193x) and does gain power etc... But if he's alive then I do know about him and do go back to kill him... but if I kill him then I don't know about him and.......oh dear I think I've gone cross-eyed again .

lmao i hear that. i was going to post something to this effect laaaate last night but i took a 'mental breather' and passed out drunk on my couch. heck.

theoretically though, wouldn't you be able to travel forward in time to the exact time of your departure to the past, thereby arriving..wait..shit..once you've travelled in time, it's almost as if you are removed from your life. because no matter which point in time you return to, there will still be a 'you' in that epoch of time. correct? i don't know.

astroboy - great information on black holes and space...and trippy. i was so baked when i read that stuff; then i got all my friends to read it.

ok, but think. say you do go back and kill hitler, then return to the present.

a)there is now two of you?
b)hitler is dead in that reality?
c)possibly 6-8 million new people have been alive for 50 years.. what else could have happened?

but then, think, if you do go back and kill hitler, that means that the past still exists. is there still a past being lived somewhere in the universe? has the future already been realized? i think this is where we get into multi-universes and realities.. which goes far beyond my very basic knowledge of thermodynamics

if anyone cares, the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s (metres per second)

http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/space-time.html

a nice little link to explain the light barrier and such. lots and lots of jargon and math. but informative no less.

quote:

ok, but think. say you do go back and kill hitler, then return to the present. a)there is now two of you? b)hitler is dead in that reality? c)possibly 6-8 million new people have been alive for 50 years.. what else could have happened? but then, think, if you do go back and kill hitler, that means that the past still exists. is there still a past being lived somewhere in the universe? has the future already been realized? i think this is where we get into multi-universes and realities.. which goes far beyond my very basic knowledge of thermodynamics

God, now we're getting into it.

You have to be careful when talking about time, because like I said before, it's not like it's just a straight line that can be moved up and down, it is a conecpt that's as bound to the laws of physics just like everything else. Firstly, it can be proven that time can be played around with: travelling in space for ten years at close to the speed of light and then returning to Earth will see you come back at the year 3000, even though you've only aged by ten years. So it's possible to slow time down, but only relatively remember: it may have only been 10 years to the people in the space ship, but to everyone on Earth 1000 had passed. There is no absolute time either: every single entity is bound to its own single clock. There is no giant clock in the universe that everything runs by. So to say that you can go "back in time" is a relative thing. Perhaps it is possible to go away for 5 years and come back before you came, but wherever you left from technically wouldn't have come into existence just yet: each event has it's own time-space position, and, depending on how you want to measure it, each object is technically being reborn every second. Nothing is static, and each 0.000000001 seconds that goes by the universe becomes an essentially different universe. You may be able to go back in time, but it's not like you'd just be able to land on Earth circa 1997 - because, of course, you'd be turning up in a universe completely different from the one you left originally (which bring us to the concept of parellel universes, and I'm not going there).

Then of course there's the theory that time, like matter, is prone to decay, and that the process can only be slowed down, not reversed. So, for instance, you can burn a piece of wood (increase entropy) but once you've burnt it, you can't put all the smoke and charcoal back together to form a piece of wood (which would decrease entropy). And perhaps it's the same thing with time: once time has elapsed it cannot be regained. Time may, perhaps, decay irreperably, in which case the year 1997 is lost forever and can never be regained by space travel. That piece of time has been destroyed, as have the entire 3 minutes it's taken you to read this post. In fact, for every word you read in this sentence, a few microseconds are destroyed and consigned to the unreachable annuls of history. Bet you wish you'd done something more useful with your Thursday evening now eh?

But of course, the most damning criticism against time-travel is that we've never had anyone from the future visit us yet. Then again, perhaps the future generations have discovered time-travel yet don't want to use it for fear of irreperably detroying the past and thus their present....

