Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: TRIPL3 THR33 on 05/03/2015 10:47:10
-
There is no such thing as time. Time exists only because there is a witness to "The Reaction" (the continuation of energy changing form). Without a witness to the reaction, the reaction would happen instantaneously. The illusion of time, is the rate we comprehend the reaction. In the same way that a movie camera works, our brains take snapshots of the surrounding environment and makes our comprehension seem to flow at a continuous rate (what we call time).
One might then ask, “Well how much time passes between each snapshot?” There is no amount of "time" in between the snapshots, there is only “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before we take the next snapshot. We get the illusion of time because the reaction doesn’t stop. The reaction always reaches the point where our brains take the next snapshot.
I consider that what we perceive as time has come about as a result of matching the “rate that our brain takes snapshots” to the “need to comprehend things at a certain rate”. If, in between each snapshot, we let more of the reaction happen without comprehension, everything around us would seem to happen a lot faster. If, in between each snapshot, we let less of the reaction happen, everything around us would seem to happen a lot slower. I believe we have evolved to have time happen for us at the optimum rate. I believe that other living creatures on this planet would have different perceptions of time. Time would go slower relative to us for small spiders, flies, etc.
We will discover that in certain moments, like car accidents, the brain can decrease “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before the next snapshot and hence give the impression that time is going slower.
We will discover how to control “the amount of the reaction” that occurs before each snapshot is taken and hence be able to watch/do things in slow motion.
Thoughts?
-
We will discover that in certain moments, like car accidents, the brain can decrease “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before the next snapshot and hence give the impression that time is going slower.
Increased brain activity during danger causes an over-cranking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_motion#Overcranking) effect , which causes events to be perceived as running in slow-motion.
Can We Adjust Our Brains to See in Slow Motion?
People who take stimulants have their speech speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine)ed up for the same reason : their perception of time passing is slowed by increased brain activity , ( they percieve they are talking at normal speed ).
-
ok, so does that mean there is evidence that we could see in slow motion if we could figure out why this happens and control it?
-
ok, so does that mean there is evidence that we could see in slow motion if we could figure out why this happens and control it?
Why would you want to see things in slow motion when you have devices or cams for just that ? What for ?
Time seems to be an illusion indeed .
-
If you're playing cricket or baseball, it could give you a huge competitive advantage. Then again though, the top batters probably already use techniques to speed up their thinking in that context.
-
Lets call the starting of a stopwatch point 1 (p1) in the reaction (everything happening in the universe at the same moment). Once the stopwatch shows 1 minute we stop it (p2). We call this 1 minute of "time". I call this a measure of how much of the reaction has occurred (r1). r1 = p2 - p1.
r1 is that same anywhere in the universe. However, r1 relative to r1 that occurs in a strong gravity field happens sooner. The same amount of the reaction happens. It's the rate of the reaction that's decreased due to gravity. Not time. Gravity affects the mass in the reaction but doesn't affect light. Hence why light is the same speed anywhere in the universe. Gravity doesn't effect time because time isn't a real thing that can be effected.
-
There is no such thing as time.
Whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about. Time is very important in physics and is nothing like you attempted to define it in the opening post (OP). To understand what time is study my colleagues webpage on it at:
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
Time exists only because there is a witness to "The Reaction" (the continuation of energy changing form).
That's far from being true. Time is the phenomena which corresponds to the different states of the universe. For example; suppose there are two galaxies described as
Galaxy 1 is at (0, 0)
Galaxy 2 is at (1, 1)
The following is also possible
Galaxy 1 is at (0, 2)
Galaxy 2 is at (2, 2)
How can this be? Using the English language we'd say that each galaxy "moved" a certain distance to get to its new location. The different states of the universe are said to be allowed by the phenomena known as time. That is to say that time is what allows motion and changes. This has nothing to do with people or any kind of witnesses. You're confused and using this "witness" stuff because you don't seem to understand that physics itself is what we use t describe nature so everything we talk about when talking using physics is describing nature with physics and that requires creating terms to be able to describe nature. For example; mass didn't automatically come into existence when someone first defined the term and used it in the scientific sense. Neither does space, motion, geometric shapes, planets, etc.
The illusion of time, is the rate we comprehend the reaction. In the same way that a movie camera works, our brains take snapshots of the surrounding environment and makes our comprehension seem to flow at a continuous rate (what we call time).
We comprehend things as they come. Your analogy has a problem because when you play the movie back you can play it back at a different rate than that which corresponded to the processes in the brain which marked their rate in the first rate.
Too many people are making this same mistake about time and the same nonsense is leading some to claim that time doesn't exist. I'll be studying this more on the future. I read one article that appeared in Scientific American and saw some major flaws in the authors reasoning. I expect the same will be with the others too. My colleagues feel the same way as well.
-
Firstly, thanks taking the time to reply to my post.
"The different states of the universe are said to be allowed by the phenomena known as time."
The reaction still occurs whether there is a witness or not. The time in the statement above could be replaced by delta reaction.
As the reaction continues forward our brain takes snapshots of comprehension at equally spaced intervals of the reaction. Giving the illusion of time being a property of the universe. Rather than our rate of comprehension as the reaction inevitably moves forward.
As you picture the universe with no living beings in it, does the earth still rotate every 24hrs? Or does it happen instantaneously? Yes, when you do the maths on the reaction that happened you can prove that t = 24hrs. But that is just a measurement of the amount of the reaction that happened.
