Hello All
The question is:
Can actual time be changed?
We know that relative time can be changed by altering the direction and speed of EMR.
Time
Re: Time
The apparent flow of time is maintained by a yet to be discovered constant flow of unknown sub-sub-subatomic particles. Time can be frozen by stopping this particle flow, turned back by reversing this particle flow, and moved ahead by increasing this particle flow.harry wrote:Hello All
The question is:
Can actual time be changed?
We know that relative time can be changed by altering the direction and speed of EMR.
-
craterchains
- Commander
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
- Contact:
-
craterchains
- Commander
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
- Contact:
-
orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
Re: Time
Just think! If we could get time to flow backwards we could go back and correct all those mistakes we made. We could grow younger instead of older.GOD wrote:The apparent flow of time is maintained by a yet to be discovered constant flow of unknown sub-sub-subatomic particles. Time can be frozen by stopping this particle flow, turned back by reversing this particle flow, and moved ahead by increasing this particle flow.harry wrote:Hello All
The question is:
Can actual time be changed?
We know that relative time can be changed by altering the direction and speed of EMR.
Unfortunately; some bad guys that have gone would come back to make us misserable again! 
Orin
Orin
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
If you ask a tree 'What time is it', the reply will be, NOW.
The Time is NOW, . . . the actual time is always NOW. We are always in the eternal NOW.
Past and future are constructs by definition, by us. We invented the past and the future, and in thought we'd like to go there. Memory can remember the past, but we can't go there bodily. Imagination can comprehend a future, but the future is a potential not a discrete certainty, and in our measurement of change we will eventually arrive at the future time we specified.
(all calculations of inertia and momentum must have a component of time in the equation in order to result in a meaningful answer; that's our best clue that Time enters into this Reality thru the Inertia/Momentum component)
My apologies if I sound too pedantic, but it flows out faster without all the qualifying phrases of contrition at being so unhumble.
- - -
Hi Harry, How's things?
I suspect your initial question is moving in the direction of;
Is there a way to determine what is the reference point for the omnipresent NOW. Is there an anchor post for where Time hangs it GMT or UMT so to speak.
My thought goes to the symbol of a pendulum.
A pendulum moves on a constant swing in relationship to the 'fixed stars', not to the reference frame of the Earth. That's why a pendulum at the local Observatory moves around and knocks over the little pegs standing on the floor in the well in which it is swinging. It is moving in a fixed path in relationship to the 'fixed stars' or celestial sphere. WHY IS THAT ???
Why does Inertia/Momentum have the 'fixed stars' as its reference basis?
This fact is a huge clue about something very fundamental in the structuring of our Universe and Reality. The absolute Time, is probably structured to orient to the 'fixed stars' similarly as Inertia/Momentum does, but I do not comprehend this relationship or understand it yet, if ever, tho that is a quest of mine to reach.
Past and future are constructs by definition, by us. We invented the past and the future, and in thought we'd like to go there. Memory can remember the past, but we can't go there bodily. Imagination can comprehend a future, but the future is a potential not a discrete certainty, and in our measurement of change we will eventually arrive at the future time we specified.
(all calculations of inertia and momentum must have a component of time in the equation in order to result in a meaningful answer; that's our best clue that Time enters into this Reality thru the Inertia/Momentum component)
My apologies if I sound too pedantic, but it flows out faster without all the qualifying phrases of contrition at being so unhumble.
- - -
Hi Harry, How's things?
I suspect your initial question is moving in the direction of;
Is there a way to determine what is the reference point for the omnipresent NOW. Is there an anchor post for where Time hangs it GMT or UMT so to speak.
My thought goes to the symbol of a pendulum.
A pendulum moves on a constant swing in relationship to the 'fixed stars', not to the reference frame of the Earth. That's why a pendulum at the local Observatory moves around and knocks over the little pegs standing on the floor in the well in which it is swinging. It is moving in a fixed path in relationship to the 'fixed stars' or celestial sphere. WHY IS THAT ???
