What are your thoughts on time?

Time is like an infinite variable in the playground of the mind. Why? Do you ask? Because the mind itself is infinite and the mind itself is variable. The mind is like what some may say about an electron. Well, you can define where it is, but then you cannot define it's speed. Then again, you can tell where it is not, but maybe not everyone knows of theories of electron absences called holes, so let's just stick with you cannot know an electron's speed and position at the same time. The same effect is seen in light. It is both particle and wave, and if you try to make it be one only, it will fly away from your sight. Why? Because of some sort of theory that only love exists and it cannot be confined in any sort of boundaries. That is why we have poets and INFP's and all. For the realization of infinite awareness, or maybe the awareness that all is infinite, and that matter and energy really are the same, and are really neither created nor destroyed but merely show up in new and more increasingly lovely territories and in new forms. In short, we just make up time to have fun! :smile:
 
just me said:
"The things which are seen are temporal, while the things which are not seen are eternal." Think that is what was being referenced. Temporal, to my best memory, means "of or having to do with time". I liked the little math equation earlier: s=d/t
Does this mean the speed of something equals the distance something went divided by the time it took is actually equal to its speed? Time becomes somewhat of a mathematical system of measurements we have created to understand things in their proper places. Ex: I traveled 100 yards in 12 seconds, so my speed is 100/12 or .12 ? We still have the need to qualify time into different units of measure, the outcome of which must be speed defined according to those units of measurements. The answer S still has T as part of its answer; making T all encompassing. We cannot define speed S without time T, unless we use light L ? Everything could then be in fractions or multiples of the speed of light SL . Could the speed of light SL be then defined without time as a unit of measurement? Two times the speed of light, 2 x SL = 2SL , half the SL, .12 the SL, etcetera. Math.
I'm going to post this before I cannot without a bit of trouble and keep typing....
Click to expand...

just me said:
Then the SL (some call the letter C but I want to keep things easily understood) as the speed of light has been said to be the fastest speed and we now know that things can travel faster than the speed of light >SL .
If >SL is indeed possible, what does it say in regards to time? I would like to leave time out of it yet.
Speed S still would be using the fractions or multiples of SL as its answer.
It seems we need something to explain things to us. We may not actually need time, but time became a perfect explanation for our need of understanding the state of being. It helps us to define things which are seen.
In the spirit world of things as we understand them, we have no need of further comprehension in comparison to temporal things. We can then understand spiritual things as being eternal Sp=E. When we try to comprehend the things of the spirit, we do not look for fractions or multiples of anything; we look for understanding.
Quick upload...
Click to expand...

just me said:
The theory that something traveling at .9 SL toward another object traveling
at .9 SL toward the first object is slower than 1.8 SL is wrong to me. Using percentages and assumptions together is what I disagree with. That theory was based on the assumption nothing could travel > SL . Basic math disproves the theory, as does logic....but who am I to question things? It is the nature of just me. "How can we see beyond the speed of light?" Is not two times something 2x ? We can see that better than we can see the speed of light, can we not? Can we even see the speed of light? We use this to relate to all other things, but it is so fast it would almost be better to keep time out of the equation. My question is simple; what can we then say about light? Do we judge all things in relativity by light? Is light, then, the true unit of measure? I love these kind of questions that help to make my brain work.
Phone call...... :pop2:
Click to expand...
I don't want to seem rude (but I will probably anyway): do you have any idea what you're talking about? You can't just take away time and reference everything by the speed of light, as you said v [velocity]=d [displacment]/t [time], and this stands for light as well. you can't just say time doesn't exist at all, is just irrelevant, because it has observable effects on the universe (like passing moments).Also, we can observe the speed of light. For one, light travels slower through some medium (like air or water), and there have been experiments to measure the speed of light (that are difficult to explain without many diagrams). Now to go though and break down your argument:
just me said:
"The things which are seen are temporal, while the things which are not seen are eternal." Think that is what was being referenced. Temporal, to my best memory, means "of or having to do with time". I liked the little math equation earlier: s=d/t
Does this mean the speed of something equals the distance something went divided by the time it took is actually equal to its speed? Time becomes somewhat of a mathematical system of measurements we have created to understand things in their proper places. Ex: I traveled 100 yards in 12 seconds, so my speed is 100/12 or .12 ?
Click to expand...
First, 100/12=8.3333..., but thats beside the point. though you are very confusing here, you seem to have it alright so far.

