Time

FieryIce · Post by **FieryIce** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:28 pm

Well, thank you bystander, I had not looked into von Daniken’s stuff very deeply, maybe I should check to see what he has been up to lately.... Not
Projectile weapons? I thought that was probe, snaps finger,,, never mind, different story line.

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:06 pm

FI, I'm willing to listen to anyone's theory with an open mind if they provide me with backing evidence. If your theories were so obvious and self evident, wouldn't you have more believers. Provide the evidence. Don't be a Harry, or worse still, a GOD.

I fully support your right to believe anything you want to. But don't get so self-righteous and defensive when someone disagrees with you, especially when you won't supply evidence. It detracts from your position. Even though I don't agree with all your theories, there actually are some things you and CC have to say that I do agree with. It's your attitude that bothers me, not what you have to say. Don't be so uptight that you can't laugh at yourself. I'm not at all sure you even recognize humor or sarcasm.

makc · Post by **makc** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:57 am

there is another theory that earthlings come from alien race that lived once on mars. but then they opened portal in other dimension letting terrible beasts out in their world. while mars was destroyed, some of martians escaped to earth, while others died while caging beasts back to where they came from. this place is known in earth legends as hell.

you will find all the evidence you need for this in wonderful game "Doom3"

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:40 pm

Makc, not theory, TRUTH! "It's in the game!"

The Linux System Administrator's Gospel.

Arramon · Post by **Arramon** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:28 pm

bystander wrote: Of course there is the von Daniken theory that warring alien intelligences (???) (at least two) have visited our solar system. One of them was so smart they destroyed a decoy civilization on our fifth planet (asteroid belt) while their adversaries hid on Earth and Mars. They are probably the same ones who used projectile weapons to create crater chains on the Moon and Mercury for us to wonder about. Then of course there is Battlefield Earth and El Ron's followers.

No scientology please.... =b
South Park laid that to rest.

And those marks you mention just look like electrical discharge impacts from an electrically active condusive force permeating space. But I'll not start that fire in this thread....

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:15 am

As I stated on page one,

Time is only a mutually accepted reference point, not a tangible.

Thus any discussion of the possibilities of "time travel" theory is, and can only be, in your mind. But we can call back a day that has gone by, or recall an event that took place in the past with DVD's and films. Pardon the pun, but the discussion is a waste of "time".

But speaking of theories, I find the audacity of some posters that rediculously and ignorantly challenge some theories to be of great intrest to FieryIce, myself, and many others. Why would such ones post in such a fassion? What is it they want to keep people from thinking about? Is it their fear of truth and reasonable questioning that provokes such blatent lies about evidence provided that causes them to deny such proof?

The research done concerning the theory that Concise and Systematic Crater Chains are positive evidence of alien interaction in our solarsystem in the past couple centuries was closed a few years ago. The losers of said War in the Heavens having been cast out of heaven and thrown down to the earth would of course have an attitude about that. Just think of the psychological blow that would have been for an intergalactic movement against it's government and the creation of the human race to have been beaten then tossed down here amongst mankind of whome they were so jealous of. Like on broken knee caps, they would deny their fall from such technological advancement and way of life, deny everything and crawl on to their soon final defeat here on earth. Sucks to be "them". Note some of the posters attitudes, quite fascinating.

Great story, you should read the bible with out the religion.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:45 am

Hello All

Hello Bystander

Evidence is hard to come by.

Bystander rather than trying to attack the person, why not discuss the topic.

Given the speculative nature of our understanding of the universe, a
sceptic of the standard model is justified in exploring an alternative avenue
wherein the observed features of the universe are explained with fewer speculative
assumptions. We review here the progress of such an alternative
model.

Interesting reading

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 2965v1.pdf

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:58 pm

Thanks, CC. Your post illustrated my point, precisely. Et tu, Harry.

makc · Post by **makc** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:10 pm

CC has evaluated some posters here to be spawn of Satan. Alert! Our cover is broken!

