Time

  • 109 Replies
  • 17373 Views
?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: Time
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2008, 10:51:47 AM »
No.  A device that would allow you to stay in the time you're in but communicate with others in the past or future.  Sort of like the way they did it on "12 Monkies" where they communicated through an answering machine at a business.

You could still call it a time machine, even if all it transports through time is information and not matter.

Okay then, a time machine.  Then both parties could compare and the person in the present could say that the person they were communicating with was in the future.
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2008, 10:52:38 AM »
Okay then, a time machine.  Then both parties could compare and the person in the present could say that the person they were communicating with was in the future.

Yes. But that is semantics; the Universe doesn't care what we call the past, present and future; it is what it is.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: Time
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2008, 10:55:03 AM »
Okay then, a time machine.  Then both parties could compare and the person in the present could say that the person they were communicating with was in the future.

Yes. But that is semantics; the Universe doesn't care what we call the past, present and future; it is what it is.


So, really, time exists all at once and we travel through it at a specific speed?  Or should I say we follow a certain path?  And if we travel through it then would we exist in all times at once or only in the time we preceive ourselves to be in.
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2008, 10:57:15 AM »
So, really, time exists all at once and we travel through it at a specific speed?  Or should I say we follow a certain path?  And if we travel through it then would we exist in all times at once or only in the time we preceive ourselves to be in.

It doesn't make sense to say that time exists "all at once" because the concept of "at once" requires a sense of time. But yes, we move through time at the rate of one second per second in our own reference frame, which is not necessarily the same according to somebody else's reference frame.

If you mean that time is linear, that is the fundamental axiom behind determinism; however, quantum mechanics suggests that there may be more than one possible future for any given present.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Time
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2008, 11:29:59 AM »
I think Steve's got the basic idea right, at least as far as modern science is willing to state anyway (apart from making a distinction between matter and information... tut tut!).

'Time' is our experience of processes evolving from the way they are 'now' to the way they are in the next instant, and the next, and the next... There is, as far as we know, no lower bound on how finely you can define 'time', although there may be a fundamental limit below which further division is meaningless (kind of the analogue of the Planck length).

We define the second by the number of oscillations of a Caesium atom (usually) and since that physical process depends entirely on your frame of reference, perceptions of time vary from person to person.  Steve is also right that distance and time are fundamentally linked - the further away you look, the 'longer ago' you also look. There is, as far as we know, no way for you to influence what you would think of as the past - that is, it doesn't matter how fast you travel, or how massive a body you sit next to etc etc, you can never 'loop back' and change something within your own past light cone.

There might be tricks, of course, if for instance particles are found which travel backwards through time and that we can impart information onto, it could be possible to 'send back' information to a previous observer who was measuring those particles.  That's the '12 Monkeys' approach, pretty much, that the person in the past just carves info onto a rock or something and then the person in the future reads the rock and imprints a response onto these particles.  This violates causality, of course, so conventional science forbids it, but who knows!
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: Time
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2008, 11:37:23 AM »
I think you're just about the only one I can sit here and read four paragraphs from and still be interested.

So going back in time and changing things is impossible from you're saying.  So that just about kills it for me.   :'(  I wanted to go back and slap myself for a few things.
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Time
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2008, 01:24:37 PM »
Not necessarily impossible, we just haven't figured it out yet... plus thanks for not tl;dr'ing me ;D

If I ever find a way of communicating with the past, I'll let you know by deleting this post and replacing it with one yesterday.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Time
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2008, 01:30:38 PM »
As Einstein said, we invented time just so everything wouldn't occur all at once.

Oh, and time travel is impossible.
"Philosophy wasn't the same. The school had to be completely changed, but it could be changed because we had learned our lesson."
- Michelle Vian

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Time
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2008, 01:44:46 PM »
Quote
Oh, and time travel is impossible.

I disagree.

Scientists treat causality like it's sort of some unbreakable law.  But, as far as I can tell, causality is only a consequence of having a fundamental speed limit.  Who is to say there is no way the speed limit could be broken or overcome via weird space-time bending?
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Time
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2008, 01:59:02 PM »
Oh, and time travel is impossible.

"In 1997, the debate was clarified a bit when three physicists finally proved that Hawking's program to ban time travel was inherently flawed. Bernard Kay, Marek Radzikowski, and Robert Wald showed that time travel was consistent with all the known laws of physics, except in one place. When traveling in time, all the potential problems were concentrated at the event horizon (located near the entrance to the wormhole). But the horizon is precisely where we expect Einstein's theory to break down and quantum effects to take over. The problem is that whenever we try to calculate radiation effects as we enter a time machine, we have to use a theory that combines Einstein's theory of general relativity with the quantum theory of radiation. But whenever we naively try to marry these two theories, the resulting theory makes no sense: it yields a series of infinite answers that are meaningless."
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Time
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2008, 02:26:36 PM »
Time travel is impossible.
"Currently impractical" might be a better substitute.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Time
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2008, 02:35:07 PM »
Rubbish! I'm travelling through time right now!
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Time
« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2008, 03:25:31 PM »
The problem with a time machine is that there would be very few places in history that you could go to. For instance if i traveled backwards in time from any given point on the Earth, by the time I re-entered time, the Earth would be millions of miles away from me and I'd die in space. There would be very few points in history (if any) where the Earth would be in the same spacial location. Creating a time-machine is useless unless it's a time/space machine.

