The speed of time

[The_oMeGa]

Read the other one this is messed up

[The_oMeGa]

Time is an invention of man simply to calculate night day and when earth makes it around the sun, right?

Not according to Einstein.
Einstein proposed that time was relative. He said that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe and that time depended on the position and velocity of an object. His idea was that the speed of light was the only universal absolute, and nothing could exceed that speed; that to go the speed of light time would have to slow down.
The conflict of this, however, is that Einstein said that for an object to travel the speed of light time must slow down (Because, of course, velocity is distance divided by time). This would mean that time need not slow down for any mass in motion until it comes upon the speed of light; this would contradict the idea of a man walking would age less than a man sitting. Since the latter was proven we must assume that this theory is true, not to disprove the light theory, but my idea is that Einstein didn't quite take that idea to the full extreme.
The fourth dimension is time. Imagine time as a platform that is pushing you forward at the speed of light. You and your friends each have their own "platform". You would arrive about 670,000,000 miles away in exactly 1 hour. But say you walk at a speed of 10 miles per hour on your platform. You would exceed the speed of light by 10 mph, but if einstein was correct in saying that the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then time would be forced to slow down. You would arrive at the same place at the same time as your friends on their platforms, but time would have slowed for you.
Still again, as the pattern goes on, what if you started running at the speed of light on your platform. To keep you from exceeding the speed of light, wouldn't time be forced to "stop"?

While this theory is of course yet to be proven, it does propose that time, although relative to the observer, is constant to the universe.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by The_oMeGa
He said that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe

Well, you're getting the idea. He said that C is a constant but not the only constant. He says nothing about what happens if one could get to C, only what happens as we approach this apparent speed limit. You need to do some more reading but you're starting to get it. [;)]

[LURCH]

If you take a look at the Topic, "Time Dilation" in the Physics Forum, you'll find a paraphrase of Brian Greene's description of this phenomenon. Basically, it says that the total volocity of any thing is c, and that under normal circumstances, most of this volocity is dedicated to progress through time. However, as you have stated, any movement through one of the other dimensions is subtracted from forward progress through time.

[totoro]

i have a few idea on this....first i think speed of time is a new idea that is worth to be consider.

why our time slow down when we are moving( no matter what speed)? IMO, because time need to chase us. the rate of time that flow from 0 to 1 second is the same for stars far away if they speed is the same to earth speed. when you approaching the speed of light, time need to chase you, that's why you know that your time become slower compare to an observer in earth.
when you enter a room, you see everythings didn't move(man standing still,water stop in the air, etc) then you said that the time in the room has stop. but does it really? just because things didn't move in space doesn't mean the time have stop. from here we can know the relationship of spacetime.IMO time is more than its definition, time is a space(still thinking,sorry).

[RuroumiKenshin]

You know, although I have read that the speed of time may be an illusion, I still get the notion that it may have a speed. Can't the rate of entropy increasing be measured? Or does it not make sense to say that time has speed? Because time allows for speed, both speed and time would be intertwined(sp?)...

[Alexander]

One shall be careful trying to associate time with dimension. Dimension is freedom to move, but there is not much freedom to move in time (say, nothing can go back and forth in time). So time is a coordinate, not a dimension.

(That is why tiny "i" in front of it in all SR, GR and QM equations when you try to mix it with space - to distinguish it from spatial coordinates which ARE the dimensions (degrees of freedom) we know.)

[The_oMeGa]

Totoro, thank you for your efforts, but i didnt understand a damn thing you said.

So alexander, you don't believe that Einstein was correct in saying time is relative? It's just a coordinate, never changing? What if, like i said, you were going the speed of light, and you accelerated to C + 10 mph. Time would be forced to slow down 10mph/C of a second in order for you not to exceed the speed of light. In your vision, you would be going C + 10, but when you looked at your watch, it would be going (at such minute speeds over C it wouldnt be noticed to the "naked" eye) slightly slower. This is to mathmatically compensate for your excess speeds.

Y = 1 year

1 light year = C + 10 mph
(10mph/C * Y) + Y

*Because Distance/Time = Velocity

Therefore time would have slowed 10/C for as long as you were traveling at that velocity.

PS try to keep the physics terms simple LOL havent had physics, 10th grade.

[Stranger]

The fourth dimension is time. Imagine time as a platform that is pushing you forward at the speed of light.

So....are you taking time as a spatial dimension....

