Time and Space: Relative or Absolute?
Is T&S relative or absolute?
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Just wanna know my fellow Fakku members' input as to whether time and space are relative only to one's perspective/consciousness or are they absolute and exist whether we perceive them or not.
Personally, I think T&S are relative to the environment and our inner consciousness. They're both illusions that rely on matter and thought. In other words, they aren't entities of themselves.
In regard to space: Let's say you finish a can of pop. Normally one would say that the can is empty. However, is it really empty? What about the air thats inside of it? Let's say you decide to take out the air in the can? You grab your vacuum and start sucking away. OMG look what happened? The whole damn thing collapsed into itself. Basically, an entity is always around to occupy a surrounding. With that said, what is space?
In regard to time: It can be used to define other variables, but when you try to define it, the definition is circular. The units of time that we use are not universal and probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the sun.
That's all I got right now, my brain itches. What are your thoughts?
Personally, I think T&S are relative to the environment and our inner consciousness. They're both illusions that rely on matter and thought. In other words, they aren't entities of themselves.
In regard to space: Let's say you finish a can of pop. Normally one would say that the can is empty. However, is it really empty? What about the air thats inside of it? Let's say you decide to take out the air in the can? You grab your vacuum and start sucking away. OMG look what happened? The whole damn thing collapsed into itself. Basically, an entity is always around to occupy a surrounding. With that said, what is space?
In regard to time: It can be used to define other variables, but when you try to define it, the definition is circular. The units of time that we use are not universal and probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the sun.
That's all I got right now, my brain itches. What are your thoughts?
0
I'll make my judgment on this, to some people an hour is a short time others it is an excruciating amount of time, but it generally varies on whether or not they are waiting on something, it is based on the individual mindset, if you want time to pass by quickly it will probably be painfully slow, and vice versa. I find that I can get more done in one hour than many people can in 2-3 but I think that has something to do with having spent time in the military, I will admit though listening to some people talk is a practice in patience. Then again I have freakish reflexes so that may play a part in it, I like to try to be faster than computers, or at least fast enough to make them freak out on me, which I'm fairly successful at, sometimes.
0
While I do have beliefs and ideas about existence, I really don't place much emphasis on the matter. Debating whether reality is a material construct or some sort of external perception of our consciousness only complicates things. We have theorized about existence, reality, and all that bullshit since the dawn of man. After ages of theorizing, intellectual debate, "groundbreaking" discoveries in a wide array of fields, and so forth, what we now sit upon is a pile of inconclusive and, for the most part, contradictory theories. As long as there is any inquiry into the nature of existence, there will be equal grounds to say that we do or don't exist. That's just the way it is. We might not be sure if we are really here, but as long as we perceive our own existence, why can't we just be and let things play out on their own?
0
what he said
The Jesus wrote...
While I do have beliefs and ideas about existence, I really don't place much emphasis on the matter. Debating whether reality is a material construct or some sort of external perception of our consciousness only complicates things. We have theorized about existence, reality, and all that bullshit since the dawn of man. After ages of theorizing, intellectual debate, "groundbreaking" discoveries in a wide array of fields, and so forth, what we now sit upon is a pile of inconclusive and, for the most part, contradictory theories. As long as there is any inquiry into the nature of existence, there will be equal grounds to say that we do or don't exist. That's just the way it is. We might not be sure if we are really here, but as long as we perceive our own existence, why can't we just be and let things play out on their own?
0
Humans will never be able to make truely accurate theories on the world around us. As long as we have limited senses, and thus a limited narrow band within which we see the world around us, even with technological assistance we'll still always fall short.
0
Space time (Einstein suggested that we refer to space and time as one entity) isn't set at a constant value. If anyone watched the History Channel's (American) series about the universe you'll understand what I'm talking about.
When something in the universe projects gravity it warps both time and space around it.
Basically, I'll fuck the whole thing up so here's the wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Theoretical_models
I used to be a space nerd. Planets, comets, theories on the universe,etc
If time was an absolute then no matter where you were in the universe time should pass by at the exact same rate. Though they have proven that isn't the case by placing an atomic clock on a space shuttle and synced it up with one on earth and the one in space was slower than the earth bound clock.
When something in the universe projects gravity it warps both time and space around it.
Basically, I'll fuck the whole thing up so here's the wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Theoretical_models
I used to be a space nerd. Planets, comets, theories on the universe,etc
If time was an absolute then no matter where you were in the universe time should pass by at the exact same rate. Though they have proven that isn't the case by placing an atomic clock on a space shuttle and synced it up with one on earth and the one in space was slower than the earth bound clock.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Bah, why do people always dodge these kinds of questions by saying that we'll never truly understand the wonders of the universe, or that all theories contradict each other so it's not worth discussing? That much is obvious. In fact, my psychology professor once told me that a good theory is one that can be disproven (or countered with an alternative theory).