Why does Inertia/Momentum have the 'fixed stars' as its reference basis?
This fact is a huge clue about something very fundamental in the structuring of our Universe and Reality. The absolute Time, is probably structured to orient to the 'fixed stars' similarly as Inertia/Momentum does, but I do not comprehend this relationship or understand it yet, if ever, tho that is a quest of mine to reach.
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Hello Kovil you post is very logical.
Like always I post links that I read, but that does not mean that I agree with. All links are always in question. Some links I may disagree with and others would agree. Thats life.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html
Quantum Cosmology
It is presently an unsolved question whether our universe contains closed, flat or open spatial three-geometries. In a flat universe, the large-scale spatial geometry looks like the ordinary three-dimensional space we experience around us. In contrast to this, the spatial sections of a realistic closed universe would look like three-dimensional (surfaces of) spheres with a very large but finite radius. An open geometry would look like an infinite hyperboloid. Only a closed universe would therefore be finite. There is, however, nowadays strong evidence from cosmological observations in favour of an infinite open universe. It is therefore an important question whether there exist instantons that describe the creation of open universes.
Space-time and Cosmology
http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lect ... rose96.pdf
About Time
http://www.saao.ac.za/assa/features/cos ... /time.html
WHAT IS TIME?
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6- ... f-time.pdf
A Possible Solution For The Problem Of Time In Quantum Cosmology
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html
The Big view
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/
Shedding Light On Time:
http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/time
A Brief History of Relativity
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/ma ... ela6a.html
Visualizing Proper Time in Special Relativity [with a Light Clock]
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ightClock/
Time is Relative
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/science/ti ... ative.html
Relativity, Space and Time
http://pgostrov.googlepages.com/e2.html
Hello Kovil you post is very logical.
Like always I post links that I read, but that does not mean that I agree with. All links are always in question. Some links I may disagree with and others would agree. Thats life.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html
Quantum Cosmology
It is presently an unsolved question whether our universe contains closed, flat or open spatial three-geometries. In a flat universe, the large-scale spatial geometry looks like the ordinary three-dimensional space we experience around us. In contrast to this, the spatial sections of a realistic closed universe would look like three-dimensional (surfaces of) spheres with a very large but finite radius. An open geometry would look like an infinite hyperboloid. Only a closed universe would therefore be finite. There is, however, nowadays strong evidence from cosmological observations in favour of an infinite open universe. It is therefore an important question whether there exist instantons that describe the creation of open universes.
Space-time and Cosmology
http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lect ... rose96.pdf
About Time
http://www.saao.ac.za/assa/features/cos ... /time.html
WHAT IS TIME?
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6- ... f-time.pdf
A Possible Solution For The Problem Of Time In Quantum Cosmology
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html
The Big view
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/
Shedding Light On Time:
http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/time
A Brief History of Relativity
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/ma ... ela6a.html
Visualizing Proper Time in Special Relativity [with a Light Clock]
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ightClock/
Time is Relative
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/science/ti ... ative.html
Relativity, Space and Time
http://pgostrov.googlepages.com/e2.html
Harry : Smile and live another day.
[the Tanner Lectures link didn't work for me. boohoo]
From Kauffman and Smolin, page 4 ;
There may be something that corresponds to a "wavefunction of the universe" but it cannot be a vector in a constructible Hilbert space. Similarly, if the configuration space C of the theory is not constructible, then we cannot describe the quantum state of the universe in terms of a normalizable function on C . [*1]
page 5;
For any finite N , S^N [W_0] has a finite number of elements and the procedure is finitely specifiable. There may be issues about taking the limit 'N goes to infinity', but there is no reason to think that they are worse than similar problems in quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. In any case, there is a sense in which each step takes a certain amount of time, in the limit 'N goes to infinity' we will be picking up the probability amplitude for the transition to happen in infinite time.