Arramon · Post by **Arramon** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:18 pm

Here's my thing... time is progression along a linear path that never ceases. How do you slow, speed up, or reverse something is going to happen, does happen, and has already happened?

Higher gravity, slower time, lower gravity, faster time...?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ility.html

But our perception of things creates time within our mind that isn't moderated by the speed at which Time continually moves within our own environment (solar system, or even just here near Earth).

When we are interested and take notice of more things, pay attention, we spend more time experiencing it, hence slowing time, because we are filling our minds with more information that our brain needs time to process. Same appears if you have nothing to do and think nothing but of how time is ticking away. "Time flies when you're having fun"... mainly because you aren't paying attention to many particular things, but a few that you enjoy, and the experiences come fast because you already know what it's about and don't need time to study or analyze what's happening. You just do as you will, have fun, and before you know it, you're out of time.

I couldn't see that gravity would alter time in any way, unless it would slow your thought process or cause your mind to become stagnant, with slow moving electrical impulses taking longer to get to your brain, slowing all motor skills because of the pull of the gravity. Did astronauts mention about the feel of the moon's gravity upon their time-bearing senses? Did it seem like since they were less bound to the moon that time seemed to speed up for them? Mentally, they must have been within a different progression of time, because day and night and the cycle of that object is much different than of earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

Reversing time seems like you would need to reverse the flow of a progressive accumulation of matter and space. Remove time altogether. Can you create a hole that would take you to a spot along that linear progression that had occured, only to appear just before it does? That would be to make all things undo what all things have already done... progressed through whatever state they were in to a state they are in now.

What research could show that at the smallest of scales, a radically altering particle/matter/state of whatever could reverse what has already happened. If our galaxy suddening reversed its rotation (like that would ever happen!) would time reverse? Like Superman spinning the earth in the opposite direction... come on now. Time isn't controlled by the way things move. Time is relative to each person, or the state you are in.

It seems impossible to make things revert to something prior after it took millions of years for it to get that way in the first place. We're talking about the vastness of the uncountable numbers of substances within just the local universe. If time were to change for just one person, all things within the universe would need to change. Its not like the universe stores up the information of a previous state so we could jump to a certain 'Save Point' like it was Windows and you needed to uninstall something. =b

*confused again*

d'oh!

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:34 pm

Perhaps the "Speed of Time" is what needs to be defined. I feel the speed of time is the required unit of measure to traverse 1 Planck Length. That time is and should be measured in Plank Length. Perhaps natural Time can only traverse a Plank Length in one direction. If that is the case, and the driving mechanism could be determined, then it might be possible to create a reverse field and thereby travel backward. Or speed up the field and travel foreward, or even stop the field and travel sideways (alternate reality).

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:11 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Perhaps the "Speed of Time" is what needs to be defined. I feel the speed of time is the required unit of measure to traverse 1 Planck Length. That time is and should be measured in Plank Length. Perhaps natural Time can only traverse a Plank Length in one direction. If that is the case, and the driving mechanism could be determined, then it might be possible to create a reverse field and thereby travel backward. Or speed up the field and travel foreward, or even stop the field and travel sideways (alternate reality).

Does time really have speed? Can one really travel through time? Or is time merely a measurement of our existence? If we could travel through time we may be able to go from point A to point B in no time at all. 'Just musing of course'

Orin

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:11 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:Perhaps the "Speed of Time" is what needs to be defined. I feel the speed of time is the required unit of measure to traverse 1 Planck Length. That time is and should be measured in Plank Length. Perhaps natural Time can only traverse a Plank Length in one direction. If that is the case, and the driving mechanism could be determined, then it might be possible to create a reverse field and thereby travel backward. Or speed up the field and travel foreward, or even stop the field and travel sideways (alternate reality).

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Speed is the rate at which distance is traveled with respect to time. There is a constant called Plank Time which is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck Length. Or perhaps you're thinking of Special Relativity which brings up the Twin Paradox.

