MechaBlade
irrumatio king
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Posts
- 43,346
Well, goodnight. I have fucked over my tomorrow enough.
Does Time Exist???
- Thread starter Irishdragon
- Start date
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
Yes time is an ordering imposed by biological beings. The enlightened person is in all times at once.
However, there is timing in the void (Musashi).
However, there is timing in the void (Musashi).
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
When did time begin?
Well that might get a little weird..
If the universe is infinate we can say with some accuracy that time began about 15 billion years ago with the big bang....If it is not thenwe may not know because of universal contraction. Early universal conditions infinate pressure and density...flash of light~10^40 kelvin we have the big bang. The universe expands until it hits the end point (dead wall) the universe beginst to contract until it goes back to early universal conditions...infinate pressure and density. Now what becomes interesting here is that if there is a dead wall in the universe the universe will contract until it will eventually reach the starting point again. Then there could be another big bang and the whole thing could happen again....kind of like a cosmic yoyo...We may be alive in one of a series of big bangs and maybe 30 or so odd billion years from now somebody will be going through the exact same thing we are today...So if the universe is infinate then so called "time" beagn about 15billion years ago, if the universe is finite...who knows!!!
Well that might get a little weird..
If the universe is infinate we can say with some accuracy that time began about 15 billion years ago with the big bang....If it is not thenwe may not know because of universal contraction. Early universal conditions infinate pressure and density...flash of light~10^40 kelvin we have the big bang. The universe expands until it hits the end point (dead wall) the universe beginst to contract until it goes back to early universal conditions...infinate pressure and density. Now what becomes interesting here is that if there is a dead wall in the universe the universe will contract until it will eventually reach the starting point again. Then there could be another big bang and the whole thing could happen again....kind of like a cosmic yoyo...We may be alive in one of a series of big bangs and maybe 30 or so odd billion years from now somebody will be going through the exact same thing we are today...So if the universe is infinate then so called "time" beagn about 15billion years ago, if the universe is finite...who knows!!!
Mellon Collie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,229
This whole ritualistic you sending me a PM and me yelling at you to empty your damn PM box is starting to get old.
GreenEyedGirl
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 991
What a great question! But to answer it, a definition of "time" needs to be nailed down. (Me and my definitions. Love 'em! Can you tell I am a non-linear thinker? 
)
Time is a theory, a concept, an abstract, a measurement, a distance, and an absolute (amongst other things, which my poor brain will not bring forth).
Yet all of these definitions are man made. Time is not physical like rain, which we know exists because what we difine as rain can be utilized and proved by all of our senses. It can be measured and analyzed scientifically in a beaker.
Time, we have no container for. No proof. It is the last of the great Titans left over from the ancients to explain the cycles of the moon and sun, the subtle pull of gravity on our bodies which renders them unusable after enough strain is placed on them. It gives us structure with which to control our lives. Time is a box which we have a finite space to fill.
So does Time exist?
To the human psyche, absolutely. We would be lost without the structure time affords our existance.
To the cosmos? I greatly doubt that Time is something that exists as we know it. It maybe a truth, but it's definition is most likely something very different from ours.
)Time is a theory, a concept, an abstract, a measurement, a distance, and an absolute (amongst other things, which my poor brain will not bring forth).
Yet all of these definitions are man made. Time is not physical like rain, which we know exists because what we difine as rain can be utilized and proved by all of our senses. It can be measured and analyzed scientifically in a beaker.
Time, we have no container for. No proof. It is the last of the great Titans left over from the ancients to explain the cycles of the moon and sun, the subtle pull of gravity on our bodies which renders them unusable after enough strain is placed on them. It gives us structure with which to control our lives. Time is a box which we have a finite space to fill.
So does Time exist?
To the human psyche, absolutely. We would be lost without the structure time affords our existance.
To the cosmos? I greatly doubt that Time is something that exists as we know it. It maybe a truth, but it's definition is most likely something very different from ours.
RhumbRunner13
No alts, no "Iggy"
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 3,463
Re: When did time begin?