Would the thread be any more worth discussing if we knew the answer? Think about it, how boring would life be if we had the answers to everything? These kinds of questions make life interesting, and that alone makes it worth talking about. If you didn't find it interesting, then why bother posting?
Would the thread be any more worth discussing if we knew the answer? Think about it, how boring would life be if we had the answers to everything? These kinds of questions make life interesting, and that alone makes it worth talking about. If you didn't find it interesting, then why bother posting?
0
I won't dodge it, then.
Here is what I think:
Time and space are relative, to both each other, and to nothing. As existence is itself a contradiction, the laws of physics are simply a set of material rules designed to keep us all from floating off into the slipstream.
Think about this for a second:
We are made of cells. These cells are made of molecules. These molecules are made of atoms. These atoms are made of subatomic particles. These subatomic particles are made of...what was it, quarks?
Anyway, if you keep going down, you'll notice a pattern: In between each piece of our existence, there is an empty space. Omnipresent, down to the smallest bit of physical matter. Thus, we exist equally of solid matter and empty space. Thus, we both do and don't exist at the same time.
Funny, huh?
Here is what I think:
Time and space are relative, to both each other, and to nothing. As existence is itself a contradiction, the laws of physics are simply a set of material rules designed to keep us all from floating off into the slipstream.
Think about this for a second:
We are made of cells. These cells are made of molecules. These molecules are made of atoms. These atoms are made of subatomic particles. These subatomic particles are made of...what was it, quarks?
Anyway, if you keep going down, you'll notice a pattern: In between each piece of our existence, there is an empty space. Omnipresent, down to the smallest bit of physical matter. Thus, we exist equally of solid matter and empty space. Thus, we both do and don't exist at the same time.
Funny, huh?
0
I'm not sure what your question is, time and space are human concepts built to give us a way to relate to the universe, so I don't see how it can be anything except relative. So, everything is relative and the only thing that's absolute is that nothing is absolute =), especially in anything pertaining to the human experience.
Now if there were some type of omniscient being who could see all and know all and be everywhere at once, then maybe from our perspective, time and space would absolutes for it, but would that be the case from the entity's own perspective? I guess my opinion is the smaller the scope the more relative things get and the bigger the scope the more absolute they seem.
Now if there were some type of omniscient being who could see all and know all and be everywhere at once, then maybe from our perspective, time and space would absolutes for it, but would that be the case from the entity's own perspective? I guess my opinion is the smaller the scope the more relative things get and the bigger the scope the more absolute they seem.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Arizth wrote...
I won't dodge it, then.Here is what I think:
Time and space are relative, to both each other, and to nothing. As existence is itself a contradiction, the laws of physics are simply a set of material rules designed to keep us all from floating off into the slipstream.
Think about this for a second:
We are made of cells. These cells are made of molecules. These molecules are made of atoms. These atoms are made of subatomic particles. These subatomic particles are made of...what was it, quarks?
Anyway, if you keep going down, you'll notice a pattern: In between each piece of our existence, there is an empty space. Omnipresent, down to the smallest bit of physical matter. Thus, we exist equally of solid matter and empty space. Thus, we both do and don't exist at the same time.
Funny, huh?
Remind me to give you a rep for that post, that was epic. Thanks dude, lol. Cooperboy's was thought provocative as well.
0
Space and time are dimensions, essentially. We can make arbitrary units to measure them, and within the definition of those units we can find consistency for the most part. Space is generally considered as three dimensional, with what's occupying it being irrelevant, though it is a multi-purpose word. Time is generally considered a single dimension.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
If you believe space and time are dimensions, does that also mean you believe they are absolute and exist with or without matter and energy? Is time a seperate dimension, or does it share a dimension with one of space's?
0
WarLord wrote...
If you believe space and time are dimensions, does that also mean you believe they are absolute and exist with or without matter and energy? Is time a seperate dimension, or does it share a dimension with one of space's?Dimension, in this instance, is simply a measurable quantity, a way of interpreting something that exists. I believe you are using the scifi form, where it's a different reality. Length, width, and height are three separate dimensions that we use to define space. Time is it's own dimension.
0
WarLord wrote...
If you believe space and time are dimensions, does that also mean you believe they are absolute and exist with or without matter and energy? Is time a seperate dimension, or does it share a dimension with one of space's?Time can only exist with space.
Outside of space as we know it, time means nothing.
To properly understand this, we must understand the nature of time.
Time is simply a nice way of saying Decay. The beginning of time is the big bang, and the end will be the big crunch.
Everything that exists withing the timestream is simply matter in decay.
Matter relies on space to exist. Thus, time relies on space to exist. Without a tangible universe to decay, time cannot exist, because with no decay, there would be no time.
Anything non-tangible, like the slipstream, the ether, secondary and tertiary dimensions, and whatever deity one might worship, is immune to our sense of time, since they exist elsewhere.
...I just talked in circles. Whee.
0
crazy_old_man_on_the_hill wrote...
WarLord wrote...
