An unanswerable question

[Saru Inc]

I mean, I've been wondering about this for a long time. I don't think it does exist, I think man created it to give life meaning, or a standard, a way to base his or her life.

[Mylez]

Time is a constant, but our measurement of it is subjective.

 

 

 

Time isn't a constant. There is no universal time.

 

 

 

The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the problem of time. It may be the biggest, but it is far from the only temporal conundrum. Vying for second place is this strange fact: The laws of physics dont explain why time always points to the future. All the lawswhether Newtons, Einsteins, or the quirky quantum ruleswould work equally well if time ran backward. As far as we can tell, though, time is a one-way process; it never reverses, even though no laws restrict it.

 

 

 

The question is far more complicated and subtle than many of you seem to assume.

 

 

 

The rate at which time moves is constant.

 

 

 

I mean, I've been wondering about this for a long time. I don't think it does exist, I think man created it to give life meaning, or a standard, a way to base his or her life.

 

 

 

Man can't create something which already exists. Sure, we can give it a name. But time DOES exist. How can it not?

[assassin_696]

The rate at which time moves is constant.

 

 

 

No, it's altered by presence of gravitational fields and slows down in moving reference frames. There is no absolute time.

[oegly41]

 

No, it's altered by presence of gravitational fields and slows down in moving reference frames. There is no absolute time.

 

Yay! Someone who agrees with me! Let's make a secret club!

[Mr_Adam]

[hide=]

Where is it? Does it occupy a single space in the universe at anyone time? Can we test it? How did it begin? Has it always existed.

 

 

 

I think there's more to this question than first percived...

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I thought time was reletive?

 

 

 

Time IS relative, but we cannot test it.

 

Where is it? everywhere

 

Does it occupy a single space in the universe at anyone time? it's a constant, therefore occupies everything at once

 

Can we test it? no, although every time you look a clock, you're testing time

 

How did it begin? how did anything begin? the big bang? before that? nobody knows

 

Has it always existed? as long as you or I have been alive, yes

 

 

 

As Mirage said so simply, time isn't tangible.

[/hide]

 

 

 

The relativity of time actually implies that when things move fast enough they actually can exist longer, or something along those lines. Time is relative... to speed (close to the speed of light though!). For instance, during high-adrenaline situations, time appears to slow down.

 

Where is Time? Time is not anywhere. It is more of a definition.

 

Can we test it? Make a prediction, let's say you drop something in the future. Has it happened yet? Is it happening currently? Obviously there needs to be something in between - time.

 

How did it begin? Probably the Big Bang... Maybe the LHC will create time again?

 

Has it always existed? Yes. Assume time was created by the Big Bang. Then what wa before it? There was no time, so everything that previously existed had happened in the same exact instant, when there was no time.

 

 

 

 

No, it's altered by presence of gravitational fields and slows down in moving reference frames. There is no absolute time.

 

Yay! Someone who agrees with me! Let's make a secret club!

 

I agree, it's true. Time can be altered in places like black holes. In the center of the Milky Way time is probably very slow (the Central Super Black Hole theory).

 

 

 

Oh, and you might want to watch the series Time on the Science Channel, with Dr. Michio Kaku. It might answer some other questions.

[GGunitfan10]

yes i agree with this entire thread :

[Igor]

in my believe time is related to light. 12 noon is supposed to indicate that the sun is the highest it can be in the sky. However if a star explodes and u see it. u may think "wow a star exploded 5 seconds ago" in reality it exploded years ago. it just took time for the light to reach earth.

 

 

 

time as in change is something hard to explain.

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT?

[sonerohi]

Time has been roflpowned by that experiment that was posted a while back. The one with the scientists, the north and south poles, and the laser beam. TL:DR, scientists found electrons or w/e that when fired in a beam can get to their destination many hours before supposed to.

[BlueLancer]

in my believe time is related to light. 12 noon is supposed to indicate that the sun is the highest it can be in the sky. However if a star explodes and u see it. u may think "wow a star exploded 5 seconds ago" in reality it exploded years ago. it just took time for the light to reach earth.