Gravity doesn't effect time. It effects the rate of the reaction.
"Your analogy has a problem because when you play the movie back you can play it back at a different rate than that which corresponded to the processes in the brain which marked their rate in the first rate. "
I'm not saying the brain has some sort of physical effect on the universe.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. It means a lot to find someone who will take the time to hear me out. I really think I'm onto something here.
-
Firstly, thanks taking the time to reply to my post.
You're welcome.
I've explained why time is not an illusion but you're still speaking of time as being an illusion thus appearing as if you ignored what I explained. I don't see the point of posting again unless you can prove that I was wrong and that time as understood by physicists is wrong as I my link demonstrates.
Gravity doesn't effect time. It effects the rate of the reaction.
If you knew general relativity you'd know that's wrong. It's been verified by experiment and the fact is part of the operation of the GPS system. I.e. for the GPS system to work correctly the engineers who built the GPS satellites had to take that fact into account in the design and programing of the satellite electronics.
-
Sorry, I have now read your link.
But how can "time" be affected? Time isn't a physical property of the universe like mass, energy and light is? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the rate of the reaction at location A is accelerated relative to the reaction at location B due to gravity?
I understand that GPS's rely on taking into account the proven theory of relativity. Isn't that just because the rate of the reaction is faster in a satellite relative to an object on earth. I'm not saying that theory of relativity doesn't hold true. Just the way we think about it is maybe incorrect. Maybe gravity makes the reaction go faster/slower relative to other locations and what we measure as a result is a change in time (essentially a factor used to measure delta reaction). Wouldn't it make more sense that gravity is affecting the mechanics of reaction rather than the measurement of change?
Once again, I appreciate the feedback. I'm probably just a crackpot but I'm glad your not treating me with contempt.
-
But how can "time" be affected? Time isn't a physical property of the universe like mass, energy and light is? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the rate of the reaction at location A is accelerated relative to the reaction at location B due to gravity?
What ever gave you the idea that for something to exist it has to have a physical property? It's a phenomena and not all phenomena are things that you can hold in your hand. Ideas exist, don't they? Yet they're not physical. And you're quite wrong about energy, because energy is anything but a physical property. Physicists understand energy as a sort of bookkeeping concept. Energy originated in the study of thermodynamics and there's a text on thermodynamics that explains what I'm talking about very nicely. Understanding Thermodynamics by H.C. Van Ness. On page 14 the author writes
Every form of energy we have discussed is known only as a function of other variables, and I have been careful to say internal energy function, potential energy function, etc. Functions are pencil-and-paper constructs. I can't show you a function that has any substance, and that is why I can't show you a chunk of energy or why I can't define it or yell you what it is. It is just a mathematical or abstract or just a group of numbers. Thus we have no energy meters, not device we stick into a system which will record its energy. The whole thing is man-made.
I understand that GPS's rely on taking into account the proven theory of relativity. Isn't that just because the rate of the reaction is faster in a satellite relative to an object on earth.
That's correct. That's what energy actually is. Time is the rate at which all reactions proceed. It's important to understand that it's all reactions. If you had a set of clocks which all had different construction and were constructed to run at the same rate then whey put into orbit they'd still all run at the same rate but at a different rate than they did on Earth. That's what it means for the rate at which time flows to change when in a gravitational field.
I'm not saying that theory of relativity doesn't hold true. Just the way we think about it is maybe incorrect.
Good luck but knowing relativity like I do I'm certain that you're wrong. But that's not to say that you shouldn't follow what you want to. You have to convince yourself which is which because nobody will be able to convince you otherwise something you already accept to be true. And for that reason I won't be trying anymore.
If I can help you with any physics I'll be glad to but I won't be discussing time since I know already know what it is. It's not as if I haven't given it several decades of thought already.
Wouldn't it make more sense that gravity is affecting the mechanics of reaction rather than the measurement of change?
No. Quite the opposite in fact because if that was the case then each different mechanism would run at a different rate. When everything runs at an exactly different rate then its time itself that has changed because that is precisely and exactly what is meant when physicists use the term time.
Once again, I appreciate the feedback.
You're very welcome.
I'm probably just a crackpot but I'm glad your not treating me with contempt.
A crackpot will never say "I'm probably just a crackpot" because they're far too arrogant to think of themselves that way.
They think of themselves as "Geniuses who have figured out what physicists have been brainwashed wrongly to believe and are too closed minded to change their minds of." Lol! You don't come across that way. You do more asking than you do of claiming.
But you need to demonstrate your assertions in a more logical manner in the future and present arguments based on solid physics and the correct meaning of terms rather than what you thought the terms meant. Good luck my friend. :)
-
Ok, from what i've read there it means what i think of as the "rate of the reaction" is what time is. It just seems odd to model things as time being affected rather than the rate of which stuff happens relative to other stuff happening.
-
Wouldn't it mean though, if we were anle to prove that gravity and speec affects the rate things happen at rather than space and time, that we could ditch the whole space time continuum notion. Then space and time wouldn't have to be "created" at the same moment as the big bang. Which also seems ridiculous.
-
I know it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to me. But would you agree that the hypothesis of gravity affecting the rate things happen at (in a more mechanical sense) rather than affecting space and time a reasonable one? Especially considering gravity is a real and measurable force. How can it possible affect time itself.