G
super_eggbert
Temporal Novice
The smallest measure of time is dependent on how you make the measurement! Quantum mechanics comes into play here. Uncertainty principle says that the more accurately you measure energy the less accurately you can measure time!
G
Guest
Late one night (or early one morning, depends on how you look at it), my friends and I got into a lengthy discussion about time and time travel, and we came up with this: It doesn't exist in a way that our 3 dimensional minds can understand or inturpret. We try to measure it using seconds, minutes, ect. to help us attempt to catagorize events and things better. If we were to EVER "travel" through time, we would need to expand our thinking to the 4th, or even 5th dimensions, which would be extremely hard to do, because we don't really exist in them anyway, which kinda destroys the whole purpose of trying to travel through time (oops).
thefanomfreak:
OK, Do you believe in microwave oven? I do. I know that it is possible to heat something by microwaves. Now, would it be possible for a human being from the begining of the last century to understand that you can heat your meal with microwave? Yes or no. He would know what you're talking about, at least he will remember how it work, the way you'll explain it. But seriously, you know how it work (globaly) but are you able to make one?
So, lots of thing you understand, very few of them you can really figured out to realize(to build it). Finally, 4th or 5th dimensions will maybe be peanuts for our kids or grand-kids, it's not just a matter or brain quantity it's a matter of abilitation and utility. Don't you think?
OK, Do you believe in microwave oven? I do. I know that it is possible to heat something by microwaves. Now, would it be possible for a human being from the begining of the last century to understand that you can heat your meal with microwave? Yes or no. He would know what you're talking about, at least he will remember how it work, the way you'll explain it. But seriously, you know how it work (globaly) but are you able to make one?
So, lots of thing you understand, very few of them you can really figured out to realize(to build it). Finally, 4th or 5th dimensions will maybe be peanuts for our kids or grand-kids, it's not just a matter or brain quantity it's a matter of abilitation and utility. Don't you think?
Fredric Argyle
Temporal Novice
There are two versions of "Now".
The first is the human term meaning anything from "this instant" to several years away (as in politics).
Then there is the more scientific version. This would roughly be described as a point in space at which time has stopped. The only problem is that this is such an impractical amount to measure, no one would use it.
The human version is probably better for use by humans.
The first is the human term meaning anything from "this instant" to several years away (as in politics).
Then there is the more scientific version. This would roughly be described as a point in space at which time has stopped. The only problem is that this is such an impractical amount to measure, no one would use it.
The human version is probably better for use by humans.
There's no such time as the present 13 Jan 01
THE perception of "now" varies from person to person, researchers in Britain have found.
Jim Stone and his colleagues at the University of Sheffield looked at differences in the time it takes for audio and visual stimuli to reach people's consciousness. They showed volunteers a red light and played a tone, with anything up to a quarter of a second between the two.
Sometimes the light came first, sometimes the sound and sometimes they occurred simultaneously. The test was repeated 1000 times for each of the 17 volunteers, who were asked to say whether the light and the sound happened at exactly the same time.
Stone was surprised to find that some people reported the events as simultaneous when the light preceded the sound by up to 150 milliseconds. Others did so when the sound came before the light.
To find out if people take into account the time it takes sounds to travel to them from distant sources, Stone repeated the experiment with the sound coming from about 4 metres away, taking an extra 11 milliseconds to reach the volunteers. None of them took the extra distance into account when reporting simultaneous events, Stone found. But he was astonished by how consistent each individual's judgements remained-exactly 11 milliseconds off their original judgements.
It doesn't seem to matter if different people have different ideas about whether events are simultaneous, Stone concludes-but personal consistency is vital. "It should be rock-solid stable," he says, "otherwise you wouldn't be able to play ping-pong."
Alison Motluk
From New Scientist magazine, vol 169 issue 2273, 13/01/2001, page 17
Further reading:
More at: Proceedings of the Royal Society B (vol 268, p 31)
THE perception of "now" varies from person to person, researchers in Britain have found.
