So you're saying that time is individual.

-Psynce-

Collective as well as individual.

Einstein said is was relative, but until now, that is only possible in our minds. In reality, maybe, maybe not.

@ Yao - read my post above your's please

@ Psynce - Time for me is a slowdown in the speed of light. Anything that time touches faces the byproducts of time i.e. aging. So whether we live or we dont live, Time will go on as it has been for 13.5 billion years (age of the universe)

but from a psychological perspective, Time is what we embed of the past in our memories but we can dig up the proof of time (as has been evident on earth through archeology)

so I cant see how our existence on earth has manifested as time

-e-

I know I'm WASTING MY TIME. :P :CrackUp:

-Psynce-

-e- that's a strong reasoning...

But, what was there 13.5 billion years ago? did time come into existence, or was it already there? If the first is the case, time is a byproduct of the big bang, and can have variable speeds, because the universe is expanding faster or slower, one of the two.

About your post before mine: doesn't that back up my statement about time being collective as well as individual?

[quote=Yao]But, what was there 13.5 billion years ago? did time come into existence, or was it already there? If the first is the case, time is a byproduct of the big bang, and can have variable speeds, because the universe is expanding faster or slower, one of the two. [/quote]

those are the mysteries of the universe, we dont know what was there 13.5 billion years ago, just like we dont know what the universe is expanding into..... but the general consensus (if I remember the article by Michio Kaku) is that anti - matter (what we think of as nothing) is extremely unstable on its own.... kinda like the yin & yang (for there to be light, there has to be dark, for good there is evil, [b]for matter to exist, there has to be anti-matter[/b]) so 13.5 billion years ago, when there was NOTHING, there was only anti-matter, which according to kaku is extremely unstable element on its own (fyi, small amounts of anti-matter have been produced in laboratories in the US) .....

consequently this unstable element sets of a chain reaction of events and we have the big bang. As the universe starts expanding at the speed of light (on the outer edges) some of the inner particles start slowing down instantly and as they too expand, we started experiencing a cooling (temperature-wise) and planets formed and yada yada yada....

can there be a variable in the speed of time ? I dont know and highly doubt it.... because time for me is related to a "speed" of something and that something is fixed.... and the reason I believe it is "fixed" is because why does 1 second take 1 second to pass and NOT 3 seconds.... speed is a variable but the variable you use to designate speed is fixed.

[quote=Yao]About your post before mine: doesn't that back up my statement about time being collective as well as individual?[/quote]

I am not sure what you trying to point at by saying collective as opposed to individual....in what reference are you using those terms

-e-

Pffff...answering this while mixing...jeez. :mrgreen: Will do that later..

[img]http://www.hacknight.org/img/nerds.jpg[/img]

[quote=Encryption]those are the mysteries of the universe, we dont know what was there 13.5 billion years ago, just like we dont know what the universe is expanding into..... but the general consensus (if I remember the article by Michio Kaku) is that anti - matter (what we think of as nothing) is extremely unstable on its own.... kinda like the yin & yang (for there to be light, there has to be dark, for good there is evil, [b]for matter to exist, there has to be anti-matter[/b]) so 13.5 billion years ago, when there was NOTHING, there was only anti-matter, which according to kaku is extremely unstable element on its own (fyi, small amounts of anti-matter have been produced in laboratories in the US) .....

consequently this unstable element sets of a chain reaction of events and we have the big bang. As the universe starts expanding at the speed of light (on the outer edges) some of the inner particles start slowing down instantly and as they too expand, we started experiencing a cooling (temperature-wise) and planets formed and yada yada yada....[/quote]

Let me add something to this...if our universe came into being 13.5 billion years ago, and came out of anti-matter, would it be possible that the big bang was the crossroads of a sandclock-figure (you know, the glass sand holding clocks in which the sand runs down throuth a 'waist' in the glass...damn, I can't remember the word in english!)? So, maybe there was an opposite universe, and now time has crossed that point and our universe was ceated? Just a thought..

I know anti-matter has already been created, but it existed only nanoseconds each time. It's potential for creating energy bursts is phenomenal, if only we could capture it and make it stable to use it at the time we wish... I also believe there has to be anti-matter in order for matter to exist, just like you.