 

 

 

time as in change is something hard to explain.

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT?

 

 

 

Research it, he might be too young to put it in scientific words from my 'analysis' but every word he said is true, even the fact that the sun is always at the highest point during noon [1]. Just more reason to read posts and evaluate them for info content even if they might be written without proper grammar or spelling/wording.

 

 

 

Time is constant

 

 

 

Throughout the universe, time is relative. I'd like to introduce you to the Hafele-Keating experiment (you might already be aware of it through college/uni physics though), especially gravitational time shifts:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... irtim.html

 

 

 

 

For small changes in gravitational field associated with changes in altitude above the earth, the approximate time dilation expression is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

if a comparison is made between a clock on the Earth's surface (TE) and one at height h above the surface (T). Hafele and Keating predicted a time difference of 144 ns on an eastward flight around the world for which the flight time was 41.2 hours. This corresponds to an average height of 8900 m, a reasonable flight altitude for a commercial airline. The time shift is positive (aging faster) for both eastward and westward flights. The predicted value of 179 ns for the westward flight of 48.6 hours duration corresponds to an average altitude of about 9400 meters.

 

 

 

Since the clocks used on every flight in all the experiments were identical as a tool of measurement, it's time itself that wasn't constant in the tests, not the tool.

[Shiny]

If it doesn't exist why would a clock tick into an organized time schedule and continue? If time doesn't exist, what is a clock measuring?

[Nenga]

Ha this is gonna turn into one of those threads to try to find a question you can't answer. Time does exist because humans created time, as a reason for why the body withers and decays.

[Shinjula]

Time is more related to entropy than light. It is the one physical process which is unidirectional (goes in one direction only). The third law of Thermodynamics states, in essence that "Entropy increases". This is the property which marks the direction of the arrow of Time.

 

 

 

Interestingly, in Quantum Mechanics there is no rule which inhibits any reaction from working in either direction and the connection between Quantum Mechanics and the Thermodynamic Laws is currently unknown. So basically put - Time is known to exist and can be experimentally shown to be so, however the reasons behind it are currently unknown.

[matrix2613]

Time is just an invention of man. Everithing happens once and only once, there is no way to prove otherwise. Time travel will never happen because the event you wish to go to has ended, however that event that just ended is now unexsistant as it is not in the present. You cannot predict the future because there is no past, you cannot remember the past because there is no past. The human subconsiousness can remember everithing it has ever experienced simutaneously, that is why we can remember things in this "theoretical past". What is happening now will only affect you now, not before or after. If you breathe right now, the air will only affect you now. No matter how many times you try to recreate that breath, it will never be 100% the same, but maybe 99.99999999%. A monarch butterfly that migrates every winter does not do it because it can look at a clock and tell time, it feels that it is too cold or too hot and moves North/South in accordance to that. Past and future tenses such as -ed have never existed, only -ing.

 

 

 

Holy crap, I am more intellectually deep then I thought \

 

 

 

Edit: Dang somebody beat me to it

 

Time does exist because humans created time, as a reason for why the body withers and decays.

 

 

 

[Kenshinjapan]

Time is just an invention of man. Everithing happens once and only once, there is no way to prove otherwise. Time travel will never happen because the event you wish to go to has ended, however that event that just ended is now unexsistant as it is not in the present. You cannot predict the future because there is no past, you cannot remember the past because there is no past. The human subconsiousness can remember everithing it has ever experienced simutaneously, that is why we can remember things in this "theoretical past". What is happening now will only affect you now, not before or after. If you breathe right now, the air will only affect you now. No matter how many times you try to recreate that breath, it will never be 100% the same, but maybe 99.99999999%. A monarch butterfly that migrates every winter does not do it because it can look at a clock and tell time, it feels that it is too cold or too hot and moves North/South in accordance to that. Past and future tenses such as -ed have never existed, only -ing.