Jim Stone and his colleagues at the University of Sheffield looked at differences in the time it takes for audio and visual stimuli to reach people's consciousness. They showed volunteers a red light and played a tone, with anything up to a quarter of a second between the two.
Sometimes the light came first, sometimes the sound and sometimes they occurred simultaneously. The test was repeated 1000 times for each of the 17 volunteers, who were asked to say whether the light and the sound happened at exactly the same time.
Stone was surprised to find that some people reported the events as simultaneous when the light preceded the sound by up to 150 milliseconds. Others did so when the sound came before the light.
To find out if people take into account the time it takes sounds to travel to them from distant sources, Stone repeated the experiment with the sound coming from about 4 metres away, taking an extra 11 milliseconds to reach the volunteers. None of them took the extra distance into account when reporting simultaneous events, Stone found. But he was astonished by how consistent each individual's judgements remained-exactly 11 milliseconds off their original judgements.
It doesn't seem to matter if different people have different ideas about whether events are simultaneous, Stone concludes-but personal consistency is vital. "It should be rock-solid stable," he says, "otherwise you wouldn't be able to play ping-pong."
Alison Motluk
From New Scientist magazine, vol 169 issue 2273, 13/01/2001, page 17
Further reading:
More at: Proceedings of the Royal Society B (vol 268, p 31)
G
Guest
NOW is the moment, the infinite links which time is formed as a continuous march, its "constitution". NOW is defined as a measure of certain period from begining till the end. The "LIMBO" is a "NOW" forever. Funny now? The person came out with a very interesting question, which I'll be pleased to share ideas with. Very creative!!!
G
Guest
Actually the length of the moment could differ sometimes depending on the situation. More common a second according to our routine can be the moment, it's optional. More precisely is the LIMBO itsef which is a state of "suspended animation" but taken action right through it. Real time machines will have a very accurate setting base on the moment for a save return as a countdown.
G
Guest
I was also comparing time machines with VCRs able to the past, present, and future causing effect on motion. The accurate countdown for a save return must consist somehow by detecting your image absent from the present ones (if visible) at the moment (NOW) you left, then making an instant stop. I do believe in my own theory. For example: Anything on fast motion will leave behind its own images, but I seriously doubt it'll be done in our generation, maybe not, it depends on the free will...
Celebi time traveler: Do you mean 'motion blur'? (an instance of a body moving that keep semi-transparent in the other sens of the movement, but follow the subject...?)
This is related the perception of the camera VS the perception of our eyes-nerves-brain. Because we only see 27 images second, when a fast movement occur in front of our eyes, our brain can't catch all the "frames" to get a nice "movie" like in normal shooting, so we catch only half the "frames"(images)... Maybe it can help?
This is related the perception of the camera VS the perception of our eyes-nerves-brain. Because we only see 27 images second, when a fast movement occur in front of our eyes, our brain can't catch all the "frames" to get a nice "movie" like in normal shooting, so we catch only half the "frames"(images)... Maybe it can help?
G
Guest
Precisely! That's just an example that anything moving as motion changes position. In case of an object stays on the same place but going along with time.
A Time Camera of Obscura?
I would like that very much, but wouldn't that make our glass houses much more transparent?
It is eveident as growing concerns describe how our issues of privacy continue to dwindle, as we progress towards a Global Society. "Big Brother" was just a telivision experiment, but when you think about all of the collective interests that were involved, it cradles the very idea that we must prepare our world for the inevitable.
With increasing population, comes incresed crime, and the idea of web cameras on every street corner is something that already has been around since the 1970's & perhaps earlier, implimented by the State D.O.T.'s all we need to do now, is hand it over to the Law enforcement agencies to share what already exists, after that they will pass some legislative regulations to impose on our rights even more by demanding first criminals, then next all private citizens to have a them in our private residence's.
BIG Brother will have his way with us all eventually.
A "Time Camera" well that simply would imply that we now have a means to scan anywhere, any "Time" to see what was once in an area before you arrived to the location. Hide one in a corner, now you can view the present, or past of events & you won't need to record it on the VCR!