Interesting concept Irish, and I pretty much agree, but your saying it posed a question for me. If the universe is as you contemplate at the end, open and will always expand or become statically balanced making the "beggining of time" the bang, then what was it one second before?
RhumbRunner
Irishdragon said:
Interesting concept Irish, and I pretty much agree, but your saying it posed a question for me. If the universe is as you contemplate at the end, open and will always expand or become statically balanced making the "beggining of time" the bang, then what was it one second before?
RhumbRunner
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
The conditions at one second before the big bang would be a state on infinate pressure and temperature and density. All the matter that composes the universe, all the atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, antineutrinos, positrons...everything would be condensed in on itself....like a gigantic black hole of sorts.
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
Therfore we could set time equal to 0, or even -1 because it really would not matter because it would not exist.
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
The ultimate fate of the universe, of all time, is still, of course, very much the province of conjecture among cosmologists. We'll probably never know the definitive answer to this line of query. Here's some recent thinking on it, though. (I taught astronomy to 8th graders for awhile. This info is taken from the notes i used to bore them into submission - i mean, taken from the lecture notes i used to introduce them to new ideas on What's Really Important Anyway).Irishdragon said:
THE FATE OF THE UNIVERSE
In addition to trying to find out how the universe originated and evolved, cosmologists are also interested in predicting the ultimate fate of the universe. What will happen to the universe? they ask. Will the universe keep on expanding forever? Is there something that can stop it?
According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which almost all scientists accept as being true, there are only two possible futures for the universe.
(Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: Very briefly: Einstein changed the model of the universe that was generally accepted by scientists until then. His ideas contradicted the then widely-believed concept that space and time are seperate things.
Instead of a three dimensional universe - height, width, depth [that which we can see and touch] - his theory proposed a four-dimensional universe, adding time to the mix.
Time, therefore, was no longer something apart but became something that can be affected by motion of things. In other words, the curvature of space is the same as the curvature of the space-time continuum.)
Anyway, on to the two possible scientific futures for the universe:
(1) It will continue to expand indefinitely, at an ever-decreasing rate; just sort of drift bigger forever and forever.
(2) It will eventually stop expanding and collapse back on itself, maybe forming another primeval atom and another Big Bang. This is known as the Pulsating Universe Theory.
THE PULSATING UNIVERSE THEORY
If the universe is dense enough, the gravitational attraction between all its billions of parts will eventually slow down the expansion and reverse it.
Like this: Earth's gravity slows and reverses a handful of marbles tossed into the air.
Like the marbles, if this theory is true, eventually all the galaxies in the universe would slow down, stop, and hang motionless for an instant, then begin falling inward again.
If this happens, all matter would tumble together again in the Big Squeeze billions of years from now.
That Big Squeeze might form another primeval atom that might explode in another Big Bang and start the process all over again.
One trouble with the idea of a universe that forms and destroys itself in cycles is that our present universe might not be dense enough to stop the present expansion.
Perhaps it's true that we live in a universe that will expand away forever and simply run down, never to be reborn.
THE STEADY STATE THEORY
The universe will continue to expand indefinitely because new matter is constantly being made. New galaxies form from this new matter, replacing old galaxies which just sort of fade away.
There are no giant spaces that contain no galaxies because new galaxies are being formed to take the place of the old ones. There is and always will be a constant number of galaxies per unit of space.
The universe had no beginning and will have no end. It has always been the way it is today and will always be like this.
~~~~~
Time, as an artificial human construct, may or may not exist at all out there in the rest of the universe. Maybe it's important only to us, here on our small world revolving around our odd sun (the majority of suns we've found out there are part of a duo: two suns revolving around each other. Our singkular sun is, so far, unusual.)
Take an astronomy class.
There's almost nothing more interesting.
Last edited:
RhumbRunner13
No alts, no "Iggy"
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 3,463
Steady State Theory.
Cym,
Let's presume that the universe is "open" and ever expanding, but slower and slower because the central mass always somewhat drags down the farthest particles to less and less velocity. Theoretically must we not reach a point of stasis. Isn't stasis the natural point of all of nature and the universe? Won't the stars eventually all burn themselves out and the universe cool to the point that any definable location is exactly the same "energy level" as any and every other definable location?