 

 

 

Holy crap, I am more intellectually deep then I thought \

 

 

 

Edit: Dang somebody beat me to it

 

 

 

 

You can't just make up ideas and call yourself intellectual :ugeek: . Something doesn't cease to exist just because it isn't happening at that very moment. The same could be said about any historical figure ever in time. Just because Hitler is dead, does that mean that he didn't kill millions of Jews? No, it just means that it happened earlier.

 

 

 

I can't tell wether or not you're joking or being serious.

[matrix2613]

Time is just an invention of man. Everithing happens once and only once, there is no way to prove otherwise. Time travel will never happen because the event you wish to go to has ended, however that event that just ended is now unexsistant as it is not in the present. You cannot predict the future because there is no past, you cannot remember the past because there is no past. The human subconsiousness can remember everithing it has ever experienced simutaneously, that is why we can remember things in this "theoretical past". What is happening now will only affect you now, not before or after. If you breathe right now, the air will only affect you now. No matter how many times you try to recreate that breath, it will never be 100% the same, but maybe 99.99999999%. A monarch butterfly that migrates every winter does not do it because it can look at a clock and tell time, it feels that it is too cold or too hot and moves North/South in accordance to that. Past and future tenses such as -ed have never existed, only -ing.

 

 

 

Holy crap, I am more intellectually deep then I thought \

 

 

 

Edit: Dang somebody beat me to it

 

 

 

 

You can't just make up ideas and call yourself intellectual :ugeek: . Something doesn't cease to exist just because it isn't happening at that very moment. The same could be said about any historical figure ever in time. Just because Hitler is dead, does that mean that he didn't kill millions of Jews? No, it just means that it happened earlier.

 

 

 

I can't tell wether or not you're joking or being serious.

 

Well, I asked my friend the same question and that is mostly what he awnsered, and I agree. I am not saying that Hitler did not exist, he has and still does today, but he is no longer killing those Jews and there is no proof that he ever did. Yes, you can see the skeletal remains of his victims, but that does not proove he killed them. No, I am not trying to start a hitler is innocent conspiracy, but there is no way to proove he did/didn't. He is no longer existing, and never will exist in the same way again.

[skillerman84]

I have researched this quite some time ago and have found articles saved. They are hidden as you see so, read some, or pass them by like nothing; but remember, you asked the question or visited this thread in order to find the answer, so you must read the evidence and or oppinions in order to pursuit satisfaction..

 

Articles:

 

[hide=Newsflash]No one keeps track of time better than Ferenc Krausz. In his lab at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, he has clocked the shortest time intervals ever observed. Krausz uses ultraviolet laser pulses to track the absurdly brief quantum leaps of electrons within atoms. The events he probes last for about 100 attoseconds, or 100 quintillionths of a second. For a little perspective, 100 attoseconds is to one second as a second is to 300 million years.

 

 

 

But even Krausz works far from the frontier of time. There is a temporal realm called the Planck scale, where even attoseconds drag by like eons. It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. Planck timethe smallest unit of time that has any physical meaningis 10-43 second, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of an attosecond. Beyond that? Tempus incognito. At least for now.

 

 

 

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics, says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.[/hide][hide=Denying the Existence of Time]Perhaps humans invented the concept of time out of mortal fear; reasoning that if time were tangible then its degenerative march could be controlled, just as mankind has tried to subdue other aspects of the natural world. Immortality would be within our grasp! But while time may be a convenient metronome that delivers neatly portioned slivers of existence to conscious beings, the idea of a universal time is looking increasingly fanciful, at least to some physicists.

 

 

 

One individual, Peter Lynds, has put his reputation on the line to try and prove that thinking of time and motion in measured segments, like frames in a film, is wrong-headed. Funnily enough, thats what his critics think of his theory. Lynds goes as far as saying that if instants, rather than intervals, of time were a cosmological truth, then none of us would be here today. In fact no physical object, no mass or energy down to the smallest of particles would ever be in motion. This is probably not the sort of immortality that our ancestors had in mind.