I would like that very much, but wouldn't that make our glass houses much more transparent?
It is eveident as growing concerns describe how our issues of privacy continue to dwindle, as we progress towards a Global Society. "Big Brother" was just a telivision experiment, but when you think about all of the collective interests that were involved, it cradles the very idea that we must prepare our world for the inevitable.
With increasing population, comes incresed crime, and the idea of web cameras on every street corner is something that already has been around since the 1970's & perhaps earlier, implimented by the State D.O.T.'s all we need to do now, is hand it over to the Law enforcement agencies to share what already exists, after that they will pass some legislative regulations to impose on our rights even more by demanding first criminals, then next all private citizens to have a them in our private residence's.
BIG Brother will have his way with us all eventually.
A "Time Camera" well that simply would imply that we now have a means to scan anywhere, any "Time" to see what was once in an area before you arrived to the location. Hide one in a corner, now you can view the present, or past of events & you won't need to record it on the VCR!
G
Guest
Biff, when something is transported in time, it will have its own timing. There will be a cavity along with it capable of making it possible. A battery will remain the same on a different date. It's like my reply will appear right behind of yours exactly as it is now and viceversa. Time is not a coded program.
G
Guest
time02112, thanks for your opinion, I'm glad!! The "regular cameras" I was describing are the one(s) that should go inside the transporter with internal and external look to visualize recording the conditions. Now the "time camera" mentioned by you instead of having bad influence it'll save us from the untrue. In the case of criminology it'll protect us-not a chance to lie. That'll be more complicated which requires more time to develop.
G
Guest
"Time is a Period of Exsistance"
"Does this mean that we mesure time by our own lifetime?"
if this is true then time really IS different for everyone, because everyone exsits and dies at different times.
This also means that everyones mesurement of time is also different,like Currency, there can never be a "Universal Mesurement"
(well maby the Clock
)
"Does this mean that we mesure time by our own lifetime?"
if this is true then time really IS different for everyone, because everyone exsits and dies at different times.
This also means that everyones mesurement of time is also different,like Currency, there can never be a "Universal Mesurement"
(well maby the Clock
G
Guest
Vertigo, time is a phenomenon that we call "happening". Is not a personal thing. Just like you said as the clock is. The clock is a guide for every action taken "in general", which is time itself. Life could be expanded if we can control it. Imagine that everything has a remedy! Even ambition won't have a sense. It'll be our ultimate defense. This is my favorite topic among the rest. I wish it last.
I find this to be a very interesting outlook regarding duration of now-moments:
" ... everything that exists at the material level is composed of "Kalapas." Kalapas are material units very much smaller than atoms, which die out immediately after they come into being. Each kalapa is a mass formed of the eight basic constituents of matter, the solid, liquid, calorific and oscillatory, together with color, smell, taste, and nutriment. The first four are called primary qualities, and are predominant in a kalapa. The other four are subsidiaries, dependent upon and springing from the former. A kalapa is the minutest particle in the physical plane -- still beyond the range of science today. It is only when the eight basic material constituents unite together that the kalapa is formed. In other words, the momentary collocation of these eight basic elements of behavior makes a man just for that moment, which in Buddhism is known as a kalapa. The life-span of a kalapa is termed a moment, and a trillion such moments are said to elapse during the wink of a man's eye. These kalapas are all in a state of perpetual change or flux. To a developed student in Vipassana Meditation they can be felt as a stream of energy."
What do you think?
earthship
" ... everything that exists at the material level is composed of "Kalapas." Kalapas are material units very much smaller than atoms, which die out immediately after they come into being. Each kalapa is a mass formed of the eight basic constituents of matter, the solid, liquid, calorific and oscillatory, together with color, smell, taste, and nutriment. The first four are called primary qualities, and are predominant in a kalapa. The other four are subsidiaries, dependent upon and springing from the former. A kalapa is the minutest particle in the physical plane -- still beyond the range of science today. It is only when the eight basic material constituents unite together that the kalapa is formed. In other words, the momentary collocation of these eight basic elements of behavior makes a man just for that moment, which in Buddhism is known as a kalapa. The life-span of a kalapa is termed a moment, and a trillion such moments are said to elapse during the wink of a man's eye. These kalapas are all in a state of perpetual change or flux. To a developed student in Vipassana Meditation they can be felt as a stream of energy."
