[neilep (OP)]

Hello, I'm Neil.

I don't even know how I thought of this as all I'm doing is trying to listen to some music, but it just occurred to me that ' NOW ' does not exist !!!..because by the time you experience ' NOW ' it's already in the past !!!...comprendez ?....If time was to freeze, and we could some how move and exist in frozen time, then I suppose we could experience ' Now ' couldn't we ?

Your comments, reflections, pensées would be welcome, hugged loved and nurtured.....but don't reply straight away....reply NOW !!!..


'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Ultima]

No because if time were frozen we wouldn't experience anything... Time might be freezing all the time and we wouldn't know about it []. Does it matter?  Time could be looping over and over the last nanosecond forever for all we know, meaning that life is ultimately pointless [] If you think to hard on this stuff you just get depressed.

wOw the world spins?

[neilep (OP)]

I'm so depressed ![]

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[gsmollin]

Actually Neil, NOW is the only thing that exists. It is the past that is frozen, fossils, existing only in our memories. The future cannot be seen, because it is approaching at the speed of light. So enjoy the moment, Neil. There is no cause for depression, because you have the NOW. Seize the NOW, and kiss your wife. Hey, how's the morning sickness?

[neilep (OP)]

I'm Elated []

Wifey is ok...ish !![]...thanks chum....I shall ' Carpe Diem ' away[]

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Ultima]

LOL

wOw the world spins?

[MayoFlyFarmer]

wow neil, what kind of music inspired THIS one??!!

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[neilep (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer

wow neil, what kind of music inspired THIS one??!!

Are YOUR mice nude? []

Dark Side Of The Moon whilst watching Wizard Of Oz !!...try it !!..it's a classic combination !![8D]

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[roberth]

It's no bloody wonder you're not sure about NOW, Neil. Maybe if you listened to something less than 30 years old and watched movies less than 60 years old you may not be so frozen in time.

[gsmollin]

Hey, wash your mouth out with soap! Pink Floyd is still great. I haven't tried it with Wiz-Oz, however. Neil, I never guessed you did that. You're going to be branded an aging hippie if you're not careful.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

what's wrong with being an aging hippie??!!  that's my life aspiration!

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[neilep (OP)]

Oh Man !!..Far Out !..This site is one hip happenning trip !

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[roberth]

I'm already an aging hippie, and Pink Floyd was one of my favourite bands 30 years ago. Now pass the bowl, I'll roll the next j.

[Titanscape]

How about I think now therefore now exists. And I thought therefore now existed.

Titanscape

[kellybett]

Whatever the Matter,it will always be'NOW'![]

Donna

[DrN]

Time is arbitrary, and set by man. its a measurement of something really hard to grasp (by me anyway), especially when considered along with space. the concept of light years and all this differential ageing of space explorers makes my head hurt! so who are we to say the future is the future and cannot be seen? perhaps some people exist on different time lines, or maybe can travel around in time? perhaps time goes faster for some people than for others.

[gsmollin]

Time is a very peculiar dimension, is it not? What is it about the "arrow of time" that we cannot see ahead, and the past is gone forever? The equally peculiar answer is that time is in motion. I think we can all grasp that, because tomorrow gets here, and becomes today, even when we do nothing to help it, or everything to delay it. If time is in motion, then, how fast is it moving? The answer to that is that it moves at the speed of light. Nothing can go faster, so you can't get ahead of time, and you can't go back in time either.

Einstein formalized this in the special theory of relativity. His four-dimensional world space is defined as x, y, z, and -ict.

[DrN]

why can nothing go faster than the speed of light?

[gsmollin]

Your best answer is provided by the man himself. Check out "Relativity" by A. Einstein from you local library. It has a moderate mathematical level. Beware of "The Meaning of Relativity" unless you're good at tensor analysis.

In a nutshell, the upper limit on velocity constrains cause and effect. If we could out-race light, we could travel into the past, and change it. This will never happen, so nobody can kill you before you were born. There are other detailed effects as well, but I think that one is the most important. Things only happen once in this universe. That is an important lesson, from a physical, metaphysical, and philosophical viewpoint.

[neilep (OP)]

...also if you do go faster than light, or reach light speed then it'll get very dark eh ?...and you may well get your driving licence taken away too !!.....see ?....you'll make a physicist of me yet (grin)

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[realityengineer]

Time is a measure of the interactions of substance within space.  Its passage is defined by the energy potential within localised space.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

i thought that if you had zero mass you could travel faster than light??

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[realityengineer]

well considering light [photons] do have zero mass, or are at least considered that way under current models, then you are infact saying light can travel faster than the speed of light.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

what if you had negative mass??

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[gsmollin]

Negative mass is repeled by positive mass, but positive mass is attracted to negative mass. So a positive mass would fall into a negative mass, which would fall away from the positive mass. It makes an interesting propulsion model. Nobody has seen any negative mass, however.