just me said:
We still have the need to qualify time into different units of measure, the outcome of which must be speed defined according to those units of measurements. The answer S still has T as part of its answer; making T all encompassing. We cannot define speed S without time T, unless we use light L ? Everything could then be in fractions or multiples of the speed of light SL . Could the speed of light SL be then defined without time as a unit of measurement? Two times the speed of light, 2 x SL = 2SL , half the SL, .12 the SL, etcetera. Math.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that C (you call it SL) cannot be a base unit because it is based on t. The base units are m (mass), d (displacement), and t (time). C=some d/some t. Time cannot be simply ignore, or replaced by some unproportional measure. It just doesn't work.

just me said:
Then the SL (some call the letter C but I want to keep things easily understood) as the speed of light has been said to be the fastest speed and we now know that things can travel faster than the speed of light >SL.
Click to expand...
things cannot travel faster than the spped of light relative to it absolute position in the universe. yes its possible to have something pass you at a speed which would appear to be faster than the speed of light, but only if you are moving in a different direction.

just me said:
If >SL is indeed possible, what does it say in regards to time? I would like to leave time out of it yet.
Speed S still would be using the fractions or multiples of SL as its answer.
It seems we need something to explain things to us. We may not actually need time, but time became a perfect explanation for our need of understanding the state of being. It helps us to define things which are seen.
Click to expand...
What else could we use, besides time (C is out, as I have said)?

just me said:
In the spirit world of things as we understand them, we have no need of further comprehension in comparison to temporal things. We can then understand spiritual things as being eternal Sp=E. When we try to comprehend the things of the spirit, we do not look for fractions or multiples of anything; we look for understanding.
Quick upload...
Click to expand...
When did spirituality come into play?

just me said:
The theory that something traveling at .9 SL toward another object traveling
at .9 SL toward the first object is slower than 1.8 SL is wrong to me. Using percentages and assumptions together is what I disagree with. That theory was based on the assumption nothing could travel > SL . Basic math disproves the theory, as does logic....but who am I to question things?
Click to expand...
Particle A is travelling in one direction at .9C, and particle B is travelling in the opposite direction at .9C. when they pass each other, Particle A "sees" Particle B travelling at 1.8C, and the same in reverse. This is how apparent speed >C is possible. However, each particle is still <C, thus working within special relativity. and, Why not question things? its good for you!

just me said:
It is the nature of just me. "How can we see beyond the speed of light?" Is not two times something 2x ? We can see that better than we can see the speed of light, can we not? Can we even see the speed of light? We use this to relate to all other things, but it is so fast it would almost be better to keep time out of the equation. My question is simple; what can we then say about light? Do we judge all things in relativity by light? Is light, then, the true unit of measure
Click to expand...
You lost me completely here, but you seem to be saying that because light is so fast we can't measure it (see above), so we should ignore time (that makes no sense, one thing is to complex, so we should ignore something else), and instead judge everything in relation to C. I'm going to have to say no.
 
Pristinegirl said:
I'm not sure how to interpret this haha xD Are you sarcastic? and what are you suggesting?
Click to expand...
Ayn Rand stated that we should only think that which can be absolutely proved, and anything that cannot be proved should be assumed to be wrong (if, you can't tell, I whole heartedly disagree, if we assume something to be wrong, then we'd never try to prove it, thus going nowhere)
 
Time scares me.
 
VindurNótt said:
Ayn Rand stated that we should only think that which can be absolutely proved, and anything that cannot be proved should be assumed to be wrong (if, you can't tell, I whole heartedly disagree, if we assume something to be wrong, then we'd never try to prove it, thus going nowhere)
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But you sure wouldn't get very far, regardless!
1 - I think therefore I am
2 - I experience myself, and that which is not myself
3 - Therefore 'other' exists as well as myself
4 - I must rely on my physical senses to experience 'other'
5 - I can't prove that my physical senses are reliable, so now I'm stuck...

It could be worded better, but it makes the point. I don't think we have to have vigorous proof of each step, but we can allow certain assumptions to be introduced - but it's best to define and acknowledge those assumptions. (So says my T!)
 