 

 

 

The most amazing thing about this whole story is that Lynds is not a trained scientist. But he does have a passionate interest in physics and he is also a huge fan of Einsteins work. Lynds theory, Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity, has caused quite a commotion amongst academics, some even saying that his theory is a hoax and that Lynds doesnt actually exist. Skepticism and scorn of Lynds work has continued but this barrage of criticism doesnt look like it will shut him up anytime soon.

 

 

 

Much of the opposition to Lynds ideas can be attributed to his questioning of scientific orthodoxy. He doesnt mind suggesting that Einstein, Hawking and other respected figures are just plain wrong. He claims some theories are redundant, such as imaginary time, and others just need modification, such as further developing Einsteins theories so as to iron out some of the contradictions. Most of these would take up too much space in trying to explain; so concentrating on Lynds main theme will be the goal here.

 

 

 

In the beginning there was darkness and there was no time. Time becomes immaterial in empty space, and demonstrates clearly that without objects-in-motion - mass and energy - there is nothing to measure the relative passing of time. So how God knew what day it was in the beginning is anyones guess. But we digress. Time is relative to mass and energy, there is no ideal universal clock. As a concept, time cannot precede mass and energy, simply because the idea of time is reliant on the relative motions of celestial bodies. As Lynds says: if there is no mass-energy, there is no space-time; both are fixed and enmeshed. Because of this, time also has no direction or flow, as we conceive it subjectively; it is the relative order of events that is important. This is what led Lynds to claim that there is no precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process.

 

 

 

The Greek mathematician Zeno conjured up a famous paradox that involved halving the distance between starting and end-points in time and space. The paradox involves a person trying to move from point A to point B. In order to move from point A, say, your doorway, to point B, say the pub, you must first reach half the distance between A and B, but before that, you must first reach half of that distance. And before that, you must first reach half of that distance and so on ad infinitum. Youll never reach the pub! Zenos paradox seems to make a mockery out of divvying up time to conveniently suit scientific purposes but we know that this doesnt happen in the real world.

 

 

 

For example, when you are driving in your car, your speed is relative to the road beneath you. There is no point on your journey that could be called one instant in time. It can only be an interval of time. Even if you took a photograph of the car travelling along the road, the photograph would be an interval related to the speed of the camera, perhaps a thirtieth of a second. It doesnt matter how much you reduce the time interval, it will always still be an interval, rather than an instant.

 

 

 

If there are no measured instants then there is no infinity paradox, which demonstrates that there is no actual time measurement. In short, there is only relative motion between objects, and the order in which they occur. To make it even more confusing, Lynds proposes that this theory demonstrates that a body in motion has no distinct position or coordinate.

 

 

 

This basic account of Lynds theory brings us back to human perceptions of time and why the brain needs to have a concept of time. We are finite beings in an infinite universe (as far as we know) and understanding the universe requires that we are able to measure the events and objects that make up the universe. Being able to control our physical environment by allocating and referring to time in instants is a handy way of dealing with the problem. But it seems increasingly likely that we need to change the way in which we approach, observe and evaluate the universes dimensions before we have any hope of understanding any of the universes mysteries. Perhaps Lynds theory is just what we need to get started.[/hide][hide=Does Time Exist?]There is no question that we experience what we call time. There is a precision with which we can measure the progression of events over time that is phenomenally accurate. Things age and particles decay over time and it is consistent. However, physical laws that use time as a reference work equally well for time reversal - going backward - a particle hitting another particle, generating other particles and emitting photons will work just as well running backward according to physics. We just have never experienced time reversal and this disconnect with the laws of physics seems to be a mystery. This disconnect is used by many to express the opinion that time exists. However the fact remains that equations of space and time break down at certain points and time falls out of some of them as an unnecessary factor.