[DrN]

my head is starting to spin! how can positive mass be attracted to negative mass when it is in fact being repelled by the positive mass? Like the donkey and his carrot on a stick, always trying to reach it but constantly pushing it away. is negative mass antimatter? or is that something different entirely?

[MayoFlyFarmer]

is your head spinning faster than the speed of light?

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[neilep (OP)]

Isn't negative mass what a bunch of depressed catholics get up to ?

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[realityengineer]

Where did you hear about the positive negative mass interactions?

[DrN]

quote:is your head spinning faster than the speed of light?

lol![]

not sure .... if it were would I be thinking thoughts I already thought of .... or ones I hadn't yet got round to thinking about?

[gsmollin]

quote:Originally posted by realityengineer

Where did you hear about the positive negative mass interactions?

I got it backwards. The negative mass has the anti-gravity, and repels the positive mass. But the positive mass has gravity, and attracts the negative mass. This pair would zoom off through the universe.

I read this in a book, "The New Physics", published by Cambridge University Press. It was in a chapter "The Renaissance of General Relativity", written by Clifford Will.

The negative mass concept comes about because of the negative sign of gravitational binding energy. The mass of a star or other compact object is always less than the mass of its constituent particles, if they were all placed at inifinity. As the star forms from the nebula, it must radiate its gravitational binding energy, and when it is done, it has less mass than the original nebula. The difference is the gravitational binding energy. Now it was postulated that if a compact mass shrank enough, it could lose enough gravitational binding energy to become a negative mass. This was debated for years, and a theorem of GR was proposed to prohibit this. It was proved by some mathematicians, and subsequently by GR theorists, using another method. So GR now prohibits negative mass, via the positive mass theorem.

[realityengineer]

so your saying that if negative mass existed, it would repel positive mass, but due to GR it doen't exist...

[gsmollin]

Yes, positive mass curves space towards it, and negative mass curves it away. However, much like the square root of -1, negative mass is not real.

[realityengineer]

doesn't exist in three dimensional space, got it.

[chimera]

quote:Originally posted by gsmollin

Time is a very peculiar dimension, is it not?
Einstein formalized this in the special theory of relativity. His four-dimensional world space is defined as x, y, z, and -ict.

But I wonder who ever said time has to be a 'whole' dimension? I can imagine reality having 'fractal' dimensions, meaning 1+1+1 plus time not equalling four, but maybe pi, for all we know. Maybe that's why pi is pi, because this universe is not truly 4 dimensional, but three-something-ish. It's sort of halfway between here and there, say.  Remember that in string theory they have 7 dimensions just 'rolled up', too.

Dunno, makes some weird sense, somehow. Systems with 'fixed' numbers generally don't work. There needs to be some 'tension' in the system, it seems. Some kind of imbalance.

[]

[MayoFlyFarmer]

oooooo.......   fun

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[chimera]

quote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer



[1] oooooo.......   fun

[2] Are YOUR mice nude? []

[1] Oh, it gets much weirder than that. Remember electromagnetics does not only work in three dimensions, but also in one (1). This would seem a bit useless, but it means that theoretically you'd be allowed to switch single dimensions with others without a glitch. So if you had a shape like an icositetrahedron (24-cell, hyperdiamond) which is purely 4-dimensional, you could have a 'particle space' that could do the switcherola with 24 sides (8 by 3 model, known from quark fame) giving all kinds of hints of 7 dimensions 'rolled up', but failing to see it's actually 3 times 7 dimensions that you don't see all of the time. All this with slightly above industry-strength 'refresh rates', naturally.

It would also explain why some particle phenomena seem to happen 'elsewhere'. They do, in a sense.

The imperfect continuous translation from a 4 dimensional shape crammed into 3 leads to a surplus that we experience as time.

Sort of, but I think it's pretty close (seriously)

[2]Ofcourse, or I'd have a few pretty confused-looking snakes when I feed them. (just kidding).

[]

[chimera]

Now the polite thing to ask would be:

- have you taken your medicine recently? (don't have any, never worry)
or alternatively:
- do you have any supportive evidence for such far-fetched, apparent nonsense? (quite a bit, alas)

[]

[sharkeyandgeorge]

I thought super light paritcles like tacheons travelled faster than light how do they beat the rules?
also perhaps now is like a line with only one dimension so although it exists cannot be measured

i apologise for the spelling i know its atrosi atrro attro bad

[Ultima]

Tachyons are purely theoretical? Although Star Trek might want you to believe otherwise. Because something exists on paper in an equation doesn't mean it occurs in real life. On paper there as a miniscule (to the extreme) chance that if I run at a brick wall I will tunnel right on through un harmed... It's not going to happen, I've tried [].

http://physics.gmu.edu/~e-physics/bob/n.htm [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

wOw the world spins?