Sod it, I need a bed.

lmao this topic requires too much brain power. i'm going to reread that post of yours renegade and get a reply back.. i just don't have the patience to do it right now. you understand, i'm sure.

a bit on wormholes

theoretically, a beam of light traversing a path between two points in space-time curve can take longer to complete the journey than a (hypothetical, of course) spaceship taking advantage of a wormhole�s shortcut connection between the two distinct regions of space-time. now..that's about all i can relate to you guys.
i feel really sorry for phsyisists.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yeah but it's basic physics though dude. The faster an object travels, the greater its mass becomes. If an object were to travel at the speed of light, the mathematics break down, and it has a theoretically infinite mass (I say theoretically firstly because it is impossible for an object to travel that fast, and secondly because no object can have an infinite mass anyway). With black holes they speak of an "infinity" - or a singularity - where the object becomes infinitely dense, but I don't think it's the same thing when it comes to travelling at the speed of light. You just can't do it unfortunately.

mass is a constant, isnt it? I just took physics and im almost positive that mass does not change, weight can, but mass does not. no matter how fast an object goes, its mass is always the same. consider a car traveling at 1 km/h... its the same mass as if the car were traveling at 100 km/h and the same and light speed one would think,, now energy and such, that would all change.. kinetic energy would skyrocket, PE would remain costand unless it (the car) were moving up or down. Hmm....

And Harley, the wormhole pic, good one!

-Marc

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} ok, but think. say you do go back and kill hitler, then return to the present. a)there is now two of you? b)hitler is dead in that reality? c)possibly 6-8 million new people have been alive for 50 years.. what else could have happened? but then, think, if you do go back and kill hitler, that means that the past still exists. is there still a past being lived somewhere in the universe? has the future already been realized? i think this is where we get into multi-universes and realities.. which goes far beyond my very basic knowledge of thermodynamics

I've found B the easiest to believe for some strange reason.

I find the idea of multiple universes an interesting proposition.

The idea of multiple universes - particularly as proposed in 1957 by Hugh Everett has always appealed to me. It provides an explanation to both the uncertainty principle and the "anthropic principle" (not to mention helping out Schrodinger's poor cat). Everett proposed that the universe actually did behave in the deterministic way that 19th century physicists thought it did; it just looks uncertainly probabilistic. This works because each event that happens spawns an infinite number of parallel universes, and, taken together, the various versions of the event in question happen with the probability dictated by the uncertainty principle.
*NOTE:the following is slightly OT*
And I'm not alone: Although previously people found Everett's explanation as being far harder to swallow than the Cpenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, it is now being taken up by one David Deutsch, a researcher at Oxford. Not only does Dr Deutsch believe in Everett's parallel universes but he thinks it may be possible (in a manner of speaking) to collaborate with them.
The Universe-straddling machines he has in mind are quantum computers. Primitive versions have been built and enthusiasts (Deutsch included) believe that in decades to come this will become mainstream technology.
Normal computers work by manipulating data in the form of binary digits (bits). A quantum computer manipulates "qubits". In the Copenhagen interpretation, their values are indeterminate until an observer attempts to examine them (if he does the 'uncertainty' collapses and he is left with an ordinary, non-quantum 'bit').
The result is that many calculations can be performed in parallel so long as their intermediate steps remain unexamined - ie a quantum computer with a certain number of qubits can perform more calculations than a normal computer with the same number of bits. The number of possible calculations actually goes up exponentially with the number of qubits. In fact it would not take a particularly large quantum computer to perform more calculations than there are particles in the known universe, let alone the computer itself. Hence Dr Deutsch argues that the computation can not be occurring in a single universe.Computing is not an abstract process and the information being manipulated must be associated with something physical. The explanation Deutsch provides is that the calculations are being performed in parallel universes. In other words the different parallel machines in the different parallel universes are collaborating !! - how's that for trippy?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} ok, but think. say you do go back and kill hitler, then return to the present. a)there is now two of you? b)hitler is dead in that reality? c)possibly 6-8 million new people have been alive for 50 years.. what else could have happened? but then, think, if you do go back and kill hitler, that means that the past still exists. is there still a past being lived somewhere in the universe? has the future already been realized? i think this is where we get into multi-universes and realities.. which goes far beyond my very basic knowledge of thermodynamics

Ok, I think that if you can travel back in time, then there are actually infinite instances of "reality." You can go back to any time period and it can change from what really happened or what will happen. So if you go back and kill Hitler, it will only change the future for that instance of reality. When you go back in time, nothing will change. Because HOW can instantly 6million plus offspring ans such and all the details of a life just materialize, and how could 6 billionn people forget a huge part of world history just like that???

-Marc

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.