Time

[Verruckter]

Re: Time

Yep. You're not actually going backwards in time, it's just your own aging that's slowing. I'm not sure if this theory has been proved, though, since a lot of Einstein's work is being questionned atm.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

Spacial motion is relative too. If you saw someone going past you in space, you wouldn't be able to tell if you were the one that was moving, or if the opponent was the one that was moving.

In a more unrealistic (in our terms) analogy, when you move across the room, you can't prove that it's you that's moving, or if the ground beneath you is moving.

Perception of time is just as faint as perception of space.

[DaPhinoXX]

Re: Time

Well, according to Einstein, time is part of space and time can be bent by objects such as planets.

[RubiedCross]

Re: Time

I think, for think, for those who are talking about mass moving at the speed of light, that you would not be going backwards in time. Let's take the train example. Say there was somebody standing at the train station, looking at the spot where the train would normally pass. If the train is moving at the speed of light, then when the train reaches visible sight, the person would see the train entering the station while the train is actually x feet farther away from that spot, x being the distance from the train to the viewer. The viewer would see things later, as it takes more time for the light to reach their eyes than it takes for the trian to move.

Based on this, let's say you took a spaceship and started moving away from the Earth, faster than the speed of light. if you looked back at Earth and could see people there, it would seem that they are actually moving backwards, as if you're going back through time. But you are really just encountering light that left the Earth that long ago. If you tried to head back, you would not have gone back in time because the light that is leaving the earth would reach you faster, therefore making it seem time is going much faster than it should, until you reach present time. If you left Earth at exactly the speed of light, you would see everything still, because you are traveling with that one image of light exactly. If you left at, let's say, twice the speed of light, and you traveled for one year, you would see the earth exactly one year ago, as traveling this distance (2 light years), took you only one year while it took light, well, 2 years. If you tried to head back at the same speed, it would take 1 year to head back. Now, you would meet the time at which you left earth after traveling for 1/3 years, because having a distance of one year between you and the light, and you moving 2 times the speed of light, yeah, I think you get it. Now, you have to travel another 1 1/3 light-years back to earth. doing so will take you only half of that, which is 2/3 years. so, your entire trip consisted of 2 years total, and guess what? 1 and 1/3 years had already gone by right when you left for that last 2/3 year trip. therefore, 2 years for you, and 2 years for them. Why? Because time is based off light.

So far, this probably is not making much sense, and it has already probably been proven wrong by some of you, but I have not read every post here, just a few. I guess I'm just saying that time is based off of light, what we can see. Therefore, really, there is no such thing as "time". It's just light that we base that off of.

(I probably contradicted myself in there somewhere, as I'm not good with a steady train of thought. And it's not as much to do with time as it is to do with light, hahaha.)

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

Yeah, somewhere earlier, I said that all of our knowledge is based off our perception. Light entering our eyes is sight, which is perception. Moreover, spacial motion is also percepted through light, hence if time is so illusional, so is space.

Mass can't move at the speed of light anyhow. Photons are massless.

[RubiedCross]

Re: Time

Yeah, somewhere earlier, I said that all of our knowledge is based off our perception. Light entering our eyes is sight, which is perception. Moreover, spacial motion is also percepted through light, hence if time is so illusional, so is space.

Mass can't move at the speed of light anyhow. Photons are massless.

Yeah, I just made the big long thing just for the sake of doing so, as it's something I found interesting a while back. Some people here were talking about it, but I think it was you again that said that photons are massless, and nothing else can move at the speed of light, haha. It was basically just theory, and a little bit proof of what you said about perfecption.

[monkeybomb45]

Re: Time

There are four dimensions in the universe, the human mind is very familiar with the first three dimensions (2-D, 3-D, length, width, height, depth, whatever you want to call it). Time, however, is the fourth dimension. It's a difficult concept to grasp for some people but I read something that made it really simple. All four dimensions describe matter's position; the first three describe WHERE it is and the fourth describes WHEN it is. e.g. "Meet me at the train station" tells where. "Meet me at 4:00" tells when. "Meet me at the train station at 4:00 in the afternoon" is a scenario that contains all four dimensions.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

*11 dimensions, says modern theory.
The only ones we can manage to percept are the first 4.

[monkeybomb45]

Re: Time

*11 dimensions, says modern theory.

oh? I love learning new things!
But if we can only manage to percept four, why are there just randomly 11? Because obviously whoever theorized that were humans also and therefore can't percept anything more than the four. They could have just been sitting around having biscuits and tea and one of them was like, "Hey Bernard, what's your favorite number?" and Bernard says, "I dunno...11?" and then the first one is like, "Okay, there are now 11 dimentions in the universe, and if anyone questions us, just tell them that the human mind isn't capable of comprehending all of them. This is going to make us rich!!" I say there should be data or some sort of proof or even conflicting aspects of the physical world that force another dimention to exist in theory. Maybe there are, anyone care to share if so?

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

String theory.

I'm not smart enough to explain the logistics of it.

[yk13]

Re: Time

Just to let you guys know, string theory doesn't explicitly state all of a sudden that there are eleven dimensions. The amount of dimensions required in string theory is variable, and the number of dimensions that work best currently are eleven, apparently.

[darkness1477]

Re: Time

what are the other 7 deminsions and how do they affect us?

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

If you're extremely desperate, go buy The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, and the Fabric of Cosmos, by Brian Greene.

[Reach]

Re: Time

M theory is 11 dimensional because it minimizes anomaly in the mathematics of the theory, in particular with regards to flat space solutions. One of the easiest ways to grasp this is to think of the photon. Photons have to be massless, only carrying energy, which is caused by string fluctuations on the smallest quantum level, according to string theory. Basically, the photon only ends up being massless with respect to a certain number of dimensions for which the string can fluctuate within. These dimensions are degrees of freedom for the string, accessed on a quantum level we are unable to perceive. However, these extra dimensions relate to space-time in a very mysterious way that is incredibly hard to wrap your head around, since space-time itself can be described as being flat, confirmed by WMAP observations.

A fairly simple way to consider how this is possible is to think of us as only a subset of the universe itself. In particular, we exist on a flat membrane of 3+1 dimensions, which is a subspace of the 11 (+?) dimensional universe. Strings themselves may access these extra dimensions by leaking into their highly compacted forms, only accessible on the quantum level.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Time

Oh I see...

so all energy forms have some sort of mass on a different dimension?