[gsmollin]

I failed in tunneling my fist through a couple of pieces of lumber.

[chimera]

quote:Originally posted by gsmollin

I failed in tunneling my fist through a couple of pieces of lumber.

Yeah, those collapsing wavefronts can really hurt the knuckles, eh? []

[IAmAI]

I once wondered whether 'now' exists. Consider our perception of ‘now’... In order to perceive anything and take action on (process) anything, we have sense the universe with our senses and store it in our brain. Just like fossils, our brain contains a representation of the past. Therefore, it could be considered that any experience is the past (though minutely so).

[Sandwalker]

Hey

'Time' comes in 'Any colour you like'

Its all 'Us and them' 'On the run' in 'The great gig in the sky'

So don't 'Speak to me' I'm 'Brain damage'd


Sorry could not get 'Money' or 'Eclipse' to fit in.

[]So if you can 'Eclipse' this you can have the 'Money'!

[gsmollin]

quote:Originally posted by IAmAI

I once wondered whether 'now' exists. Consider our perception of ‘now’... In order to perceive anything and take action on (process) anything, we have sense the universe with our senses and store it in our brain. Just like fossils, our brain contains a representation of the past. Therefore, it could be considered that any experience is the past (though minutely so).

Well, yes, and this is true even if our reaction time were zero, because light has a finite speed. Even across a table, we see each other as we were a few nanoseconds ago. We see the moon as it was 2 seconds ago, etc. This is the whole observer-dependence bit in special relativity. Nevertheless, once the light-cone has past you, it recedes at c, and cannot be recalled, except as a "fossil" memory.

[Santi2c]

well u can never "sit" on an interval of time, cuz then theres always a way of breaking down that "instant". but of course this all depends. it always goes back to if u believe in "building blocks" or continuos space.  infinite/finite etc.  string theory? we'll always come up with more satisfying conclusions and stuff, but that itching paradox still exists, and whether we choose to accept it or reject it, the paradox will grow.. or shrink? get it? but it all functions the same right, no matter where we are in the scientific timeline? we get similar results no matter how primitive our definition of "things falling to the ground" is.  u may argue that no.. science brings about discoveries and technology and we manipulate the world etc and it benifits us to excercise our curiousity blabla, but after i post this, im still a living human being who might eat somethng or might take a ****, whether it comes outta the microwave or a brick oven, or whether i go in the toilet or behind a tree.  i dont mean to be some arogant little teenage philosopher though, im trying to avoid that.  but like u said "my head's spinning" .. it doesnt nesesarrily benifit the human race to know the answers, but its fun and good excerise, but what does knowing the answer give us.  we invent things like intervals of time to make life more convenient and decorated and controlled and stuff, but then we question our invention/building block.  inventing seconds doesnt give me control of time..
is there a way of understanding time without putting ticks on a clock?  its our need to understand it that brings up this post!  but have u writing an essay for school in one big sitting without thinking, and THEN going back to edit? it seems harder for me sometimes than just rewriting it, or writing it slowly and confidently and thoughtfully the first time around.  but of course, saying that isnt even correct cuz what decides how u move on confidently to the second sentence? either u live life like a caveman without too many questions or u move slowly and find patterns etc, but either way ur still moving through the essay, sorry for the lame double metaphors.  but so much of science is the pedantics, which is me writing this long post hoping for soem attention.  and answers are juicy, especially controversial or unique ones.  coming up with these kinda questions (the frozen time one) is what drive science.  sometimes i wonder if its just another way of "comparing penis size".  like in the end, who really gives a **** about this stuff.  some of the biggest philosophers were some of the biggest tight asses, wanting to be smart, writing down their cyclical complicated thoughts.  theres so much elitism, "who can get the question of the week?" for example. im not sure if i dislike the elitism of science, cuz its kinda fun, and maybe nesesarry.  not sure. so just to clarify, this isnt criticism exactly.  im a jazz trumpet player, and ive noticed that a lot of ppls intentions during a solo vary, but the audience's reaction is always in the back of ur mind, and ppl are boxed into impressing them.  scientists have this similar insecurity.  and again, its all relative, how smart am i in a vacuum? i dunno, let me take a mirror outta my magic hat to reflect ideas off of, or post soemthing here to see how i look.  jazz musicians and scientists have this crazy mix of confidence and insecurity.  this arrogant pride when discovering xyz but this undying need to show it off or gain recognition for it.  so it all goes back to relativity if ur gonna stick posts in the ground in a completely blank white world that u dont understand. so if we need to understand, we must mark up, and stick ticks on a watch. we're dependant on those first urges for knowledge, if we can be satisfied in labeling a "first" of course, whether its miles's playing that got me into jazz (and it was dizzy that got him into it, etc) or plato's questions that sprung up more questions, until it reaches a chemistry textbook that ur obligated to read out of in 10th grade, unless you wanna fail.
this might be too unfamiliar to nonmusicians, although there might be some of u out there, but back to the time question, i find another music connection.  the way u hear music and harmony.  whether you hear the chord that it "presently" sounding, like in a vacuum independently, or whether u hear it as a contrast of the previous chord, and the beauty of the stretch or distacne from A major7 to C#major7. or whether u hear it in relation to "whats to come" or all three? and heres another thought, the zoning in and out thing. whether you zone into the chord, the voicing, the notes A C# E G# in an Amajor7, zoom in further to the vibrations of each note and the sound waves and overtones.... or u zoom out, seeing the chord that just happened and the chord to follow it. u zoom out further and hear all three in your head, you zoom out further and hear how it relates to the 1 song on the album and how it sits infront of the 3 song that is to follow.  or how your perception of that a major 7 chord is effected but the album u heard before putting this one on, or by ur mood, the sound of a glass shattering before u decide to press play, or anythign at all really.  ur attitude when approaching the chord, do u give a **** or do you not give a ****, and ur urge to undrstand the truth. thats what i mean by zoming in and out, and it brings up that question of infinite/finite and reality.  which ever we u crack it, the paradox seems to grow for me.  do you see time as a timeline or a circle or a glowing thing that encompasses ur memories as a child with the presnet with whats to come.  why does everyone see the week days from left to right, why is "the future" to the right, or ahead, or any direction at all.  this sorta relates to kurt vonneguts slaughter house five i guess.  also back to the music thing, some ppl have different theories about how you hear, and no matter if u say u hear oen note at a time and then how it contrasts with the other notes in the chord, or whether u can hear 3 dimensionally, ur still hearing, and ur still deciding that theres a way u hear.  put on chord on top of another on the piano?  isnt it 2d or 3d sounding or what?  asking for answers and asking questions can either bring up more or less, and u have to decide which u want to do i guess.  ok im stopping, and i probably failed at sounding non teenage philosophery, but please respond, with respect,
peace out