[quote=Encryption]can there be a variable in the speed of time ? I dont know and highly doubt it.... because time for me is related to a "speed" of something and that something is fixed.... and the reason I believe it is "fixed" is because why does 1 second take 1 second to pass and NOT 3 seconds.... speed is a variable but the variable you use to designate speed is fixed.[/quote]

Variables in the speed of time would not easily be detected if the area they covered would be big enough. And that's very easy in this universe. We can still see only a small part of it, who knows what the future will bring. And imagine: if time does go faster, wouldn't we be going with it it, and thus not noticing it? Funny idea...time goes faster, we live faster and everything seems normal. I really don't know...

Can light travel slower than at light speed? If so...it can also travel faster. And maybe that could provide some anwers. Everybody's always talking about faster, never about slower. If you could slow down the speed of light...could you slow down time? I somehow believe they are connected, but that doesn't mean it is neccesarily so.

[quote=Encryption]I am not sure what you trying to point at by saying collective as opposed to individual....in what reference are you using those terms.[/quote]

Individual: me, experiencing time. Sometimes it seems to be going really fast, sometimes something can take forever.

But my perception of time is not connected to that of the collective: time in an absolute sense knows no relativity, and always has the same pace. The clock doesn't go faster or slower when it seems so in my mind.

24 hrs is 24 hrs, even though it may feel like 1 hour to me.

get it?

[quote=Encryption]yao I'm 2 cups of coffee down and you're really twisting me up on a tuesday bro :lol: :lol:

ok I'm sorta getting what you're saying and correct me if I'm wrong.... you're refering to the fact that if we are living the present and the present turns into the past, to be able to reach a point in the future, light would have to have travelled faster than itself to create a future which we would eventually live but since its the present that's going on, we're living at the edges of time ?

-e-[/quote]

i like thAt it sounds really convincing...there is no future it hasnt been created, so something or someone has to create it in order for us to visit it..wow that sounds like a really good movie....

good work yao!

Good work? Man, I hardly understand what I wrote down myself!! :mrgreen:

isn't time measured acording to the sun... a year, a day, an hour, etc... so there are diferent solar systems in our galaxy. they all should have theyre own time frame acording to their sun.. so if we went there with our timeframe and theirs was behind/ ahead , did we just travel in time?

^^ thats majorly obscure..... Time is constant i.e. 1 second = 1 second so the amount of time that those planetary systems take for their own revolutionary movements is just different....doesnt mean just cause they are moving at different speeds makes up travel throuhg a time dimension

-e-

No, in that case a day could have more hours ore less, depending if the planet you're standing on completes it's orbit faster or slower.

[quote=Encryption]Time is constant i.e. 1 second = 1 second[/quote]

That's because mankind invented time.

-Psynce-

time is relative.

[b][[u][url]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Twin's%20Paradox[/url][/u]][/b]

second (s): In the International System of Units (SI), the time interval equal to 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.

This will always true whatever your inertial frame of reference. If time slowed down you wouldn't be able to tell as you always percieve time at the same rate.

Antimatter is only unstabe near matter as they annihilate and become energy. Things would work if all the matter was exchanged for antimatter.

And if you were moving at the speed of light and turned on a torch, the light from the torch will be moving at the spped of light to all observers, in all frames of reference. That is the whole point of relativity.

Or something, you guys type too much and I get lost :roll:

Re: To revive an old topic...

[quote=Encryption]do you think we will see even the remotest possibility (in this lifetime) of

A) Finding out there is life elsewhere (other than earth) B) CERN will finally announce they have discovered the prospects of successfully performing an "expriment" related to time travel C) Space travel will actually become an affordable public affair

-e-[/quote]

A) It certainly exist but they will be smart enought to stay away from us. B) I dont think we will be that lucky C) Dont think so but Sky Car is a good possibility

[quote=Yao]Let me add something to this...if our universe came into being 13.5 billion years ago, and came out of anti-matter, would it be possible that the big bang was the crossroads of a sandclock-figure (you know, the glass sand holding clocks in which the sand runs down throuth a 'waist' in the glass...damn, I can't remember the word in english!)? So, maybe there was an opposite universe, and now time has crossed that point and our universe was ceated? Just a thought..