[Hurkyl]

Dimension is freedom to move

No... dimension is the number of linearly independant directions.


That is why tiny "i" in front of it in all SR, GR and QM equations

What i? The only way time is distinguished in SR and GR is from the signature of the metric, which is chosen to agree with reality, not because time really isn't a dimension and we're fudging the mathematics to make it look like a dimension.

[The_oMeGa]

Hmm....dont know what i was thinking there...i dont think it is a spatial dimension...I did not mean for time to be thought of as the "platform". The "platform" i was talking about would be massive.

But i do believe that time is more of a "free" dimension than the coordinate idea we associate it with. I believe there [I]is[I/] freedom to move in time, we have just not reached (and may never reach) the point at which it varies. Which does contradict a "proven" theory in a way, by saying it doesnt vary until it reaches the speed of light.

I think that time is relative to speed(and of course to the observer). I think time varies inversley with Speed

[drag]

Greetings !

Since Newton at least (I think) time was
considered to be a parameter that discribes
the rate of occurance of physical processes.
SR was formed by combining the constancy of
the speed of light (c) with the above assumption -
simply applying it. That is also the way time
is percieved today.

Live long and prosper.

[The_oMeGa]

So my whole theory is nothing new?

[drag]

Greetings The_oMeGa !
Originally posted by The_oMeGa
So my whole theory is nothing new?
I appologize, but after reading your messages
I still do not understand what that theory is.

Just think of time as a clock. Everything and
everyone has it and the clock makes certain
all the laws of physics stay the same for
that thing/person. Why would someone
consider it to be a dimension ? Because
a dimension is some continuum - like the
real line R in math. Now we have spacial
dimensions that discribe the relative
position of an object to us and we have
the time dimension to discribe the relative
point in time of an object.

Now, before relativity we thought everything
is simultaneous and the time was the same
for every object. But, this is wrong and
in fact unintuative when you consider it
a bit more and when you know light has
a limmited velocity. For example, if I send
a spaceship to a certain galaxy and the
cute alien in that galaxy knows emmidiately
it's coming because he can see it - there's
no need for some different time for him relative
to me. But, if light and every other interaction
is limmited to c and less he will only see
the spaceship departing millions of years later -
thus he has a different time value for this event
relative to me.

A usefull term to discribe this is a "light cone".
Basicly, I consider an event to be a definite
point in space-time (definite space and time values)
relative to me, then time is the line passing
through that point and the center of a 2D (for
a simple example) cone and the growing weidth
of the cone are the spacial dimensions - volume value,
with the relation between these two parameters
defined by c - the speed of light (the limmit
for the speed of any interaction spreading in
space). Thus I get a light cone for my event.

For my space-time coordinates I get a certain
sequence of light cones - events. But, for
a different observer the sequence may be different
depending on his relative (to me) motion through
space-time.

Live long and prosper.

[sheldon]

C=T=G all the same.

[The_oMeGa]

Basically, this is my theory:

Time is relative to the observer, and varies inversley with the speed of the observer but only when the observer has reached the speed of light.

Say you are going at the speed of C and you increase your speed by 10Mph. If Einstein was correct in saying that C is the universal speed "limit", then time will be forced to slow down 10/C of a second to mathmatically (Distance/time = Velocity) compensate for this.

This is fairly simple, which is why I asked if it had been stated before.

[sheldon]

This is my personal thoughts on the subject, The speed of light is the time barrier. The reason light seems to be constant at that speed is because the photons that do manage to increase to C+10 break the time barrier. I think this barrier is the same for Gravity, light, and Time. What I do not understand is why. Why is 186000 mps a constant for these things? What happens after that velocity? time travel, dementional travel, disintigration, etc. I imagine if you were in a ship and you broke the speed of light you would see flashes of light, similar to a sonic boom from a jet. They use to believe that the sound barrier could not be broken and that something wierd would happen. Consider this if you are in a ship and traveling at the speed of light and you decide to go 10 mph faster a flash of light happens and the ship you see has already past you a year ago but your just now seeing it or something along thoughs lines. You are traveling at c+10mph and just get there or wherever just a little faster than c. No hocus pocus about it.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Time is relative to the observer, and varies inversley with the speed of the observer but only when the observer has reached the speed of light.


Can you expand on how 'inversely' time varies?