 

 

 

Think of this: photons live in null time. They live and die in the same instant because they travel at the speed of light and therefore if time exists for them, they do not experience it. They experience zero flight time over zero distance no matter how far apart the start and finish line are. They live in a go-splat world. A photon leaving a star a billion light years away destroys itself in our eye the instant it is emitted, having not aged even a fraction of a nanosecond in its long trip. Space and time are that warped!

 

 

 

The space and the time have been warped because of the speed of the photon. It travels at the speed of light. Our very definition of speed involves time so when we say the speed of light we assume that time exists, but for the photon time does not exist.

 

 

 

A photon experiences zero distance and zero time due to its incredible speed. Every photon that lights our office or illuminates our book arrives the instant it is emitted. It has not aged even though we can calculate that it moved from the bulb to our book and then to our eye at about one nanosecond per foot of travel. The photon did not experience the time that we measure or calculate. It aged not at all. Time does not exist for any particle moving at c. It only exists for us as calculated or measured in a laboratory. But does it exist as a real dimension? Does it have a physical basis?

 

 

 

A photon in flight between point a and point b is invisible to any and all observers. It does not exist in flight and can only be detected at b when it actually arrives. The photon in flight experiences null time - time zero - no time - non-existent time, and travels a null path - or no path at all, regardless of the length of its travel. Time for the photon does not exist, nor does distance. Those measurements of time and distance for the photon are for our domain only - the human one.

 

 

 

Now consider an extension of that thought - most of the particles that make up our world vibrate and exchange energy with each other. That occurs even at temperatures close to zero. There is also a froth of virtual particles that pop into and out of existence continually at all times even in a so-called perfect vacuum. All the energy exchanged through photons is timeless because all photons are moving at c. Even gravity moves at c. Gravity is also timeless within its self. The exception is for atoms that bump into each other and exchange energy through vibration and bumping. Or do they? Do they actually touch or isnt there an exchange of particles moving at c that keep them apart?

 

 

 

If the energy transfer by photons is timeless, the photons are timeless, gravity is timeless all due to the speed of light as experienced by the particles that carry them, then does time exist or are we merely measuring external events by counting uniform progressions that we experience and can see?

 

 

 

I know and acknowledge that we can measure the speed of a photon to a very high precision. I know that we can measure the speed of gravity as other planets tug on ours and on each other. The measurement is based on the progression of the components of our clocks. We do live in a dimension that experiences progression of events in one direction which we call time.

 

 

 

However, we can measure but we cannot see. We can observe the effects but not the event. The truth is that whenever something is traveling at c, simultaneous observations are impossible. Every observer of the same event sees something different. Have you ever seen time? Maybe the change in a clock, which is actually only a measure of repetive events, whether a wind up (measuring escapement events) or a NBS clock counting cycles of an atomic nature, but not time. We cant see time, only experience it. We cant measure time, only define it.

 

 

 

Time for us may be just a projection of ourselves on a line defined by a progression of events that occur in a uniform manner, but it may not really exist. We are bundles of energy made up of atoms and particles in extraordinarily rapid motion. Take us down to the quantum world and we are made up of many quadrillions of particles exchanging energy among themselves in mostly empty space. In such huge numbers there is an average motion and an average progression of events that may make up our concept of time. Certainly our most accurate clocks are merely counting cycles of an atomic nature. Even the National Bureau of Standards admit they are not measuring time, but only defining it.

 

 

 

Does time exist just for us because we experience this progression in a uniform manner? Perhaps it is not actually an extra dimension as we have been so often told.[/hide][hide=Does Time Exist?#2]No! Time does not exist!

 

The answer to the question: Does time exist ? Is no!

 

The best way to show time is an illusion of our minds is to come up with an interpretation of Nature that doesn't include time. Einstein set us on that track with his concept of "space-time", which can be interpreted as abolishing or replacing both entities that are space and time!

 

In the gravimotion interpretation of Nature, introduced in this website, we are actually living in motion rather than in time. The physical phenomenon of motion takes over the elusive concepts of both time and space.