I know anti-matter has already been created, but it existed only nanoseconds each time. It's potential for creating energy bursts is phenomenal, if only we could capture it and make it stable to use it at the time we wish...I also believe there has to be anti-matter in order for matter to exist, just like you.[/quote]

Yes what you say (in my mind) is possible.... simply because scientists today believe that the universe is not expanding anymore, its actually contracting.... I think Seth Shostak mentioned "its kind of like the rubber band's TWANG that begins to contract after it has expanded all that it can".... but if you think of it.... if the universe could expand for 13.5 billion years in a zero gravity environment, what's to say it couldn't contract with the same force for 13.5 billion years consequnetly imploding.... this is the part you refer to where the last grain of sand drops in the hour glass where there is nothing but anti-matter left and consequnetly, the whole cosmic big-bang cycle should resume once again..... essentially starting from a clean slate...

[quote=Yao]Variables in the speed of time would not easily be detected if the area they covered would be big enough. And that's very easy in this universe. We can still see only a small part of it, who knows what the future will bring. And imagine: if time does go faster, wouldn't we be going with it it, and thus not noticing it? Funny idea...time goes faster, we live faster and everything seems normal. I really don't know...[/quote]

for me, I imagine time being constant at a given accelaration. No sooner do you go faster, time seems to slow down. They did all these funky experiments in the 70's where after tuning 2 atomic clocks to the exact same time, they loaded one on a jet, left the other on the ground and flew allo around the world. On their return, they noticed that the one on the plane had become a bit slower, so yes time tends to stand still at the speed of light and for every bit that you slow down from the speed of light, time slows down however AT THAT GIVEN SPEED, its CONSTANT, so if you use a base to measure it, you will always have a constant...

[quote=Yao]Can light travel slower than at light speed? If so...it can also travel faster. And maybe that could provide some anwers. Everybody's always talking about faster, never about slower. If you could slow down the speed of light...could you slow down time? I somehow believe they are connected, but that doesn't mean it is neccesarily so.[/quote]

yes they have slowed particles of light down, I think I posted a link here a little while ago

[quote=Yao]Individual: me, experiencing time. Sometimes it seems to be going really fast, sometimes something can take forever.[/quote]

pass that shit over man, let me take a huff of it :P

[quote=Yao]But my perception of time is not connected to that of the collective: time in an absolute sense knows no relativity, and always has the same pace. The clock doesn't go faster or slower when it seems so in my mind.

24 hrs is 24 hrs, even though it may feel like 1 hour to me.

get it?[/quote]

ok I kind of get what you're saying, personal perception as opposed to a collective perception... dont really have a comment on that because that would turn this into a psychological debate.... :P

-e-

[quote=demonAfro]Antimatter is only unstabe near matter as they annihilate and become energy. Things would work if all the matter was exchanged for antimatter.[/quote]

are you sure about that ?? because what you are refering to states how to energies (a positive and negative) cancel each other.... but instable in the sense it cannot support itself consequently changing to another form is completely different...... kinda like gasoline.... exposed in the environment, its unstable in its physical state consequently changing to vapor.......

-e-

DemonAfro may be right, I remember reading something about that. And it also axplains the potential energy that comes out. Keep it safe form matter, no problem. Let it come into contact with matter = energy burst.

They're already thinking about anti-matter propelled rockets and stuff as a possibility to reach near light speed velocities. Maybe I can find something about it..

^^ I know what you're refering to regarding the anti-matter propelled craft to hit near light speeds. But tons and tons of issues with it, the main being, how do you NOT blow up the craft in the process because essentially, its a nuclear reaction (detonation) so its adios muchachos if you dont know how to shield the craft from it.

-e-

Heheheh, nicely put! But yes, that was the main issue...controlling nuclear bursts.

I think we are quite a way from antimatter propulsion at the moment, storage shouldn't be a problem, so long as you have some failsafe magnetic system or something then no worries. No problems with waste and efficiency since it is all annihilated and converted to energy and a few kilos will get you a long way. It is just that the total amount ever produced is miniscule and there is no efficient source for it, yet.

[quote=remoh]have you guys read about the space elevator? ...supodsedly it could be done within 25 years

[url]http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html[/url][/quote]

Yeah but since they currently don't have the nanotube technology to do it (strands not long enough), NASA is looking into doing a space elevator on the moon. And we could build that today since the gravity of the moon is much lower, and a few other factors. [url]http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_space_elevator.html[/url]