[RuroumiKenshin]

then time is the line passing
through that point and the center of a 2D (for
a simple example) cone and the growing weidth
of the cone are the spacial dimensions


A line, drag? A line describes a 2D surface...but then you said you used 2D for simplicity. But, you also included a 3 demensional figure, a cone into the example, so now I'm a little bewildered.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
No... dimension is the number of linearly independant directions.




Is time a direction?

If you think so, then how about energy, or mass, or temperature?




What i? The only way time is distinguished in SR and GR is from the signature of the metric, which is chosen to agree with reality, not because time really isn't a dimension and we're fudging the mathematics to make it look like a dimension.

That is exactly what we do (fudging the mathematics for our convinience). Because math is strictly logic, it shows us that time and space don't mix, forcing us to separate them by i=(-1)0.5

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Alexander
Is time a direction?

If you think so, then how about energy, or
mass, or temperature?
Isn't time supposed to be a vector, not a scalar ?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A line, drag? A line describes a 2D surface...
but then you said you used 2D for simplicity.
But, you also included a 3 demensional figure,
a cone into the example, so now I'm a little
bewildered.
It's not really a cone if it's 2D, you're right. [:D]
I used a 2D example to simplify my discription. [;)]
The weidth represents volume - 3 spacial dimensions.
The other perpendicular axis is time, of course.
So, the volume - V = (2 * c * t)^3 .

Live long and prosper.

[The_oMeGa]

BTW, my old theory is total bs haha...do the math i set up its backwards lol...i revised it and its a lil better, but completely contradicts my old one so...

[Hurkyl]

Is time a direction?

Nope. Neither is space or position.


That is exactly what we do (fudging the mathematics for our convinience). Because math is strictly logic, it shows us that time and space don't mix, forcing us to separate them by i=(-1)0.5

Do left and right mix?
What about North and East?

[sheldon]

I think of time as a place. I am going to meet you on the corner of 5th and 10th at 9:00pm. If I am not there on time we do not meet. This is what gives it a dimentional quality. The relativity could be explained like this, if your traveling across two poles that have lights on them and when you reach the exact middle the lights turn on, which light do you see first? The light is traveling at the same speed, (186000 mps) you would see the light of the pole your traveling towards first because you are traveling towards that time point and away from the other time point. If you were not moving at all and in the center you would see both at the same time. Time is truly relative to your velocity.

[Alexander]

Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time?

Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).

[RuroumiKenshin]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is time a direction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nope. Neither is space or position.


Time is the direction of the increasing of entropy.[g)]

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by sheldon
I think of time as a place. I am going to meet you on the corner of 5th and 10th at 9:00pm. If I am not there on time we do not meet. This is what gives it a dimentional quality. The relativity could be explained like this, if your traveling across two poles that have lights on them and when you reach the exact middle the lights turn on, which light do you see first? The light is traveling at the same speed, (186000 mps) you would see the light of the pole your traveling towards first because you are traveling towards that time point and away from the other time point. If you were not moving at all and in the center you would see both at the same time. Time is truly relative to your velocity.

Yes, time could be viewed as a coordinate that specifies a when something existed/occured.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Alexander
Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time.



Time is a demension. (why do people keep saying it isn't?) A coordinate is :
"Mathematics: Any of a set of two or more numbers used to determine the position of a point, line, curve, or plane in a space of a given dimension with respect to a system of lines or other fixed references. "

And since you agree with time being a coordinate, then you must agree with this definition I found at dictionary.com

[Tom Leigh]

Isn't time simply the movement of information through consciousness?

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom Leigh
Isn't time simply the movement of information
through consciousness?
Intresting perspective. In a word - yes.
(But there are LOTS of buts one could add. [;)] )

[Tom Leigh]

Like what? To me time is movement and the primal movement is thought. Unless something moves there is no time, surely?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Time is the direction of the increasing of entropy.[g)]

There is no such direction.

Entropy is just a fraction of states occupied. Let any system to occupy more states - it occupies more then. Nothing here gives time a "direction".

[newton1]

well....
i don't think we should find the speed for the time
time is just a coordinate....like a space
time is not a thing ....there is no particles inside the time
i don't we should consider the speed of a coordinate....
only the object moving on the coordinate have time

[automaton]

i have unfortunately no link currently
however my friend and i read somewhere
where in a special gas light had been accelerated
i also heard light had been decelerated and "stopped"

i will google and
heres a new search engine] www.kartoo.com
try to find references
anyone else seen this data?