[cheryl j]

I won't even touch the physics involved with time and "now". Its beyond me. But even in biology, there is not exactly an agreed upon "now." Some brain scan experiments show that when a person performs an action, the persons brain has already sent the message to do it before the person is consciously aware of having even made a decision. ( This really creeps me out, as it sort of messes with the idea of free will as well)

Another odd biological thing related to "now" has to do with perception in tall and short people. The nervous system has to correlate sensation in time. If I touch your cheek and foot simultaniously, your brain needs to register both sensations as happening at the same time, even though it takes longer for the nerve impulse to get from your foot to your brain than from your cheek to your brain. There is a slight delay in the nerve transmission from the cheek, so they arrive at the same time. This delay is less in shorter people than in tall ones, and in this respect shorter athletes have an advantage over taller ones, since they perceive events as happening slightly sooner than tall people. Since nerve transmissions travel pretty fast, you wouldnt think the difference would be that significant, but it as much as a tenth of a second, which if you are judging the speed and position of a fast ball, might matter.

[neilep (OP)]

I won't even touch the physics involved with time and "now". Its beyond me. But even in biology, there is not exactly an agreed upon "now." Some brain scan experiments show that when a person performs of action, the persons brain has already sent the message to do it before the person is consciously aware of having even made a decision. ( This really creeps me out, as it sort of messes with the idea of free will as well)

Another odd biological thing related to "now" has to do with perception in tall and short people. The nervous system has to correlate sensation in time. If I touch your cheek and foot simultaniously, your brain needs to register both sensations as happening at the same time, even though it takes longer for the nerve impulse to get from your foot to your brain than from your cheek to your brain. There is a slight delay in the nerve transmission from the cheek, so they arrive at the same time. This delay is less in shorter people than in tall ones, and in this respect shorter athletes have an advantage over taller ones, since they perceive events as happening slightly sooner than tall people. Since nerve transmissions travel pretty fast, you wouldnt think the difference would be that significant, but it as much as a tenth of a second, which if you are judging the speed and position of a fast ball, might matter.

Woo !!..Thank ewe Cheryl (and welcome to the site  []) for this wonderful informative post. That is fascinating regarding the cheek and foot !..So..the brain purposely delays the reaction from the cheek to correspond in time with the reaction from the foot !......

So, if just the cheek is touched the reaction is quicker !...amazing !

[cheryl j]

If I understood the article I read correctly, I dont think the nerve transmission is faster if just the cheek is touched. I think no transmission is allowed to go any faster than if it had originated from the farthest point from the brain, so in tall people it will always be a little slower.