|
2 registered members (TedMar, AndrewAMD),
1,344
guests, and 7
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Time destroys it's plans at the reactionary ta
[Re: Joozey]
#141611
07/17/07 17:39
07/17/07 17:39
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
inFusion
User
|
User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
|
Quote:
Yes this is absolute zero, so I guess time stands still at lightspeed and at absolute zero
I doubt that because the electrons are still spinning around the nucleons, so there still is change 
|
|
|
Re: Time destroys it's plans at the reactionary ta
[Re: zazang]
#141612
07/17/07 19:50
07/17/07 19:50
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Time is just a measurement of any change.Without change,there is no idea of time.
I don't think it's ever possible to have absolutely no change and thus effectively 'freezing time'. I think even when infinitely small there will always be a change because of the way all things seem to be linked to eachother. Apart from that personally it seems to me that 'time' itself is artificial. Perhaps in our view it makes sense that an infinite universe indicates infinite time, but if we define our universe as 'constantly expanding', then 'time' itself doesn't have to be infinite. On the other hand I believe it makes sense to assume that there could also have been a lot of time before our universe 'came into existence' in whichever way. My point is, I don't think time's possible infinite nature excludes our universe from possibly being finite. Not sure about the other way around scenario. Is it even possible to have no time when something is infinitely big? That would assume there's absolutely no change, which like I said at the beginning seems rather strange to me. It's still a theoretical possibility, but we know for a fact that the world hasn't 'frozen in time' yet off course.
A simplified picture;
( I really wonder how they determined time is a bend curve in other words change of movement with a 'constant speed' is in fact not constant but fluctuating? Got any links? )
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Time destroys it's plans at the reactionary ta
[Re: Shadow969]
#141615
07/18/07 09:57
07/18/07 09:57
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you're all speaking about time like it's a global value.
No, only when it comes to it's start and end or the possible infiniteness. I agree that the experience of time is very relative, but when it comes to 'true time' I have to say that I don't know much about it. My guess is that it's by far not as absolute as we or some of us might think, but that's mainly because I do not think there are any real absolutes, I don't know much about the theoretical background and current consensus on 'time' and all that's closely related (high or maximum possible speeds, black holes etc.)...
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Time destroys it's plans at the reactionary ta
[Re: AlbertoT]
#141618
07/26/07 00:09
07/26/07 00:09
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Everybody knows that two events , A and B, can happen at the same time for an observer but at different times for an other one
I'm by no means an expert, but there might be a difference between experiencing time (and our theoretical ideas) and what actually happens, because this doesn't sound that obvious. Basically it comes down to time stretching at extremely high speeds? Does it really 'stretch' or are we experiencing it as if it's stretching? According to Einstein time is relative, but does this mean time "itself" (time-space symmetry) or the experience of it? He always seem to have given examples of the latter.
Quote:
Most people suppose that this is evident just in case the relative speed is close to the speed of the light
Actually the two observers could experience the same situation, in theory of course, even though their relative speed is quite low provide their distance is huge
I think the problem with high speeds and huge distances is that measurements become very inaccurate pretty quickly. Perhaps it's simply the equivalent of an 'optical illusion' (but a truly physical one), but then one that has to do with the time-space symmetry instead of visual things?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
)