[LogicalAtheist]

Yes - light can be slowed down. No one said it couldn't!

Here is a pointer.

The rule is that NOTHING can CROSS THE BARRIER of C.

Objects at one moment going below C cannot cross. Objects going over C will never EVER drop below C.

If you guys are trying to understand what happens as something approaches light, I'd suggest you look at relativistc equations.

From those you can derive that, when V = C you have a few different variables (mass, momentum, length, time) which can in the EQUATIONS but not necessarily in reality, adjust such that it will be possible.

You will find that it is the mass and length (therefore momentum) which adjust. And not time.

No one said time travel at any other "speed" than what we travel at time now, would occur if one approaches C. the point made is that relativistic time changes.

If you want the relativistic equations I can get them for you, otherwise takes to long to type, but that's a good starter into looking at what would occur.

[LogicalAtheist]

WHY TIME EXISTS.

RULE #1 - Only one "unit" of mass can occupy a space. For instance two cars cannot be parked in the same space. But, we as humans have certainly seen two cars parked in the same space. This is the world of NO-TIME.

How have we seen this occur? We call this time. A scalar of some magnititude measured between one mass occupation and another mass occupation. This is OUR WORLD.

That is an easy understanding.

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - Time is absolutely a scalar quantity.

Alexander said: Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate.

Absolutely not!

Please drive your car to EST 9:23 PM October 21st.

I think perhaps what you were saying is that, if we assume our universe is 4 dimensional, that a coordinate could be

(X, Y, Z, T)

X Y Z being a special location, and time being well, it's special little self.

There we have a coordinate. But each of those independantly is not a coordinate.

So now I could say meet me at (from some universally known X = 0 Y = 0 Z = 0 and some universal time T) (308.34, 123.3, 123.65, 3434:234:88)

And there I will have milk and cookies waiting.

That would work just fine!

[:))] [:))]

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom Leigh
Like what? To me time is movement and the
primal movement is thought. Unless something
moves there is no time, surely?
Well, if you for example believe some things
exist independently of our consciousness then
you could say that time is not just the above.

Live long and prosper.

[totoro]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
WHY TIME EXISTS.

RULE #1 - Only one "unit" of mass can occupy a space. For instance two cars cannot be parked in the same space. But, we as humans have certainly seen two cars parked in the same space. This is the world of NO-TIME.

How have we seen this occur? We call this time. A scalar of some magnititude measured between one mass occupation and another mass occupation. This is OUR WORLD.

That is an easy understanding.

well..that's an easy understanding but it give me an insight to rethink my idea. thanks.

how long is i second for us that is still and how long is 1 second for someone moving at 0.9c? and why? that's the speed of time because every second is different for any object moving at different speed, IMO,what do you think?

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by totoro
well..that's an easy understanding but it give me an insight to rethink my idea. thanks.

how long is i second for us that is still and how long is 1 second for someone moving at 0.9c? and why? that's the speed of time because every second is different for any object moving at different speed, IMO,what do you think?


TOTORO - It's important to remember that time is relativistic.

So let's say, cuzz I don't wanna do the formula right now, that one second to the traveler, which is called proper time, is one second. But the person watching the travel is 1.2 seconds

Those two times are relativistically equal.

One time is for one person, the other for the other. You can't compare the two and say one is fast.

It unfortunately isn't correct.

So traveling faster does not speed up time. It only changes the dilation of time between you and a stationary person starting at the same point.

[totoro]

Originally posted by Alexander
Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time?

Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).

alexander, i'm wondering if time is not a dimension, then why all the physicist says that time is the forth dimension beside the three spatial dimension. and now there's even more dimension in string theory but time is still consider a dimensionin this theory. this is as far as i know. (maybe i have a wrong definition about time)

[totoro]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
TOTORO -

One time is for one person, the other for the other. You can't compare the two and say one is fast.



i don't understand why i cannot compare the two. can you please explain more detail for me.

[newton1]

Originally posted by Alexander
Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time?

Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).

i am not agree with u
time is exactly a dimension
you say time can be positive or negative,the does not have direction
then what the positive and negative mean??!!! you don't think it sound strange?
and the dimension can be a coordinate
space is have 3 dimension
the coordinate of space is (x, y, z) ...
time is a dimension and aslo a coordinate
so our world is 4 dimension and have coordiante(x, y ,z ,t)

[LURCH]

Originally posted by totoro
well..that's an easy understanding but it give me an insight to rethink my idea. thanks.

how long is i second for us that is still and how long is 1 second for someone moving at 0.9c? and why? that's the speed of time because every second is different for any object moving at different speed, IMO,what do you think?

