flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > does time exists?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

Time Travel into the past

that is impossible.
my view is, you could probably view back the past. but you cannot interact with it. just like the camera rewind button, you press rewind, then the show will play. but you cannot interact with watever stuff inside.
Post 10 May 2009, 00:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dosin



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 337
dosin
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

Quote:

Newsflash: Time May Not Exist


If thats all there is to it
Quote:
just like the camera rewind button, you press rewind


we all ready have that.. just not the actual people.. actors..
who needs to travel back in time when we have tv - lol

we have books and many documents on the past - want to travel back
read a book! stay away from tv its evil! Wink

humans with out time would be chaos..

people need structure .. with out it many people would just fall off the face of the earth... take your watches off, loose you cellphone, disable
all clocks you own.. see how many times you stop and look! Laughing

To travel forward would be much more interesting to know the unknown!
Post 10 May 2009, 03:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:
...so, we human create time as a tool, it just something that never existed, illusion tool that human tried to create.
Here is a reference to the forthcoming NASA mission to repair the Hubble telescope.

Many citizens question whether the government has its priorities organized correctly, flying to space to repair a telescope, but I think it is a very wise decision. Regardless of whether or not one finds the images from the telescope fascinating, or boring, the data suggests, to those sufficiently well informed (I am not among those fortunate few) that the universe is N billion years old, where, N is, if I recall correctly, 13.8, or some such number.....
I probably should have googled hubble age universe, oh well, next time...
Rolling Eyes
Post 11 May 2009, 09:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
"the data suggests" is not a fact, and you failed to mention the controversy and debates about redshifts for instance.

Hubble himself:
Hubble wrote:
If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time.


Quote:
Hubble's logical scientific attitude toward the phenomenon of extragalactic redshift is in stark contrast to the illogical and nonsensical opening quotation from the Astronomer Royal. The big bang theory sprang from a theoretical preference for Hubble's first possibility. Hubble's brilliant student, Halton Arp, later confirmed that the second possibility was correct. But by then the big bang theory had become dogma. Arp was effectively 'excommunicated' for his heresy.


http://lege.net/blog.lege.net/cosmology/An_Open_Letter_to_Closed_Minds.html
Post 11 May 2009, 17:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6038
Location: Poland
MHajduk
sleepsleep wrote:
hmm, can you give me more clue ... i don't understand what is the infinite loop of the definitions". and why "dangerous"?
Well, I don't mean here neither 'time loop' nor danger to be "punished" by someone if you will try to define word 'time' by yourself. Wink I mean that if you try to define objects considered in some theories as a fundamental ideas then you have to agree that these ideas won't be fundamental anymore. But it isn't easy, because you have to choose another objects to be fundamental. There isn't possible to define everything, some things always must be chosen as undefinable primordial ideas - here appears "danger" of creation improper definitions loop (when you define 'time' by A, describe A by B, ..., define Y using Z and finally describe Z using idea of 'time'). Sometimes it's easier to start your theory from scratch but I don't recommend such task - you can lost too much time for it and don't achieve satisfying results. Wink
sleepsleep wrote:
time is illusionary
Even if you consider time as a complete illusory you have to admit that effects of the time flow aren't illusory (from second to second you're getting older, isn't it?). Wink
sleepsleep wrote:
my view is, you could probably view back the past. but you cannot interact with it. just like the camera rewind button, you press rewind, then the show will play. but you cannot interact with watever stuff inside.
Seems that you mean something like a chronovisor? Smile
Post 11 May 2009, 19:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

Even if you consider time as a complete illusory you have to admit that effects of the time flow aren't illusory (from second to second you're getting older, isn't it?

hmm... we are getting older not because of time, but it is the mechanism of our body. (the law of our body decides so), whether time exists or not, the law of our body still occurs and runs.

the time is like (7 days in a week) or Kilogram or miles or inch, they are created tools to measure certain thing.

is monday exists? no, it just illusionary name that been given to a particular cycle of sun from east to west.

Quote:

Seems that you mean something like a chronovisor?

yeah, for me, i personally felt such kinda machine is possible, view back but cannot interact, but according to wikipedia, it could view future too, i don't subscribe to this feature though, it just impossible to view something that haven't been created.
Post 11 May 2009, 19:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
hmm... we are getting older not because of time, but it is the mechanism of our body. (the law of our body decides so), whether time exists or not, the law of our body still occurs and runs.
So how does that explain the observed differential in ageing speed for objects in motion when compared to objects at rest?
Post 11 May 2009, 20:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

So how does that explain the observed differential in ageing speed for objects in motion when compared to objects at rest?

i suppose the object you mentioned is "living object" or "metal object" right?
i love to ponder about what you wrote,
Quote:

observed differential in ageing speed for objects in motion when compared to objects at rest

could you kindly point me to a link that suggest so.
Post 11 May 2009, 20:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
i suppose the object you mentioned is "living object" or "metal object" right?
i love to ponder about what you wrote,
It doesn't matter, "living" matter is just matter. Hehe, there are oo many meanings of "matter" in English!
sleepsleep wrote:
could you kindly point me to a link that suggest so.
Gravitational time dilation: Experimental confirmation
Post 11 May 2009, 20:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
hmm... we are getting older not because of time, but it is the mechanism of our body. (the law of our body decides so), whether time exists or not, the law of our body still occurs and runs.
So how does that explain the observed differential in ageing speed for objects in motion when compared to objects at rest?
sleepsleep is right, time doesn't exist, it is only the differences in mechanism or movements of the atoms that we measure as being 'time'. Strictly speaking, or rather quantum mechanically speaking, time doesn't exist. Why would it exist for "macro" viewpoints? It is still made of atoms. What is micro MUST extend to macro, otherwise there's a flaw in the "theory"...