 

 

 

The real question is: Does time exist in reality? Click here for an answer that makes sense!

 

The elusive side of the question is: Would time exist in our minds only? Click here for an answer that makes sense!

 

 

 

The book "Does Time Exist?" released in 2003 tackled the question of time in that spirit. But the publishing had to be canceled (see next section).

 

A new book "The Harmony of Reality, in no Time" (2008) referenced below, does just that. It provides an interpretation of Nature without time ... and does it in no time at all! It is concise.

 

 

 

About the cancellation of the publishing of the "Does time exist?" book

 

The "Does Time Exist?" book has been printed on demand (POD) and released with some lack of professional considerations. Just as for the "Gravimotion" book, which preceded it, the author did not pay attention about permissions to reproduce copyright material, even though that point was clearly stated in the agreement signed with the publisher. Fascinated by his subject, the author forgot all about copyrights and used a few quotes from Einstein and other renown physicists; he had to cancel all publication of both books for that reason. .

 

The ideas proposed in the "Does Time Exist?" book

 

In the book "Does Time Exist? ", the concept of space-time is replaced altogether by an "extended concept" of energy. In that book energy is considered to be physical (it is not in physics) and energy physically "implements" (takes the place or replaces) geometrical space. The important point in "Does time exist?" is that space is now "physically" implemented by the non material but (considered) physical entity energy. Energy is a volume as space is, yet expanding in time.

 

Whereas the concept of field in the previous "Gravimotion" book was still honored as a continuous medium, it is no longer the case in the "Does time exist?" book.

 

 

 

The common denominator to the three books "Gravimotion" (2002), "Does Time Exist?" (2003) and "The Harmony of Reality, in no Time" (2008) is the gravimotion mechanism.

 

Gravimotion is a new concept of motion that is neither existing in physics nor in your mind yet.

 

The gravimotion mechanism, not based on time but on the reality of motion, extends the later into domains which would be labeled "negative times" or "faster than speed of light" in conventional physics.

 

The explanations provided in the two books: "Gravimotion" and "Does time exist?" do not match and in some cases contradict each other; they might be interpreted as the products of a rather inconsistent mind ... yet these deficiencies provided the author the opportunity to start all over again!

 

Please be forgiving, consider instead that evolution (in our minds) is taking place as it does in Nature! The thinking was not done in vain, this third book "The Harmony of reality, in no Time...", amounting now to close to ten years reflections, finally provides a coherent interpretation of Nature.[/hide][hide=Does Time Really Exist?]One can divide any period of time into a past and future, from millennia to micro-seconds. The present is nothing more than a fleeting moment through which the future passes to become the past.

 

Is there any evidence that time exists outside intervals of time, which we have constructed to get through our daily lives? One might claim that we feel ourselves being pushed and dragged along life by a relentless expanse of time. Or that time is used to solve problems related to velocity and acceleration and mass. Surely, time must exist Right?

 

 

 

Perhaps. But consider that time is something that we perceive through our senses, which are not perfect. Time is like God. It is a human construct. Time does not exist.[/hide]

 

 

 

Didn't I just sound like some Bigshot Scholar? ;) Jealous?

[runescapeloser22]

I remember a while ago, someone made a thread asking everyone to prove to them that everyone on here wasn't a computer designed to act like humans. It was a big discussion about how we could all just be advanced computers designed to have personalities and opinions, and that there was only one real person on here. That was an interesting thread, someone should make it again.

[Randox]

Just because we percive time does not mean time exists. Time could be an illusion caused by our inability to percive all events simualtaneously, thus we percive them in a chronological order and make decisions on what we have percived thus far. Implications of that idea can include free will being an illusion since all events are allready set in stone, and any intervention (such as time travel) are also pre scripted events. Because we can not observe the world without time, there is no way to know if time is a factual thing, or as stated, merly an illsion caused by our own inadaquecies.

[Shinjula]

Indeed Randox, just because we percieve time, doesnt mean that it exists, however, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be pretty sure, its probably a duck.