Well, if you take that track, then the speed of time is c. Get to that speed, and you come parellel to time. You keep pace with a specific moment and become "stationary" relative to it.

"Time does not pass; we do."

[newton1]

Originally posted by totoro
i don't understand why i cannot compare the two. can you please explain more detail for me.

because our world relavite
no matter it is a time or speed
just like maybe you saw that person is fast
but i saw that person is not too fast
some people saw that person is slow
because our universe have no a absolutely stationaly frame
so we have no absolutely time and absolutely space....
your time is not absolutely frame ...
so you cant compare with other people time

[LogicalAtheist]

Lurch - with the little I know in this area, I think you bring my thoughts to the table.

The speed of time probably would best be defined as C (in a vacuum).


Because you always hear how traveling faster than C is time travel. I do not understand why it is time travel, but thus we in fact are traveling at some time LESS THAN C.

[newton1]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Lurch - with the little I know in this area, I think you bring my thoughts to the table.

The speed of time probably would best be defined as C (in a vacuum).


Because you always hear how traveling faster than C is time travel. I do not understand why it is time travel, but thus we in fact are traveling at some time LESS THAN C.

this because when we travel with C
our time will stop
travel faster than C can be a time travel is just a imagination
no any theory can prove

[totoro]

Well, if you take that track, then the speed of time is c. Get to that speed, and you come parellel to time. You keep pace with a specific moment and become "stationary" relative to it.

this is really what i mean...but i don't know whether it's that the speed of time is c or not. and i want to add something. this mean that we will never get over c.

[LogicalAtheist]

Totori - really there is no speed of time. But if we wanna bend the wording and create such a term, then the speed of time is C, bencause as stated above time stops at C.

In an ocean, at C you sit on top of the wave forever, go further and you slide down, go back to you fall backwards.

As I stated earlier the rule is the SPEED OF LIGHT cannot be breached.

If you are <C you can't go higher and if you are >C you can't go lower than C.

[totoro]

there's something that i forget to say, this is an interesting i read from book.
if an object is standing still,then it is always travel at the speed of c in time dimension.but when this object moving at some speed, some of light-speed motion through time will diverts to light-speed motion through space.that's why time for a moving object is slowwer than the time for a stationary object. what do you think about this?

[LogicalAtheist]

Totoro - please repost your concept in a way that makes sense. It's missing many words and thus I can't even tell what you're saying.

[Tom Leigh]

Time and whether it exists.

To me time is the passing of information through consciousness, which you physicists never include into your equations. Have you read the book, The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics, by Julian Barbour. He postulate that time doesn’t exist at all. (You can find him on the web)

I agree with a lot of his arguments, but he too tries to leave consciousness out of his equations and it just doesn’t work. Think about it. Unless you are consciousness nothing exists for you. If none of us were, if consciousness didn’t exist anywhere could anything at all exist? I postulate that it couldn’t.

Barbour is saying in his book I think, in a roundabout way spaced with a lot a maths, that the universe is consciousness and time is thought. Hence nothing moves.

Yet thought moves, or rather information moves through consciousness, hence time.

There is I believe this region, which I call the Psychron Zone, Barbour called it Platonia, where all thoughts meet and link. That ‘place’ is the universe.

[totoro]

LogicalAtheist, you can read the book, elegant universe, because i copy it from that book. it is in page 50 saying about motion through spacetime. after thinking for sometime, i found out that is me that don't understand. i'm started to understand now why we cannot compare the two. i'm really happy that begin with don't understand to understanding.

the happiest thing for us is not the answer, but the proccess itself. we experience it by ourself. thank you very much LogicalAtheist and now i really really need to rethink my idea. thanks!!

[LogicalAtheist]

Happy to here you're comment totoro. As for the book, I think I will get it ASAP as I need a good book to read before school starts next month. It's on my amazon.com list

[LURCH]

Originally posted by totoro
LogicalAtheist, you can read the book, elegant universe, because i copy it from that book. it is in page 50 saying about motion through spacetime.