If you believe space and time are dimensions, does that also mean you believe they are absolute and exist with or without matter and energy? Is time a seperate dimension, or does it share a dimension with one of space's?Dimension, in this instance, is simply a measurable quantity, a way of interpreting something that exists. I believe you are using the scifi form, where it's a different reality. Length, width, and height are three separate dimensions that we use to define space. Time is it's own dimension.
In case you guys don't get, this crazy old man of the hill is talking about dimensions. We are third dimensional beings, so every moment of our life is the present. We can imagine a few more dimensions, but we're stuck in the third one.
The first dimension is basically a line from one point to another(lenght)
The second dimension...fuck it.
Just watch this up to the 4th or 6th dimension explanation:
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
The Jesus wrote...
While I do have beliefs and ideas about existence, I really don't place much emphasis on the matter. Debating whether reality is a material construct or some sort of external perception of our consciousness only complicates things. We have theorized about existence, reality, and all that bullshit since the dawn of man. After ages of theorizing, intellectual debate, "groundbreaking" discoveries in a wide array of fields, and so forth, what we now sit upon is a pile of inconclusive and, for the most part, contradictory theories. As long as there is any inquiry into the nature of existence, there will be equal grounds to say that we do or don't exist. That's just the way it is. We might not be sure if we are really here, but as long as we perceive our own existence, why can't we just be and let things play out on their own?Whereas animals can just be, we humans feel the urge to strive for something more from time to time(though it's not necessarily philosiphically or scientifically related)
0
Asshole wrote...
crazy_old_man_on_the_hill wrote...
WarLord wrote...
If you believe space and time are dimensions, does that also mean you believe they are absolute and exist with or without matter and energy? Is time a seperate dimension, or does it share a dimension with one of space's?Dimension, in this instance, is simply a measurable quantity, a way of interpreting something that exists. I believe you are using the scifi form, where it's a different reality. Length, width, and height are three separate dimensions that we use to define space. Time is it's own dimension.
In case you guys don't get, this crazy old man of the hill is talking about dimensions. We are third dimensional beings, so every moment of our life is the present. We can imagine a few more dimensions, but we're stuck in the third one.
The first dimension is basically a line from one point to another(lenght)
The second dimension...fuck it.
Just watch this up to the 4th or 6th dimension explanation:
http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
All I could think about during that video was Noein.
There's also a theological concept of planar existence. As we move to higher planes, our consciousness and sense of self dissolves into a greater consciousness until we reach the final plane which is the Christ-consciousness/God/the Source/existence as a whole. There's a whole shit load of theories. Usually the variation is in the number of planes, the nature of existence on each plane, and/or the sub-planes on each one. I never really got a good grasp of the whole idea until I read a book called Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda. Oddly enough, its not really a big topic in the book, but after reading it, you get a really good understanding of it.
0
time is a measurement and space is just that. nothing is infinite and hardly anything absolute... its a very powerful word when used in proper context. ask a philosopher if our existence is valid or proven and there'll be nothing but proxy answers, its essentially an impossible question to answer. we might exist as a manifestation of a thought in a powerful entities mind... theres limitless theories that cant be proven or unproven.
0
Cause and effect is our current approach to science. And it can be used to create models of our universe aswell as to describe time.
Time may just be a definition of events in a chain of causes and effects.
If nothing is causing anything, there is no effect, and nothing will ever happen, time stand still.
In a deterministic model of the universe, everything must be caused by something; time may merely be a way to say what caused what, what was 'first' if there is such a thing?
The problem would be the very first event as there cannot be any cause prior to the first event. The big crunch theory is a model that would solve this by looping the universe. Expanding, deexpanding and over again. None of the intervals of expansion/shrinking would happen before the other by our definition as they cause each other.
This model is like a cogwheel, if we add more cogwheel universes next to ours and we have a clockwork universe of loops that may or may not effect each other, which makes an even more advanced loop.
What caused this? Who can say? Our inability to answare that question indicates that we cannot comprehend reality and that our cause and effect, which all science is based upon model is greatly flawed. Everything we percieve is relative to us, time and space aswell.
Time may just be a definition of events in a chain of causes and effects.
If nothing is causing anything, there is no effect, and nothing will ever happen, time stand still.
In a deterministic model of the universe, everything must be caused by something; time may merely be a way to say what caused what, what was 'first' if there is such a thing?
The problem would be the very first event as there cannot be any cause prior to the first event. The big crunch theory is a model that would solve this by looping the universe. Expanding, deexpanding and over again. None of the intervals of expansion/shrinking would happen before the other by our definition as they cause each other.
This model is like a cogwheel, if we add more cogwheel universes next to ours and we have a clockwork universe of loops that may or may not effect each other, which makes an even more advanced loop.
What caused this? Who can say? Our inability to answare that question indicates that we cannot comprehend reality and that our cause and effect, which all science is based upon model is greatly flawed. Everything we percieve is relative to us, time and space aswell.