 

 

 

I'm not being facetious here, just because the Universe is being perceived by us subjectively, does not mean we cannot or should not attempt to explore the universe around us and use rational reasoning to discover what elements exist and how they relate to each other.

 

 

 

There's a lot of people who seem to debate in this thread along the lines that because it's perceived its not really true, but at that level that no difference from talking about whether the chair your sat on or your mug of tea really exists. I'm not even saying that that's not a worthwhile debate to have, but just pointing out that that it's nothing especially connected to Time as a concept.

 

 

 

The regularity of nuclear decay for example, has, every time its been measured, has corresponded to other physical phenomena, such as the distance light travels, the rate at which objects fall under a gravitational field. When physicists look at the maths which connects these properties together a 4dimensional system is needed to keep track of the data, we know three of those dimensions are spacial, and the fourth corresponds sooo closely to the phenomena we have evolved to experience as time that I have to ask the most important question...

 

 

 

GIVEN ALL YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE UNIVERSE, TOGETHER WITH THE SCIENTIFIC DATA ACCUMULATED...

 

 

 

WHAT CAUSE HAVE YOU TO BELIEVE IT DOESN'T?

 

 

 

(I'm actually looking for answers to that btw - I suspect the most common one to be, 'because I'm bored', which to me is a reasonable response)

[Zierro]

Time isn't a constant. There is no universal time.

 

 

 

That's actually true. Reminds me of that one thing I watched where the flow of time would be different if you were to travel at the speed of light.

 

 

 

Time is just an invention of man. Everithing happens once and only once, there is no way to prove otherwise. Time travel will never happen because the event you wish to go to has ended, however that event that just ended is now unexsistant as it is not in the present. You cannot predict the future because there is no past, you cannot remember the past because there is no past. The human subconsiousness can remember everithing it has ever experienced simutaneously, that is why we can remember things in this "theoretical past". What is happening now will only affect you now, not before or after. If you breathe right now, the air will only affect you now. No matter how many times you try to recreate that breath, it will never be 100% the same, but maybe 99.99999999%. A monarch butterfly that migrates every winter does not do it because it can look at a clock and tell time, it feels that it is too cold or too hot and moves North/South in accordance to that. Past and future tenses such as -ed have never existed, only -ing.

 

 

 

What do you mean there is no past? How would something like a chemical reaction be possible if that were true?

[Joes_So_Cool]

Is what I see as red your blue?

 

 

 

That's easy to answer, I'd find something which I think is red and you'd tell me what color you think it is, problem solved.

[Riku3220]

Is what I see as red your blue?

 

 

 

That's easy to answer, I'd find something which I think is red and you'd tell me what color you think it is, problem solved.

 

 

 

No, no your didn't get it. We can't prove that my red is your blue because if I showed you my red it would apear blue to you.

 

 

 

for example: :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Mr. Green is indeed green to me, he is green to you as well, but your green could be my gray. Get it?

[Rebdragon]

Not really. The photon hits each of your eyes with pretty much the same energy. Unless one of you has broken/messed up retina (ie, colorblind), it's green for both of you mate.

 

 

 

That, or your pulling some philosophy BS which honestly doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Skull]

Not really. The photon hits each of your eyes with pretty much the same energy. Unless one of you has broken/messed up retina (ie, colorblind), it's green for both of you mate.

 

 

 

That, or your pulling some philosophy BS which honestly doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

It's the latter. It always is.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Is what I see as red your blue?

 

 

 

That's easy to answer, I'd find something which I think is red and you'd tell me what color you think it is, problem solved.

 

 

 

No, no your didn't get it. We can't prove that my red is your blue because if I showed you my red it would apear blue to you.

 

 

 

for example: :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Mr. Green is indeed green to me, he is green to you as well, but your green could be my gray. Get it?

 

 

 

That made no real point, if mr green is indeed green to you, and hes green to me as well, my green couldn't be your grey, because we both said your green was the same green that I think is green.