LOL! That's where I got my statement that the speed of time is c. The idea is that every material object has a total volocity of c through spacetime. Any movement in one direction is subtracted from one's progress through other dimensions. Example; if you move North at 10khp, and I check your progress one hour from now, you'll be 10k North of where you were. But, if you go North-East, at the same speed, one hour from now I'll find you only 5k further North. Your 10kph volocity has been split; 5k North and 5k East.

So, taking your total volocity through spacetime as c, I add the sum of your volocities as; 5kph Northward, 5kph Eastward, and "c - 10kph" Forward through Time (entropy-ward?)!

[drag]

Greetings Tom Leigh !

Well, I do not disagree with you Tom Leigh
because anything's possible and I can't
refute such a possibility, it's also an
intresting one.

However, what you have to realize is that
science is only there to deal with the
data we observe. Now if we observe evidence
for the above - it won't be a reasonable
and self-consistent possibility, will it ?

Otherwise, however, it just remains a possibility.
Further more, it is an unnecessary assumption.
Science does NOT assume that everything is
"physical", there is not even a definition
for that word. Science is just about observing
the data we receive - whatever its source and
wether it has a source at all or not.

Live long and prosper.

[sheldon]

lets go the opposite direction from C, what about absolute Zero, no motion, Can time exist if motion does not? can energy exist in motionless.

[heusdens]

What about the speed (increase) of time?
I think that same as space expands, also time expands. So, effectively the time between now and the Big Bang was an infinite amount of time.

[newton1]

well....
i still dun think the time should have speed
just like what i said before
time is only a dimension or coordinate
only the object in the dimension have speed
absolute zore will not make the time stop
this only show the entropy is zero
nothing will make the time stop

[heusdens]

Originally posted by sheldon
lets go the opposite direction from C, what about absolute Zero, no motion, Can time exist if motion does not? can energy exist in motionless.

No matter in whatever form (including energy) can exist without motion/change, which means time has to exist.

If there is no motion, then neither there is matter. We can conceive of this as "pure time" (time without any foreign admixtures).

[DR OF DEATH]

ok i am having trouble with the platform theory in the very first post. you are on a platform that is moving through space at the speed of light, and you are walking at ten miles an hour on this platform. well it doesnt matter if you are walking at ten hundred or zero miles an hour on the platform as it does not add to the total speed, your platform is travelling at the speed of light you could be sitting, walking, or doing things with your girl/boy friend, the platform and therefore you will still be travelling at the same speed regardless.and i think the reason we cant travel faster than the speed of light is becuase when we move energy is turned into acceleration energy and mass, the faster we go a higher percentage turns to mass, and as we approach the speed of light all the energy transfers to mass which means you then have no more acceleration energy and cant speed up any more, this means we can travel AT the speed of light but not faster than light, which is why the situation in the first post wouldnt work. [g)] [8)] [<:)] [s(] [zz)] [zz)] [zz)] [zz)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom Leigh
Time and whether it exists.

To me time is the passing of information through consciousness, which you physicists never include into your equations. Have you read the book, The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics, by Julian Barbour. He postulate that time doesn’t exist at all. (You can find him on the web)

I agree with a lot of his arguments, but he too tries to leave consciousness out of his equations and it just doesn’t work. Think about it. Unless you are consciousness nothing exists for you. If none of us were, if consciousness didn’t exist anywhere could anything at all exist? I postulate that it couldn’t.


So you in fact belief that before conscious organisms came into being in the course of evolution, nothing whatsoever existed?

This is like the religious belief that a Deity created all of the universe and man at the same time.

However, we know from physisc that earth existed long before there was any life.

So clearly there was something existing before there was consciousness. Matter is primary, and consciousness is secondary.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
So you in fact belief that before conscious organisms came into being in the course of evolution, nothing whatsoever existed?

This is like the religious belief that a Deity created all of the universe and man at the same time.

However, we know from physisc that earth existed long before there was any life.

So clearly there was something existing before there was consciousness. Matter is primary, and consciousness is secondary.

Just weighing in to say that the scenario might just be the other way around: that CONSCIOUSNESS -- as the Primal Energy -- PRECEDED the "condensation" of "matter" FROM it (consciousness).

The fact that, at the moment, consciousness cannot be detected or measured -- except by its EFFECT -- does not preclude its existence as a "material" (i.e., SOME sort of SUBSTANCE) thing!

I'm with Leigh...and as I have said before: any cosmological theory that does not include the nature and evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS is an INCOMPLETE THEORY!