Basically you need a TARDIS

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Time
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2008, 03:34:34 PM »
The problem with a time machine is that there would be very few places in history that you could go to. For instance if i traveled backwards in time from any given point on the Earth, by the time I re-entered time, the Earth would be millions of miles away from me and I'd die in space. There would be very few points in history (if any) where the Earth would be in the same spacial location. Creating a time-machine is useless unless it's a time/space machine.

Basically you need a TARDIS
If you could travel through time, I'm betting you'd also be able to travel through space for a little bit you know?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2008, 03:56:00 PM »
(apart from making a distinction between matter and information... tut tut!)

Couldn't it be possible, at least in theory, to transmit information without transmitting any matter at all?

The problem with a time machine is that there would be very few places in history that you could go to. For instance if i traveled backwards in time from any given point on the Earth, by the time I re-entered time, the Earth would be millions of miles away from me and I'd die in space. There would be very few points in history (if any) where the Earth would be in the same spacial location. Creating a time-machine is useless unless it's a time/space machine.

Basically you need a TARDIS

There is no absolute reference frame, so you can't unambiguously say where "here" will be at some point in the past or future.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Time
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2008, 04:55:52 PM »
Quote
There is no absolute reference frame,

Well, technically there is a natural choice of one.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Time
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2008, 01:40:28 AM »
Quote
There is no absolute reference frame,

Well, technically there is a natural choice of one.

CMB FTW!
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

MessiahOfFire

Re: Time
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2008, 04:41:24 AM »
A perfect spehere has an infinite number of corners...

Man, I thought you where alright. But fuck. You better start turning some of those post counts into real intelligence.


*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Time
« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2008, 09:30:51 AM »
A perfect spehere has an infinite number of corners...

Man, I thought you where alright. But fuck. You better start turning some of those post counts into real intelligence.
He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2008, 09:44:53 AM »
He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

Polygons are two-dimensional, spheres are three-dimensional. Fail less.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Time
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2008, 11:50:29 AM »
He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

Polygons are two-dimensional, spheres are three-dimensional. Fail less.

3D modeling uses polygons (triangles actually which make other polygons). I know I was unclear, but there is no other example I can think of which would use geometric shapes to assemble a sphere.



The 2D shapes are rotated and positioned 3 dimensionally, but they are 2D. The smaller the polygons, the more like a sphere the overall shape is.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 11:55:23 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Time
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2008, 12:27:51 PM »
He's using a polygon count limit approaching infinity to construct the sphere. The infinite 'corners', are the vertices of the polygons creating the sphere, and would parallel individual time lines extending from the beginning of time.

Polygons are two-dimensional, spheres are three-dimensional. Fail less.

3D modeling uses polygons (triangles actually which make other polygons). I know I was unclear, but there is no other example I can think of which would use geometric shapes to assemble a sphere.



The 2D shapes are rotated and positioned 3 dimensionally, but they are 2D. The smaller the polygons, the more like a sphere the overall shape is.
That is because it is all points equidistant from a central points. Like I said.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Time
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2008, 12:40:58 PM »
I don't disagree.
It sounded as if Robosteve, was implying that 2D shapes couldn't make a 3D shape. I'm not really sure.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Time
« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2008, 01:15:26 PM »
I don't disagree.
It sounded as if Robosteve, was implying that 2D shapes couldn't make a 3D shape. I'm not really sure.
ah, he has let the mod position go to his head and lies to cry fail.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Time
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2008, 01:47:19 PM »
I think he meant the term polyhedron instead of polygon.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Re: Time
« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2008, 06:11:27 PM »
I think he meant the term polyhedron instead of polygon.
No, I don't think he did.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Time
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2008, 09:24:52 PM »
I think he meant the term polyhedron instead of polygon.
You have lost all speaking privileges.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Time
« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2008, 10:17:01 PM »
You guys fail.  When announcing Singularity's fail (which wasn't a fail at all if interpreted correctly) Robosteve thought Singularity meant to use the term polyhedron instead of polygon.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2008, 10:39:11 PM »
Precisely. I thought he meant they took a polygon and increased its number of sides to infinity, which would of course create a 1-sphere.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Time
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2008, 11:16:29 PM »
You guys fail.  When announcing Singularity's fail (which wasn't a fail at all if interpreted correctly) Robosteve thought Singularity meant to use the term polyhedron instead of polygon.
still wrong.