Each step represents a finite time evolution because it corresponds to certain causal processes by which information is propagated in the spin network. The rule by which the amplitude is specified satisfies a principle of causality, by which information about an element of a successor network only depends on a small region of its predecessor. There are then discrete analogues of light cones and causal structures in the theory. Because the geometry associated to the spin networks is discrete[10], the process by which information at two nearby nodes or edges may propagate to jointly influence the successor network is finite, not infinitesimal. [*2]
. . .
The reason is again causality and discreteness: since the spin networks represent discrete quantum geometries, and since information must only flow to neighboring sites of the graph in a finite series of steps, at each elementary step there are only a finite number of things that can happen.
. . .
The theory never has to ask about the whole space of states, it only explores a finite set of successor states at each step.
. . .
First, it necessarily involves an element of time and causality. The way in which the amplitudes are constructed in the absence of a specifiable basis or Hilbert structure requires a notion of successor states. The theory never has to ask about the whole space of states, it only explores a finite set of successor states at each step. Thus, a notion of time is necessarily introduced.
. . .
One has simply a set of rules by which a set of possible configurations and histories of the universe is constructed by a finite procedure, given any initial state. In a sense it may be said that the system is constructing the space of its possible states and histories as it evolves.
. . .
In this case it is the evolution itself that constructs the subspace of the space of states that is needed to describe the possible futures of any given state. And by doing so the construction gives us an intrinsic notion of time.
[*3]
----- ----- -----
[*1] If the Universe has Energy propagating thru it as a wavefuncton, and the special state of matter which Energy has the ability to assume, arises by node amplitudes, and we cannot ascribe a vector to that identifiable wavefunction node; then we are prohibited from discerning the anchor point which Time or Inertia or Energy uses as it origination loci, or the origin of the ‘wavefunctions’.
[*2] As the wavefunctionality of Energy moves at the Ratio of Space to Time, there is a discrete separation by the Ratio of Space to Time between ‘steps’. Energy is the ‘great communicator of information’ in the Universe, Entropy is the insulator above zero, or infinitesimality. Information cannot reduce to zero at the node edges, it must propagate.
[*3] Time enters this Reality thru the Inertia component, which may seem at odds with Kauffman and Smolin as they drift towards the Energy component as being responsible, for at the edges of their described geometrical spin networks, the 'step' into the adjacent network is that indefinable transition where Energy transmits its information to the next iteration. My contention is that in that indefinable 'step' of "greater than infinitesimality and smaller than finiteness" where the wavefunction of Energy propagates to the next 'cell' or spin network geometry, it is the Inertia component field as overlaid by the Time Field which is responsible for the essence of Time making itself manifest into the reality of the transition between 'cells' or spin geometries.
Classical physics interprets 'rest mass' as 'energy', the school of thought I follow ascribes Inertia to 'rest mass energy', and separate from Energy. However, Inertia is a quality which Mass represents, but as Mass is also Energy it gets confusing. There is a confusion in terms and definitions, as both schools define their terms differently.
This is a bit tiring and I need to get my double set of definitions more clearly expressible. It does make sense, but one needs to be able to shift perspectives while talking about it to keep all things straight.
(more work needs to be done in this area!)
From Kauffman and Smolin, page 4 ;
There may be something that corresponds to a "wavefunction of the universe" but it cannot be a vector in a constructible Hilbert space. Similarly, if the configuration space C of the theory is not constructible, then we cannot describe the quantum state of the universe in terms of a normalizable function on C . [*1]
page 5;
For any finite N , S^N [W_0] has a finite number of elements and the procedure is finitely specifiable. There may be issues about taking the limit 'N goes to infinity', but there is no reason to think that they are worse than similar problems in quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. In any case, there is a sense in which each step takes a certain amount of time, in the limit 'N goes to infinity' we will be picking up the probability amplitude for the transition to happen in infinite time.
Each step represents a finite time evolution because it corresponds to certain causal processes by which information is propagated in the spin network. The rule by which the amplitude is specified satisfies a principle of causality, by which information about an element of a successor network only depends on a small region of its predecessor. There are then discrete analogues of light cones and causal structures in the theory. Because the geometry associated to the spin networks is discrete[10], the process by which information at two nearby nodes or edges may propagate to jointly influence the successor network is finite, not infinitesimal. [*2]
. . .