ETX_90 · Post by **ETX_90** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:40 am

Time in itself is not a medium. Spacetime is, however. The three dimensions of space can be considered as "tangible," although the fourth, time, is merely a measurement to gauge the three other dimensions. However, by saying that there is an actual speed of time, you are saying that a unit of measurement has a speed. It's sort of like saying "How fast is a mile?" You can't measure a measurement. A measurement can, however, be affected by outside forces, such as gravity. This is why we say time is "slowed down" or "sped up." This is merely saying that the relative measurement of time itself is being changed, not the "speed" of time.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:10 pm

craterchains wrote:Time is only a mutually accepted reference point, not a tangible.

Arramon wrote:Here's my thing... time is progression along a linear path that never ceases.

ETX_90 wrote:Time in itself is not a medium. Spacetime is, however. The three dimensions of space can be considered as "tangible," although the fourth, time, is merely a measurement to gauge the three other dimensions.

This type of thinking describes Newtonian space. Newton believed that the universe was static and infinite with objects moving about to and fro...and that time was independent of this motion. Our common perception of the world seems to fit this model.

However, relativity changed all that. In Einstein's theory, the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time form a single structure called spacetime. Spacetime is curved by massive objects; this curvature is gravity. Since gravity is the curvature of both space and time, time itself is not an unchanged rythym in the background but a highly dynamic element of the universe. A gravitational field warps both space and time; thus, the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time travels relative to a distant control position.

This effect has been demonstrated many times from towers, planes, satellites, ect.

Arramon wrote: I couldn't see that gravity would alter time in any way, unless it would slow your thought process or cause your mind to become stagnant, with slow moving electrical impulses taking longer to get to your brain, slowing all motor skills because of the pull of the gravity. Did astronauts mention about the feel of the moon's gravity upon their time-bearing senses? Did it seem like since they were less bound to the moon that time seemed to speed up for them?

First off, the difference between the warping of spacetime by the moon compared to the earth is very small. It's not like you'd have to reset your casio watch when you got back.

The difference can be detected with sensitive instruments such as synchronized atomic clocks.

The reason you don't perceive the difference, regardless of how large that difference might be, is the fact that every aspect of your physical structure...the neurons that transmit signals in your brain, the molecules that form them...are all effected simultaneously by the curvature of spacetime.

ETX_90 · Post by **ETX_90** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:18 am

I wasn't necessarily saying that it couldn't be changed with gravity, which is definitely true. It's simply that time itself cannot be compared to the other three spacial dimensions.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:11 pm

Hello E-made-china

Do you agree at this point in TIME?

What do you think of time around a black hole or inside a black hole?

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:16 am

Time ultimately is only a measurement of duration. Used by those who are bound by it. It's irrelevance can be witnessed as you enter the micro universe.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:22 pm

Hello Martin

Simple and yet to the point.

Now how can you argue with that?

makc · Post by **makc** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:04 pm

Martin wrote:Time ultimately is only a measurement of duration........

Yo. The wheel is round, but the relevance disappears when we study square things.

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:34 pm

Martin wrote:Time ultimately is only a measurement of duration. ...

Actually, duration is a discrete measure of time.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:56 pm

Bystander,
Likewise, I said time is only a measurement of duration.

Makc -please explain yourself. I see your point but we could dance all night to that tune. The truth is time becomes irrelevant. I believe our perception of time and space is fundamentally flawed.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am

Hello All

Duration------Time for a tango if you think outside the square(MakC)

If I repeat some links,,,,,,,,Oh well.

Time acceleration hypothesis
http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Time_acc ... hypothesis

Read it:

Interesting reading on Mainstream compared to Time acceleration hypothesis.

======================================

Topological Paradoxes of Time Measurement

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive ... imetop.doc

* Distance in Space is measured with Rulers
* Duration in Time is measured with Clocks

======================================

Time, Clocks and Causality

http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html

This is a twister.

=====================================

IF YOU HAVE TIME READ THEM.
THAN FIND TIME
IT MAY BE A WASTE OF TIME
NO TIME AT ALL
TIME AND TIME AGAIN