Rhumb
Cym,
Let's presume that the universe is "open" and ever expanding, but slower and slower because the central mass always somewhat drags down the farthest particles to less and less velocity. Theoretically must we not reach a point of stasis. Isn't stasis the natural point of all of nature and the universe? Won't the stars eventually all burn themselves out and the universe cool to the point that any definable location is exactly the same "energy level" as any and every other definable location?
Rhumb
G
Guest
Guest
The universe will continue to expand indefinitely because new matter is constantly be
What about the law of conservation of matter? Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Will the universe eventually run dry and reach a point of static. Well in a way it already has...Energy and Matter are all conserved in the expansion of the universe, but will the expansion just eventually stop? Well maybe. True the gravitational effects have slowed down the expansion of the universe...the condensation of galactic systems has generated a gravitational pull that has slowed the universe. But here comes another little suprise...there is a temperature in space. We would assume that due to the vaccume of space the temperature would be absolute zero, but there is actually cosmic background radiation of about 3K in space. How did it get there...it was left over from the big bang. Now will the universe just eventually stop....following Newton's postuale of an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or opposite force...it would take a hell of a force to stop it.
Maybe it helps to think of this as a nuclear explosion...when one atom splits the energy released will cause an acceleration of nuclear particles, which then would collide and split another atom...and so forth and so on. So maybe the only way to stop it would be the trigger of another large explosion that would have a greater opposite force and cause the universe to contract.
What about the law of conservation of matter? Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Will the universe eventually run dry and reach a point of static. Well in a way it already has...Energy and Matter are all conserved in the expansion of the universe, but will the expansion just eventually stop? Well maybe. True the gravitational effects have slowed down the expansion of the universe...the condensation of galactic systems has generated a gravitational pull that has slowed the universe. But here comes another little suprise...there is a temperature in space. We would assume that due to the vaccume of space the temperature would be absolute zero, but there is actually cosmic background radiation of about 3K in space. How did it get there...it was left over from the big bang. Now will the universe just eventually stop....following Newton's postuale of an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or opposite force...it would take a hell of a force to stop it.
Maybe it helps to think of this as a nuclear explosion...when one atom splits the energy released will cause an acceleration of nuclear particles, which then would collide and split another atom...and so forth and so on. So maybe the only way to stop it would be the trigger of another large explosion that would have a greater opposite force and cause the universe to contract.
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
that was me
RhumbRunner13
No alts, no "Iggy"
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 3,463
Would it?
"....following Newton's postuale of an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or opposite force...it would take a hell of a force to stop it. "
If one butterfly lifts off a lotus blossom, it must effect the universe, for if it dosen't Newton was wrong, right?
Rhumb
"....following Newton's postuale of an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or opposite force...it would take a hell of a force to stop it. "
If one butterfly lifts off a lotus blossom, it must effect the universe, for if it dosen't Newton was wrong, right?
Rhumb
Texan
'nuf said
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
- Posts
- 2,146
Just a thought before I go... I have a flight to Brazil tomorrow, and won't be around to hear much of the follow up for a few weeks...
Time is a method of measurement. Years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds are “units” of measure; just as inches, millimeters, and microns are units of distance measurement. The question is not whether or not we can measure time, but rather, what are we measuring with the units we call time.
The answer is that we are measuring “existence”. Philosophers screw up the concept of time with esoteric ideas like: “I think therefore, I am”. Science must be pragmatic. There is no room for esotericism. The pragmatist says, “I am”. That statement acknowledges existence and therefore begs man to “measure” that existence. Thus, man has created time as his units for measuring existence.
Time follows all the properties of other energy. Time may be neither created or destroyed, only its “state” may be changed. The rate at which existence takes place (time) is relative to speed and size, just as matter takes on different properties at different speeds and volumes of mass and temperature.
