Time Dimension

[rooters]

Can I ask for comments on the below qouted please:

 

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

 

2. This suggests our notion of time is the result of an illusion. Like the motion in a movie is an illusion created by displaying pictures fast after one another, so should our notion of "time", as wel as our notion of "present" be the result of a movement through the dimension of time.

 

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:

*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.

*The force is individual.

*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.

*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

 

4. This is suprising close to dualism. It doesn't "proof" any religion, since most religions have this notion embedded, but it does pose rather dificult questions to atheism, hence I tried to bring it up here.

[Kyrisch]

I don't understand how that would present any problems to atheists...

[[Tycho?]]

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:

*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.

*The force is individual.

*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.

*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

 

This 3rd point is kinda messed up. What force is being talked about here? And the passage of time can be manipluated in some ways, at least in comparison to others. You can move at an extremely high velocity relative to some observer, plus a strong gravitational field will indeed alter how time passes in comparison to someone else.

 

And I dont see what any of this has to do with athiesm or religion of any kind.

[Moonquake]

I'm assuming they mean that the soul is moving through time as the point of perspective, but this liniarity of time is an illusion according to this theory, there isnt something moving through time literally. You are currently in existence at all points of your life assuming that the past has gone and that the future is approaching, whichever point your perspective is occuring at it will still seem like this.

If this person is right and the soul is moving through time, then the soul has no influence over the actions of the body, as our future actions are already fixed. Also we can't have free will because the future is already fixed as it is. This therefore opposes many religions, and not atheism.

[Moonquake]

Also, this means that the universe is just a fixed 4 (or more) dimensional 'shape', with there being no need for anything to precede the universe that brought it into being. If there was no time 'before' the big bang, there was no 'before the big bang'.

[Tom Mattson]

Can I ask for comments on the below qouted please:

 

My comment is that the whole thing is a sloppily tossed word salad.

 

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

 

SR is certainly compatible with an infinitely long past, but it doesn't suggest it. And GR seems to suggest that the universe is not infinitely old. You could keep winding the time coordinate back, but eventually you would run into a singularity. And even if the universe were infinitely old, that would not mean that present, future, and past exist simultaneously. If that were the case then all events would happen at once, which is absurd.

 

2. This suggests our notion of time is the result of an illusion. Like the motion in a movie is an illusion created by displaying pictures fast after one another, so should our notion of "time", as wel as our notion of "present" be the result of a movement through the dimension of time.

 

What relativity suggests is that one's notion of time is the result of changes in the physical state of the universe, as he observes them. If it weren't for bodies in motion, there wouldn't be any such thing as time. Time exists only as a relation between moving objects.

 

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:

*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.

*The force is individual.

*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.

*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

 

There's nothing "logical" about any of this, as there are no valid deductions from premises to conclusion. The author of this piece doesn't seem to know the meaning of the words "logic", "force", "energy", or "metaphysical".

 

4. This is suprising close to dualism. It doesn't "proof" any religion, since most religions have this notion embedded, but it does pose rather dificult questions to atheism, hence I tried to bring it up here.

 

Say what? Dualism is the metaphysical school of thought that there exist two fundamental substances: the mental and the physical. Nowhere in parts 1 through 3 did the author ever show that he understood the physical, and me didn't even mention the mental.

[rooters]

Motion = Time

 

What's wrong with this notion?

[swansont]

Motion = Time

 

What's wrong with this notion?

 

Motion and time are related to each other, but they are not the same thing.

[phyti]

When you observe a star, you are aware that what you perceive happened in

the past some light years ago. Extending this reasoning to closer objects, the

light from the sun takes a few minutes, the chair across the room takes a few

nanoseconds. The zero reference time ends in your mind. This would imply that

we really live in the past. Now is a fictitious concept with no correspondence

in the real world. Time is a mental construct to order events and measure the

amount of activity/change in the world. The concept future can only be

possible outcomes for human activity. The future of inanimate matter on its

own is limited by the laws that govern it. Animals are essentially programmed

to a repetitive life style. The human is unique because we have free will and

can act contrary to natural laws and form alternate histories, i.e. the future

is not a predetermined 'place', its a process. We may predict an event only

if our theory is correct, but verification(knowledge) is always historical (after the fact). A key requirement for the concept of time to work is memory.

[DanielFB]

It seems this getting philosophical means science needs to be redefined. But talking of the mind and time you must take consideration of Descartes thinking. Thinking coheres with mind, wanting certainty of existence is natural and you are satisfied with "I think therefore I am", because this thinking IS something. Let's imagine the physicality this proposition brings, having a concept close to the best we can get of time means the physicality of time. Therefore, if you like, what is needed is definition for this.

 

If thirty miles an hour was light speed, and a driver of a bus has one passenger sitting on board travelling thirty miles an hour, the passenger would not feel time. Then, if a live observer outside watching it gets to see the passenger, he sees them inside the bus completely stationary. The passenger looks out to see the world stationary in state. The bus can move in all possible directions of space and a physical beam would be seen if thirty miles per hour was lightspeed. If the bus was moving right at lightspeed, you would see a beam. If it was moving backwards, then you would see a beam. If it was moving upwards, then you would also see a beam. The interesting question is what would the bus look like moving in all directions at once? Surely it would appear to us to be completely motionless. The bus would appear stationary and observers would watch the passenger without times experience. Similarly, the passenger seeing the observer would notice he was stationary. That is where the entropic state of existence gets brought forward. The bus is seen in slow motion but neither party experiences time. Lightspeed being constant means we can envisage what is called duality and because of this duality each party becomes dynamic, that is, it experiences motion. Over seeing lightspeed lacking constancy, everything would freeze and motion would not exist.

[[Tycho?]]

Can anybody make sense out of the above post? I know I can't.

[cpwmatthews]

I thought that if we could travell at light speed away from the light we would be in blackness as we had out run the light? As for the passenger travelling at that speed, wouldn't the out side close by be blurred and only become visible at great distance as we could not fix our attention on anything close. I'm sure there is a maths formula to structure the distance away needed to enable a stationary view. In a previous forum i learnt that humans see at 70 frames per second anything quicker and we may not see it close up but with distance the length of the field of view broadens and we get the chance to see more, sorry if it sounds crazy, as Einstein said knowledge is not as important as immagination.

[GutZ]

'']Can anybody make sense out of the above post? I know I can't.

 

An example of how to percieve time giving an anology with a bus and an arbitary speed to represent light speed which I guess would be the upper limit of time?

 

The all direction thing confuses me though.

 

Oh that was a retorical question right?

 

damn.

[DanielFB]

 

The all direction thing confuses me though.

 

 

Oh, this confuses you, well okay, firstly spacetime can be thought of singularly, as one entity.

 

General relativity translates to all phenomena, gravity, causality, consciousness and time. For a great analogy, see gravity on earth. Objects fall to earth, and earth is attractive, but, the actual effect is that the earth is accellerating outwards. Consider the thought experiment of the box shaped room floating about in space with an experimenter inside of it: if it moves upwards, the experimenter can upright himself on a wall of the box. This shows that the surface of earth is as if accelerating outwards.

 

The same principle applies to time. The effect of time can be seen by looking at any object and imagining it to be accelerating outwards. This gives the effect that the object is moving through a fourth spatial dimension, time.

 

dan