The reason is again causality and discreteness: since the spin networks represent discrete quantum geometries, and since information must only flow to neighboring sites of the graph in a finite series of steps, at each elementary step there are only a finite number of things that can happen.
. . .
The theory never has to ask about the whole space of states, it only explores a finite set of successor states at each step.
. . .
First, it necessarily involves an element of time and causality. The way in which the amplitudes are constructed in the absence of a specifiable basis or Hilbert structure requires a notion of successor states. The theory never has to ask about the whole space of states, it only explores a finite set of successor states at each step. Thus, a notion of time is necessarily introduced.
. . .
One has simply a set of rules by which a set of possible configurations and histories of the universe is constructed by a finite procedure, given any initial state. In a sense it may be said that the system is constructing the space of its possible states and histories as it evolves.
. . .
In this case it is the evolution itself that constructs the subspace of the space of states that is needed to describe the possible futures of any given state. And by doing so the construction gives us an intrinsic notion of time.
[*3]
----- ----- -----
[*1] If the Universe has Energy propagating thru it as a wavefuncton, and the special state of matter which Energy has the ability to assume, arises by node amplitudes, and we cannot ascribe a vector to that identifiable wavefunction node; then we are prohibited from discerning the anchor point which Time or Inertia or Energy uses as it origination loci, or the origin of the ‘wavefunctions’.
[*2] As the wavefunctionality of Energy moves at the Ratio of Space to Time, there is a discrete separation by the Ratio of Space to Time between ‘steps’. Energy is the ‘great communicator of information’ in the Universe, Entropy is the insulator above zero, or infinitesimality. Information cannot reduce to zero at the node edges, it must propagate.
[*3] Time enters this Reality thru the Inertia component, which may seem at odds with Kauffman and Smolin as they drift towards the Energy component as being responsible, for at the edges of their described geometrical spin networks, the 'step' into the adjacent network is that indefinable transition where Energy transmits its information to the next iteration. My contention is that in that indefinable 'step' of "greater than infinitesimality and smaller than finiteness" where the wavefunction of Energy propagates to the next 'cell' or spin network geometry, it is the Inertia component field as overlaid by the Time Field which is responsible for the essence of Time making itself manifest into the reality of the transition between 'cells' or spin geometries.
Classical physics interprets 'rest mass' as 'energy', the school of thought I follow ascribes Inertia to 'rest mass energy', and separate from Energy. However, Inertia is a quality which Mass represents, but as Mass is also Energy it gets confusing. There is a confusion in terms and definitions, as both schools define their terms differently.
This is a bit tiring and I need to get my double set of definitions more clearly expressible. It does make sense, but one needs to be able to shift perspectives while talking about it to keep all things straight.
(more work needs to be done in this area!)
Re: Time
No Orin, I forbid the tampering of the timeweb in this manner. You must have a very good reason before I allow you to travel into the past. I don't allow history to be changed. There is no need to do so anyway. If you don't like your perceived reality, simply change it using your thought creation process just like you would dial-in a new station on your radio by changing frequencies.orin stepanek wrote:Just think! If we could get time to flow backwards we could go back and correct all those mistakes we made. We could grow younger instead of older.GOD wrote:The apparent flow of time is maintained by a yet to be discovered constant flow of unknown sub-sub-subatomic particles. Time can be frozen by stopping this particle flow, turned back by reversing this particle flow, and moved ahead by increasing this particle flow.harry wrote:Hello All
The question is:
Can actual time be changed?
We know that relative time can be changed by altering the direction and speed of EMR.
Orin
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
All of us during our lifes have wished for the abilty to go where no man has gone before, to travel in time.
In reality, time cannot change and therefore we are unable to travel in time.
I could be wrong if you can supply a time machine that would prove the point beyond doubt.