As for your question, my theory handles it nicely and simple Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 May 2009, 21:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

sleepsleep is right, time doesn't exist

hehe, if you could publish in scientific journal and get positive peers review, that would be great Smile

Quote:

So how does that explain the observed differential in ageing speed for objects in motion when compared to objects at rest?

my view is like this.
the differential in aging is due to speed and gravity. but not time (coz it doesn't exists physically).

from wikipedia link you gave above wrote:

The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect.[2]

there are some questions here that i wish if you could provide me with more information.
does the "adjusted clock value" increase from time to time or constant?

eg. satellite A needs to be adjust slower 5 seconds every each 7 days?

eg. or satellite A needs to be adjust random X seconds to a fixed Y value that we want it to be every each 7 days?

what in my mind now is, what if i stick an atom clock on a rotator, put them inside a vacuum place (or space station), and just spin it with the speed of plane that flying the atomic clock in experiment, well, i leave the speed convert to RPM to you guys to figure, my bad maths haunts me till now.

and i believe, i would get the time-dilation effected on that spinning atomic clock.
Post 12 May 2009, 01:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
"time-dilation" is itself an abstract concept and stupidity if taken literally because it implies that time can change. But time is a measure of change. How can change change itself? Confused

IMO just "movement" slows down or not an object, not "time dilation" whatever that is.
Post 12 May 2009, 01:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i would view time-dilation as, "speed/movement and gravity could change the measurement of time using particular exact similiar time measuring device"

now, one question make me ponder more is,
if gravity and speed could affect atomic clock, would it affect human too, if human were to be used as time measuring tool.... Question
Post 12 May 2009, 01:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
i would view time-dilation as, "speed/movement and gravity could change the measurement of time using particular exact similiar time measuring device"
That describes the result. But do you have an explanation for the result?
Post 12 May 2009, 01:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
now, one question make me ponder more is,
if gravity and speed could affect atomic clock, would it affect human too, if human were to be used as time measuring tool.... Question
Yes, of course, it affects everything the same. Humans are just atoms (or QM particles), the same as atomic clocks are just atoms (or QM particles).
Post 12 May 2009, 01:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

That describes the result. But do you have an explanation for the result?

i am not that smart in physics, but i guess following question would explain more.

1. does atom structure change due to difference of gravity?
2. would movement/speed eg, you smash an atom into a long tunnel, change the atom properties?

if both answer is "yes", then that would explain why.
i am not quite sure what "explanation" that you expect but i hope i answer your question.
Post 12 May 2009, 01:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

Yes, of course, it affects everything the same. Humans are just atoms (or QM particles), the same as atomic clocks are just atoms (or QM particles).

damn, that would make the twin paradox kinda possible....
Post 12 May 2009, 01:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
1. does atom structure change due to difference of gravity?
As far as I am aware, no one knows for sure. But I suspect there is not a noticeable change, if any.
sleepsleep wrote:

2. would movement/speed eg, you smash an atom into a long tunnel, change the atom properties?
You mean like the LHC? Then yes, they definitely change upon smashing, but perhaps not in the way that you want.
Post 12 May 2009, 02:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
sleepsleep wrote:
Quote:

Yes, of course, it affects everything the same. Humans are just atoms (or QM particles), the same as atomic clocks are just atoms (or QM particles).

damn, that would make the twin paradox kinda possible....
What do you mean? It must affect humans if you want to have the twin paradox. By the way, the twin paradox is real Razz

Think of the twin that goes on the trip as "aging 2 times slower" when he is leaving, and "aging 2 times faster" when he is returning. It works perfectly without "time-dilation" into the explanation.

I have a question, also to refine my other theory, depending on your answer I will choose the one that works of course:

Does a moving object weight less than a stationary object of the same mass? (note I mean WEIGHT, not 'mass' because mass is of course already there)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 12 May 2009, 19:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:

That describes the result. But do you have an explanation for the result?

i actually kinda doubt that, speed/movement & gravity could affects the measurement of time...

for the time being, i couldn't yet accept twin paradox as reality.

Quote:

there are some questions here that i wish if you could provide me with more information.
does the "adjusted clock value" increase from time to time or constant?

eg. satellite A needs to be adjust slower 5 seconds every each 7 days?

eg. or satellite A needs to be adjust random X seconds to a fixed Y value that we want it to be every each 7 days?

well, i kinda wish if anyone could provide more info regarding my these 2 questions above.

Quote:

What do you mean? It must affect humans if you want to have the twin paradox. By the way, the twin paradox is real

i still hold my view, twin paradox is impossible.

Quote:

Does a moving object weight less than a stationary object of the same mass?

1) then we need to define what is moving.

2) and should we use the same measurement method to measure a moving object vs a static object?

3) then is that possible we have a static non-moving object?
Post 12 May 2009, 19:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.