roosh Registered User
#31

Azelfafage said:
Ok :

The past does not exist.

Therefore the future does not exist.

So Logically.....NOW does not exist either.

(Seeing as NOW is the dividing line between the past and the future.)

Eezy Peezy.


Now is all that exists. The past is merely a mind made construct of "a former now" and the future is merely a projection of what Now will be like.

Both are man/mind made constructs and are to an extent illusory

roosh Registered User
#32

Azelfafage said:
Joking aside.

The notion of past and present and future is fundamental to the theory of General Relativity.
A Black Hole can play havoc with "The River of Time",as seen by an outsider.
Explained here at this link:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_whatare.htm

Quote from the article:

"As you get closer to a black hole, the flow of time slows down, compared to flow of time far from the hole. (According to Einstein's theory, any massive body, including the Earth, produces this effect. Earth's gravity is so weak that the slowing of time is not noticeable, but the effect has been confirmed using sensitive instruments. For example, at sea level you age one-billionth of a second less every year than you would if you lived on top of Mt. Everest.) Near a black hole, the slowing of time is extreme. From the viewpoint of an observer outside the black hole, time stops. For example, an object falling into the hole would appear frozen in time at the edge of the hole."

Eezy Peezy.


interesting article. Any idea where one could check out that study about aging slower under the ocean that on Mt.Everest?

The thing about black holes is that they are, by their very definition, unobservable and cannot be investigated. Almost God like if you will.

The mathematics that supports their existence is also reliant on Dark Matter and to an even greater extent Dark Energy in order to balance the equations - if I understand correctly.

Now Dark Energy is supposed to make up 70%+ of the mass (is it mass) of the universe, but that also is pretty difficult to detect is it, and can only be implied by its absence. Again, not sure if I have that fully correct.

This of course then is reconciled with Quantum Mechanics on the basis of String theory (of which there were 5), which was then unified under M theory, which lead to the postulation that the universe actually exists on a floating membrane, along with potential other parallell universes, the collision of which could potentially negate the need for a singularity, or source of a big bang.

The questions that appear to remain however, is what exactly is the floating membrane upon which we live made of, how many potential other universes are there? What are they floating in.

But I suppose, the first question that can be asked is what exactly has been observed at the subatomic level? Have Quarks ever been observed?


I apologise, I just read over the post and it comes across as a little incredulous, but as an outside observer - and it could in large part be due to a lack of understanding - it appears like a house of cards.

roosh Registered User
#33

Azelfafage said:
At the risk of hogging this thread I can point you to the operation of your Sat-Nav. gadget.

The satellites on which a Sat Nav depend HAVE to take into account Einsten's "Time Dilation".

GPS technology Explained here:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Quote:

"To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.
Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion."

"Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away".

Won't hog this thread again...I promise
.


cheers for the posts. i'll check out those links. Is the Special relativity lecture very mathsy? I hope it isn't because I would love to understand it all better.

Do you know any other links to lectures and the like that would be accessible for a lay person, or documentaries that explain it relatively accurately (pun unavoidable)

Azelfafage Registered User
#34

Gravity B satellite.

Still trying to beat Einstein.

Einstein wins.......so far.

See link:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html

.

.

VinnyTGM Registered User
#35

If you think about it, everything is made of molecule's. Time is just a way of expressing when one molecule did something to another molecule. Time is nothing else, obviously human's use time to run their live's but time is not real.

So say you boiled the kettle half an hour ago, all that happaned there was that h2o got heated up to a certain temperature, there is no specific time attached to that in reality. But human's give a time to it for , as above it make's it easier to plan thing's. (How would you plan an appointment if there was no such way of measuring of when you wanted it to happen).

All that's happening in the universe is that molecule's are interacting with eachother in different way's.

Time is a man made item that is not real, only used to express when thing's happened.

r3nu4l Administrator
#36

I just deleted some drivel a few moments ago, you know, in the past!

Back on topic please.

roosh Registered User
#37

r3nu4l said:
I just deleted some drivel a few moments ago, you know, in the past!

Back on topic please.


I'd be willing to bet that when you deleted it, you were in the present. Not "the present moment in time", but the present tense if you like.

I would have to say that the past does not exist, because all that ever exists is "the now", so that means, what we perceive as the "past" was at one stage "the now", and what we perceive as "the future", will [never really match our perception but will] materialise as "the now".


What we perceive as the past used to exist, but it no longer exists.

#38

Wouldn't the past be the future?
If as they say everything will end up with an increase in entropy isn't the universe going backwards?Or would it be like a gas filling a box which gets more organised and thus is going forwards in time?Increasing in entropy.Can both happen at once?

UCDEamon Registered User
#39

The past does not exist. The past existed. The present exists. The future will exist.

1 person has thanked this post
UCDEamon Registered User
#40

UCDEamon said:
The past does not exist. The past existed. The present exists. The future does not exist. The future will exist.



When you conjugare the verb "to exist" in the present tense as in "Does the past exist?" definition of the work exist in that context is to exist in the present, the past is not the present so the answer is no. If however you asked "Did the past exist?" The exist there refers to the past tense so the answer would be yes. Same thing applies to the future. Except its a bit more intuitive to realise that the future does not exist right now.

Makes you think that one. I mean what is the difference between the past and the present?

roosh Registered User
#41

UCDEamon said:
When you conjugare the verb "to exist" in the present tense as in "Does the past exist?" definition of the work exist in that context is to exist in the present, the past is not the present so the answer is no. If however you asked "Did the past exist?" The exist there refers to the past tense so the answer would be yes. Same thing applies to the future. Except its a bit more intuitive to realise that the future does not exist right now.

Makes you think that one. I mean what is the difference between the past and the present?


just with regard to that , when the past existed it was the present, and when the future comes to be it will also be the present.


When we use the word past, we are talking about reality as it was, but no longer is, and so therefore no longer existing. Therefore the past does not exist.

Similarly, the word future refers to reality as it will be, not what it is now, and so therefore, the future does not exist either, nor will it ever, as it will always be the present.


So, the past never existed, as it always was and always will be the present.


Past and future are only human constructs, they exist only in the mind as a memory of a passed present, and anticipation of the coming present.

Turtwig Censoring your opinion since you posted
#42

mangaroosh said:
just with regard to that , when the past existed it was the present, and when the future comes to be it will also be the present.


When we use the word past, we are talking about reality as it was, but no longer is, and so therefore no longer existing. Therefore the past does not exist.

Similarly, the word future refers to reality as it will be, not what it is now, and so therefore, the future does not exist either, nor will it ever, as it will always be the present.


So, the past never existed, as it always was and always will be the present.


Past and future are only human constructs, they exist only in the mind as a memory of a passed present, and anticipation of the coming present.


Are you making an argument from science or are you making an argument from philosophy?

roosh Registered User
#43

Malty_T said:
Are you making an argument from science or are you making an argument from philosophy?


It was in response to the post above, and in keeping with the pre-ceding post, I felt.

r3nu4l Administrator
#44

Science and Philosophy are closely linked. Both make excellent use of Logic and we should remember what a PhD is too

However, I'd like to leave the English grammar and tense rules out of it and stick to more scientific arguments on time and the perception thereof.

2 people have thanked this post
roosh Registered User
#45

r3nu4l said:
Science and Philosophy are closely linked. Both make excellent use of Logic and we should remember what a PhD is too

However, I'd like to leave the English grammar and tense rules out of it and stick to more scientific arguments on time and the perception thereof.



safe.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!