There is one possible caveat to the “relativity” theories proposed by Einstein. There are math models that strongly suggest that “light speed” is a maximum speed for existence to continue. The forces that hold the universe together (magnetism, gravity and electricity) are likely to fall apart at speeds greater than light speed. Time travel is a “myth” suggested by the idea that existence could come apart at faster than light speeds, then somehow come back together when the speed was reduced. There is no math model that would allow time to maintain its “relativity” while all other forces fall apart. Universal Theory suggests that the speed of light is the “maximum” attainable speed of any matter or energy.
Many scientists (myself included) believe that the properties of energy point to a creator. While the properties do not define that creator, they do ask the ultimate question. “If everything that is, always was, how did it get here in the first place.”
Time is a method of measurement. Years, months, days, hours, minutes and seconds are “units” of measure; just as inches, millimeters, and microns are units of distance measurement. The question is not whether or not we can measure time, but rather, what are we measuring with the units we call time.
The answer is that we are measuring “existence”. Philosophers screw up the concept of time with esoteric ideas like: “I think therefore, I am”. Science must be pragmatic. There is no room for esotericism. The pragmatist says, “I am”. That statement acknowledges existence and therefore begs man to “measure” that existence. Thus, man has created time as his units for measuring existence.
Time follows all the properties of other energy. Time may be neither created or destroyed, only its “state” may be changed. The rate at which existence takes place (time) is relative to speed and size, just as matter takes on different properties at different speeds and volumes of mass and temperature.
There is one possible caveat to the “relativity” theories proposed by Einstein. There are math models that strongly suggest that “light speed” is a maximum speed for existence to continue. The forces that hold the universe together (magnetism, gravity and electricity) are likely to fall apart at speeds greater than light speed. Time travel is a “myth” suggested by the idea that existence could come apart at faster than light speeds, then somehow come back together when the speed was reduced. There is no math model that would allow time to maintain its “relativity” while all other forces fall apart. Universal Theory suggests that the speed of light is the “maximum” attainable speed of any matter or energy.
Many scientists (myself included) believe that the properties of energy point to a creator. While the properties do not define that creator, they do ask the ultimate question. “If everything that is, always was, how did it get here in the first place.”
clit_licker30
Nibblin' On Sponge Cake
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2002
- Posts
- 5,324
Irishdragon said:Hello All,
This is one I have been thinking about for years and I am of the opinion that it does not. Time is really just a concept invented by humans to give us a little perspective in our everyday lives. Time really does not age us, but rather the effect of gravity ages us, wears us down, makes us old. I'd like to get your thoughts on the subject, so please don't be shy
You think to much about silly shit. Timex wouldn't have been invented if time didn't exist!
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
Look Kilgore...
The smart biological speaks...
Hmmmm...
We must keep an eye on this one...
The smart biological speaks...
Hmmmm...
We must keep an eye on this one...
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
I love Texan. I follow him around with puppy-dog eyes every time he pops in, which is not often enough for my liking. He has a remarkable brain, the coin of the realm here in ThoughtsLand.
Y'all should have been around last summer. We had some really intense scientific discussions roaring along then. Maybe we will revisit such times again.
Y'all should have been around last summer. We had some really intense scientific discussions roaring along then. Maybe we will revisit such times again.
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
Universal Theory suggests that the speed of light is the “maximum” attainable speed o
I was always under the impression that matter could not attain the speed of light. In order to fit E=MC^2, would a particle that is approaching the speed of light...say within .000009 m/s of it...actually be able to gain that speed, or would the resulting energy be converted into mass of partice and thus never allow that partice to reach the speed of light.
I was always under the impression that matter could not attain the speed of light. In order to fit E=MC^2, would a particle that is approaching the speed of light...say within .000009 m/s of it...actually be able to gain that speed, or would the resulting energy be converted into mass of partice and thus never allow that partice to reach the speed of light.
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
Thats what I thought anyway
LukkyKnight
Equal Opportunity Enjoyer
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Posts
- 58,516
The secret to the speed of light is that it's not really about straight lines. Gravity warps the apparent path between objects, not just the bodies trying to cicumnavigate the universe. If you can find the path which doesn't follow the apparent one, and is in fact the true straight line between two points, you are moving in a way that may appear to defy the constants.
Irishdragon
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Posts
- 135
Interesting points
Similar threads
