User Controls
Is Time An Illusion?
-
2017-04-02 at 10:06 AM UTCAlthough rather than TDR's retarded perception of it, it means more that everything is an illusion, natural or not. Or rather, our perception of everything is "artificial", and decoupled from the actuality of everything. As described by gauge theory.
-
2017-04-02 at 10:08 AM UTCTime is a dimension.
-
2017-04-02 at 10:53 AM UTC
-
2017-04-02 at 11:17 AM UTCNo, it's a dimension. The universe is a function of time and time is a function of quantum mechanics.
-
2017-04-02 at 4:37 PM UTC
-
2017-04-02 at 4:40 PM UTC
-
2017-04-02 at 4:49 PM UTCit takes a certain amount of time for a star to form, run its course and die. generally in the billions of years. if time didn't exist then a stars natural life would be possible within a millisecond.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-04-02 at 5:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist If time didn't exist then a stars natural life would be possible within a millisecond.
What if it just moved at a different rate?
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.htmlIn a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.
-
2017-04-02 at 5:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist it takes a certain amount of time for a star to form, run its course and die. generally in the billions of years. if time didn't exist then a stars natural life would be possible within a millisecond.
If all moments have and always will exist and we are only capable of experiencing moments one at a time in a forward linear fashion then the concept of difference between a million years and millisecond becomes blurred to the point of irrelevance. -
2017-04-02 at 7:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon All things that the human perception brings from the noumenal into the phenomenal is in a way an "illusion". We have some impressions of the "real" world that nature honestly does not give a fuck about. Our descriptions of the world operate in a purely arbitrary space. It's like a kid trying to draw the Last Supper in the mud with a stick
This trivializes the meaning of illusion. Bla bla bla descartes whatever, you've already accepted that perception generally, if imperfectly, tracks the noumenal world. Sure we can doubt, for brief periods and with difficulty, the truth of that proposition but in the context of someone saying "is time an illusion?" it's obvious "illusion" refers to something beyond the general capacity for fallibility of the senses, as it does in most contexts. -
2017-04-03 at 12:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This trivializes the meaning of illusion. Bla bla bla descartes whatever, you've already accepted that perception generally, if imperfectly, tracks the noumenal world. Sure we can doubt, for brief periods and with difficulty, the truth of that proposition but in the context of someone saying "is time an illusion?" it's obvious "illusion" refers to something beyond the general capacity for fallibility of the senses, as it does in most contexts.
I'm just playing Devil's Avocado.
But if you look again, I'm not talking about Descartes and blah blah. I'm grounding that point in the concept of gauge symmetry. Our idea of what is actually "going on" is purely based on inferring "reality" by associative properties, and our "objective" version of events is one of literally infinite ways to quantify things.
I use the term noumenal only because it's convenient, my point is not philosophical but scientific.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-03 at 3:52 AM UTCWELL I DGAF ABOUT YOUR SHITTY CULT TESTICAL PHYSICS HOW ABOUT THEM BOSONS FAGGOT?
-
2017-04-03 at 3:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Darth Beaver Basically they synced two atomic clocks, put one in a KC 130, one o the earth, took off with the KC 130, flew nonstop around the earth, and landed back where they took off from and where the stationary automobile clock was located. The clock on the ground had advanced faster than the clock that was in motion. So if time can be manipulated by motion it is not a constant. Does that mean time as we understand it is just a construct to explain something beyond our ability to comprehend?
it's not motion; the prevalent theory on that is that gravity, ie. mass warps time in the same way that it warps space -
2017-04-03 at 4:11 AM UTCGood thread
-
2017-04-03 at 4:22 AM UTC
-
2017-04-03 at 4:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie It's motion too, the faster you travel through space the slower you travel through time.
Dumb question time (tee-hee TIME, GET IT? )
SIGH
If it was based on motion, wouldn't we all be literally out of synch? Like if 8 people ran a 100m dash they all have their times fucked up. What . Lol. -
2017-04-03 at 4:27 AM UTCPlease someone kjkw what I was getting at there so I don't feel absolutely retarded . Thank you.
-
2017-04-03 at 4:27 AM UTC
-
2017-04-03 at 6:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Dumb question time (tee-hee TIME, GET IT? )
SIGH
If it was based on motion, wouldn't we all be literally out of synch? Like if 8 people ran a 100m dash they all have their times fucked up. What . Lol.
I don't really understand the exact misunderstanding you have but let me explain how time and space are related (and how mass and motion factor into it)
You know the three dimensions of Space. You also know (at least in one direction), the temporal "dimension" of time. In your everyday life, these things are more or less constant; one meter from point A to point But is generally the same for all intents and purposes as one meter from point A to point C, regardless of what frame of reference you view it from.
But in actuality, space (let us ignore time for moment) is malleable. The classic visualisation looks something like this:
The grid is spacetime, and the heavier (more massive) an object is, the more it can distort spacetime around it. In this picture, imagine if two space racers start off parallel to each other outside of the "curve" caused by the golden ball. They start racing, still parallel, and pass through the gravity well, and one is closer to the golden ball than the other, and both go at the same exact velocity locally. Due to the curvature of spacetime, when they exit the gravity well, the racer closer to the mass will have technically traveled a longer distance than the one further away.
Now let's put in the component of time; if you put a clock on each racer, and start it at the same time, and set a finish line on the other end of the gravity well, due to this curvature, both racers, going at the same speed and parallel to one another, will find themselves arriving at the finish line after different lengths of time. This is effectively how time dilation comes to pass. Note that this is very simplified, but it's enough to gain a general understanding of the concept.
So you understand how mass factors into it. What about motion? Well first of all, you don't; mass has a more important role here.
Let's bring in the famous equation, e=mc²
e = energy
m = mass
c = the speed of light (also, this is the constabt of the equation; I'll explain in a minute)
You know this equation, but what does it mean, and how is meaningful to this discussion? Well, as it stands, we can say it means that the total energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. But let's do a little algebra:
e=mc²
e/m=c²
√(e/m)=c
If your mind is blown, congrats, you understand. If not, notice that for any given object, the square root of the energy of an object divided by its mass, equals the speed of light.
Additionally,
e=mc²
e/c²=m
To interpret this data, for a bunch of theoretical reasons, you can assume that everything is always "moving at the speed of light". We simply shift our velocity in relation to specific reference frames. And reconciling those two takes energy. As you introduce energy into your system, you increase the mass of the object. As you approach c, the mass approaches infinity, and the energy you must introduce to accelerate it also approaches infinity. So to put it shortly, going faster increases your mass, and thus contributes to the dilation of spacetime (and time as a subset of that) around you.
This is also why no massive object can ever reach c, because it would require infinite energy and attain infinite mass, and the only known object in the universe to attain infinite mass is yo mama.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-03 at 6:20 AM UTC