Milon said:
Maybe, maybe not. But you sure wouldn't get very far, regardless!
1 - I think therefore I am
2 - I experience myself, and that which is not myself
3 - Therefore 'other' exists as well as myself
4 - I must rely on my physical senses to experience 'other'
5 - I can't prove that my physical senses are reliable, so now I'm stuck...

It could be worded better, but it makes the point. I don't think we have to have vigorous proof of each step, but we can allow certain assumptions to be introduced - but it's best to define and acknowledge those assumptions. (So says my T!)
Click to expand...

Doesn't 2 already assume 4, and this is then circular? It seems you couldn't even get past 2.

Further, to go from 2 to 3, don't you have to assume that experiencing something means it exists? It's an unspoken proposition...

Even further, could it be that 2 is only your interpretation of your sense-data, and not actuality? Perhaps the whole world is just an extension of the self, and we only interpret them as being divided.


So...ya, lots of problems in epistemology. XD
 
facepalm.jpeg


Ug...why did I start this?
 
Whoa, Duty, you threw me for a second with the new avatar. :)
I likes!

Like I said, it could be better worded. In all honesty I was just trying to get further than Descartes' famous "I think therefore I am." :wink:

I don't resonate with the idea that 'other' could be an extension of self, as self implies oneness. If I was not one with my right hand, I would have no direct experience of it. I do have direct experience with my right hand, though, and I conclude that I am one with it. But maybe I'm just holding the arbitrary belief that self is a unified experience. Which brings up the interesting question of how oneness and self work in the presence of dissociative identity disorder (often know as multiple personalities), but that's going way off topic!
 
Last edited:
VindurNótt said:
Ayn Rand stated that we should only think that which can be absolutely proved, and anything that cannot be proved should be assumed to be wrong (if, you can't tell, I whole heartedly disagree, if we assume something to be wrong, then we'd never try to prove it, thus going nowhere)
Click to expand...


I see what your point and it makes sense to me. I didn't know about him directly, only axioms as in mathematics haha. Although interesting! Hmm this is kind of hard to explain but I think there is the text-book true such as mathematics which are made of axioms right. Therefore 'absolute truth', when with mathematics. (please don't take my words to literally, I find it hard to explain already xD) Although then there is the subjective truth, which often takes the form of irrationality and then objective truth, where there is rational reasoning.
 
Your avatar is still cool. Like I said in another thread, I wish I could speak to people with their understanding, also.
 
Last edited:
TheLastMohican said:
According to string theory, time is the 11th dimension. If we can travel through time, we must be entering parallel universes to avoid the grandfather paradox (and according to Einstein, time travel into the future is absolutely impossible, because the future hasn't happened yet).

I think time is linear, but it contains cyclical patterns, especially if our universe is a Cyclical Model. Time began with the Big Bang, and therefore at one point there was no time at all. But if we had a Big Crunch, then we had a few billion years of time before our current universe began, and the matter involved was the same. So time is linear in repetitive segments. But then, the physical laws of the universe might change with every successive Big Bang, so time travel might have been perfectly normal the last time around. Who knows? It might have been its own spatial dimension back then.
Click to expand...

Intellectually this makes the most sense to me, though my personal perceptions of time are more in line with John McManamy's theory of bi-chronicity. See http://www.mcmanweb.com/bichronic.html.
 
just me said:
It seems we need something to explain things to us. We may not actually need time, but time became a perfect explanation for our need of understanding the state of being. It helps us to define things which are seen.

Quick upload...
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have stopped here, with the temporal?
Mind you, my thoughts are not tempered from studies in science.
 
Last edited:
My sense of time is that it is only as concrete as it can be in certain points at certain places...I'm pretty sure there's already theories on that, though.

I mean, think of the stars; time means nothing. Light takes so long to reach earth from them that they are years, even thousands to millions of years, in the past...or, we're just that far ahead in the future. Sure, they are the same time there now, but does that matter to us from this prospective? Time is altered from them to us; it is not as concrete as the other 3 dimensions, although I suppose those aren't quite that concrete either depending on how you look at them.

Either way; time is only good up to about the speed of light and at certain distances. After that, it becomes arbitrary.

Galilean frames, Einstein and all that jazz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top