What do you think?
earthship
G
Guest
I don't think we can measure "NOW".
"now" would, in a way, be infinite.
we lack the tools and the openness of our mind to be able to measure all the little ittie bitty "nows" that happen. like now.
and now. and this now.. but not this now.
"now" would, in a way, be infinite.
we lack the tools and the openness of our mind to be able to measure all the little ittie bitty "nows" that happen. like now.
and now. and this now.. but not this now.
G
Guest
"Now" is how long it takes for the immediate future to become immediate past. Can I say that? "Immediate past"? Doesn't sound right.
Theory and practice. Practice means applied theory. If something is right in theory, it will be right in practice, always. If it isn't, then something is definitely wrong with the theory.
Which brings us to the topic at hand. Have you heard about Zenon's Paradox? Zeno was this great ancient Greek philosopher, and he proved there was a *serious* glitch in space theory. He said that, theoretically, if you were to move from point A to point B, you would never get to point B, because in order to get to point B, you would first have to get to point C which is half the distance between A and B. But then the remaining half of the way has another half.. and that half has another.. and another.. and so on. But still, in practice, it's possible to get from one point in space to another. More than that, we do it every day, every hour, every second, because we're constantly moving. So what is the explanation for this?
Theoretically, again, there's supposed to be, as mentioned earlier by someone in this thread, a very small unit used to measure the smallest possible distance. If you ask me, this Planck unit was made up as a poor excuse for not being able to find a good explanation and I find it really disturbing that this unit is not only hypothetical but was also given an actual value (10^-35 meters, was it?). To me this seems totally bogus because if you were to calculate 10^-40 or 10^-350 or 10^-350000(...), you would still get a positive value and even the atom can be divided - theoretically - into billions of other smaller components... and so on. What's that you say? "No it can't"? Then let me ask you this: why not?
Making an analogy between space and time, I think the same thing can be said about the smallest unit we can use to measure time. It's called "present" and from all we know, just like the Planck, it doesn't even exist, because we can't prove its existance.
Get my drift? If not, post and ask me about it and I'll try to be more specific. Although I'm confusing myself as well here
Theory and practice. Practice means applied theory. If something is right in theory, it will be right in practice, always. If it isn't, then something is definitely wrong with the theory.
Which brings us to the topic at hand. Have you heard about Zenon's Paradox? Zeno was this great ancient Greek philosopher, and he proved there was a *serious* glitch in space theory. He said that, theoretically, if you were to move from point A to point B, you would never get to point B, because in order to get to point B, you would first have to get to point C which is half the distance between A and B. But then the remaining half of the way has another half.. and that half has another.. and another.. and so on. But still, in practice, it's possible to get from one point in space to another. More than that, we do it every day, every hour, every second, because we're constantly moving. So what is the explanation for this?
Theoretically, again, there's supposed to be, as mentioned earlier by someone in this thread, a very small unit used to measure the smallest possible distance. If you ask me, this Planck unit was made up as a poor excuse for not being able to find a good explanation and I find it really disturbing that this unit is not only hypothetical but was also given an actual value (10^-35 meters, was it?). To me this seems totally bogus because if you were to calculate 10^-40 or 10^-350 or 10^-350000(...), you would still get a positive value and even the atom can be divided - theoretically - into billions of other smaller components... and so on. What's that you say? "No it can't"? Then let me ask you this: why not?
Making an analogy between space and time, I think the same thing can be said about the smallest unit we can use to measure time. It's called "present" and from all we know, just like the Planck, it doesn't even exist, because we can't prove its existance.
Get my drift? If not, post and ask me about it and I'll try to be more specific. Although I'm confusing myself as well here
G
Guest
just one question, what does the little "^" stand for?