|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:30 pm
Eilea so, for all we know...time could be stopping every millisecond...for...well, i would say "a few hours", but..that defeats the purpose xp The only duration time could possibly stop for is *drumroll* infinity or zero. All definition and finiteness wouldn't apply. (zero and infinity, the relationship between them and their individual qualities, have been a major preoccupation of mine for a long time.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:45 am
Well, occurding to einstien wouldn't all matter cointain time, instead of it being universal(every atom contains time and matter) Anyways the only purpose i see time for is to create motion. And the more motion you have, the slower time gets(inverse function?)
the thing i don't understand is how motion is physsixally possible. If you think about it, in order to make a film, the only way to create motion is to creeate thousands of pictures, each one slightly different, to make motion possible, or else it's just a drawing. Now would the same apply to us? Is time just a series of the universe changing every nanosecond(or whatever the smallest unit of time is), changing slightly. But than if everyone's time is different and the universe is changing based on our time, than wouldn't everyone's universe be different slightly. Therefore we are all in a different universe! Yea, it makes perfect sense doesn't it blaugh I have a feeling there's something wrong with my theory somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:57 am
Technically, time could stop. Its a bunch of quantum physics stuff that I don't completely understand, but here goes: Time is created by atoms appearing and disappearing, moving around from one place to another. If all the atoms in the universe were to stop and the same time, yes, time would stop. The question is, is this really possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:23 pm
Well, from a mathematical perspective, one has to look at time a little differently. Given that time is the fourth dimension, it should not behave linearly (past and present) as we are accustomed to thinking it does. In fact time should move in eight directions. Here is a sight that provides a model of what a hypercube should look like: http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html. I think that instead of us moving through time, time is actually moving around us, creating the sensation that we are actually the ones moving. Being that our perceptions of this phenomenon our so limited, it is not unreasonable to think that in the motion of hypercubes around us, that they could stop. In order for us to perceive the world as we do our brains have to overlap sensory information in order that we perceive things as continuous and not a succession of snap shots. It would probably be easy for that to be interrupted. Also, it is impossible to really prove that any of our experience ever happened up till this moment as our only proof is memories and they lie to us regularly. Our entire lives up to this moment could have never existed and we would never know. So in that same line of thinking time could have stopped millions of times and we would never be the wiser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:59 am
Time doesn't literally "go" in the first place, so it really couldn't "stop." Time is a measurement, not an action. It is a measurement of change.
So pretty much, if time can stop, how about distance? or volume? or depth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:32 pm
I don't believe that time started in the first place.
How can you ever prove that anything was different from the current non-existant present? All you have is a set of static memories, which could have been inserted into the lack of time. If that makes any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:53 am
I agree with Pinkpod on this one 3nodding
Time divides cycles into simply understandable intervals. A day=the world turning around once; a year=the world going around the sun once; an hour=1/24th of a day; and so on. The definitions of yesterday and tomorrow simply refer to recent and future revolutions of the earth. So, technically time couldn't really stop, because even if we stopped calling a day a day and an hour an hour and so on, the earth would still turn, it just wouldn't be measured. Time is essentially a part of language, because time is meant for communication and common understanding, as is language.
Long story short: Time never began or ended except in the view of the people who measure time with earth, thus it can't stop except in the minds of people who think that when the earth ends time will end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:19 pm
Ramacharaka Technically, time could stop. Its a bunch of quantum physics stuff that I don't completely understand, but here goes: Time is created by atoms appearing and disappearing, moving around from one place to another. If all the atoms in the universe were to stop and the same time, yes, time would stop. The question is, is this really possible? Only if the entire universe would reach absolute zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:11 pm
And that would about sum up the Big Crunch, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:54 am
Mallorys Wedgie Friend Ramacharaka Technically, time could stop. Its a bunch of quantum physics stuff that I don't completely understand, but here goes: Time is created by atoms appearing and disappearing, moving around from one place to another. If all the atoms in the universe were to stop and the same time, yes, time would stop. The question is, is this really possible? Only if the entire universe would reach absolute zero. explain this, please. -t h e-b o o k-t h i e f- And that would about sum up the Big Crunch, yes? all the big crunch ended up proving to me is how much of a big liar the planet Pluto was... >.> (j/k)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:58 am
nightlight -t h e-b o o k-t h i e f- And that would about sum up the Big Crunch, yes? all the big crunch ended up proving to me is how much of a big liar the planet Pluto was... >.> (j/k) Y'wot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:56 pm
it was just a silly joke, the hunk of rock formerly known as pluto is in fact not a planet any more... >.> i was groggy with sleep at the time, my bad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:45 pm
nightlight it was just a silly joke, the hunk of rock formerly known as pluto is in fact not a planet any more... >.> i was groggy with sleep at the time, my bad... Oh. Uh. Okayyy....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:14 pm
I did no, actually.
Was confused about how that related to the Big Crunch though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