All of us during our lifes have wished for the abilty to go where no man has gone before, to travel in time.
In reality, time cannot change and therefore we are unable to travel in time.
I could be wrong if you can supply a time machine that would prove the point beyond doubt.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Time Traveling
Harry, time traveling is serious business and it's know-how is given only to those on a need-to-know basis. Human beings do not need to know.harry wrote:Hello All
All of us during our lifes have wished for the abilty to go where no man has gone before, to travel in time.
In reality, time cannot change and therefore we are unable to travel in time.
I could be wrong if you can supply a time machine that would prove the point beyond doubt.
-
craterchains
- Commander
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
- Contact:
Time travel?
I read about time travel before.
Man has tried to do this for quite a while now.
nasa and the European space angencies have tried to make a thing called,
antimatter.
these antimatter,could make nuclear fusions a 1000 or even a 10000 times faster than normal nuclear fusions made from a normal space rocket going to space..(assume that the rocket is moving 38950 mph) n try to times the value into 10000.
It makes time travel sounds alot easier?
But,making antimatter is not easy.
An ounce of antimatter could cost around billions or even trillions of u.s dollars.
Antimatters,have the characteristics of,
an electron which have a positive value n an proton which have a negative value.
But still,its impossible to make.Its just science fiction.
I read about time travel before.
Man has tried to do this for quite a while now.
nasa and the European space angencies have tried to make a thing called,
antimatter.
these antimatter,could make nuclear fusions a 1000 or even a 10000 times faster than normal nuclear fusions made from a normal space rocket going to space..(assume that the rocket is moving 38950 mph) n try to times the value into 10000.
It makes time travel sounds alot easier?
But,making antimatter is not easy.
An ounce of antimatter could cost around billions or even trillions of u.s dollars.
Antimatters,have the characteristics of,
an electron which have a positive value n an proton which have a negative value.
But still,its impossible to make.Its just science fiction.
Astronomical Engineer.
-
Mushhushshu13
- Ensign
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:59 pm
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Time and time again peole will dream of time travel.
My favorite movie is the Time Machine with Rod Taylor.
I had these links in the comp,,,,,,,,,,,maybe interesting reading.
Einstein's Special Relativity
Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm ... relativity
Space Time and Relativity
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=127
Empty space-time, general relativity principle
and covariant ether theories
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501060.pdf
Time and time again peole will dream of time travel.
My favorite movie is the Time Machine with Rod Taylor.
I had these links in the comp,,,,,,,,,,,maybe interesting reading.
Einstein's Special Relativity
Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm ... relativity
Space Time and Relativity
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=127
Empty space-time, general relativity principle
and covariant ether theories
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501060.pdf
Harry : Smile and live another day.
It would appear that the behavior of humans is limited in many ways by many factors.Harry, time traveling is serious business and it's know-how is given only to those on a need-to-know basis. Human beings do not need to know.
I will admit that while I am often annoyed by the silliness of some of the posts around here - considering the aim of the board - sometimes they just crack me up.
... actually, all you see is past, if you consider that it took photons quite some time to get into your eye.
stars we see today may not even exist any more. our sun could be sucked into space-time wormhole due to some unknown natural phenomenon or evil aliens 7 minutes ago. the moon we see is 1.2 seconds older than real moon in our frame.
and then if you count the time for chemicals to react, before you brain could acknowledge what it see, it is even more.
stars we see today may not even exist any more. our sun could be sucked into space-time wormhole due to some unknown natural phenomenon or evil aliens 7 minutes ago. the moon we see is 1.2 seconds older than real moon in our frame.
and then if you count the time for chemicals to react, before you brain could acknowledge what it see, it is even more.
-
craterchains
- Commander
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
- Contact:
This is because humans are on Earth to learn to evolve their souls. Each must decide to be either the type of individual that cares about and helps others more than themself, or to be the type that only cares about and helps themself. Once that decision has been made, you won't be as limited.Orca wrote:It would appear that the behavior of humans is limited in many ways by many factors.