Time: Reality or Illusion

1. 0

   mbuggiehposted 9 years ago

   
   The forward and linear progress of time is central to human experience.
   
   And as noted in a recent Facebook posting by the World Science Festival's "Rethink Science" feature:
   
   "The past drifts away and the future relentlessly approaches. But does time really flow? Or, as Einstein suggested, might the distinction between past, present and future be an illusion?"
   
   So, if you are interested in some meaningful scientific and secular conversation about this problem, please share your thoughts...thanks!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Time is mans invention, a measure for his own convenience, it means nothing outside of his own consciousness and absolutely nothing in the universe and beyond.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Creationism is entirely irrelevant to any scientific discussion no matter what the topic. Creation--as explained in the Bible,  is a myth. Creationism is a belief in that myth. End of story.
         
         Time is not a myth as there is much more to time than our primitive senses of past, present, and future.
         
         Time is not limited to clock time or chronological measurement of minutes, hours, days, etc.
         
         Some current SCIENTIFIC thinking on time:
         
         http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/
         
         https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl … d3dc850933
         
         Summary: Time is real and is the by-product of entanglement.

         replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         If just a concept invented by man, what is a clock measuring, and why does that measurement change in a gravity well?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            A clock measures mans interpretation of time.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Great point wilderness!
            
            If time is just a human construct, then Einstein's theories are bunk and there is no such thing as space-time and NO possible way, for example, to measure the speed of light.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Barend Dippenaarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Accept time as a fact, albeit mystifying. Do not try to imagine it coming from one side and passing to another. Do not joke about it or sound too clever about it for nobody can explain it. I too can only think about it and this is my thinking. Imagine it as an enormous rolling wheel with the future rolling towards you as the past rolls way from you.The imaginary point where the wheel has contact with the ground is the momentary "Now." Have you ever wondered how long "Now" is?  It is as long as it takes you to ask the question, for once asked, another "Now" has replaced it with the relentless rolling of the wheel. Accept that the wheel is so huge that you won't experience a repetition of any "Nows" already gone by. The future exists like a book full of pages. Perhaps you are living your life on page forty nine, but you won't know how many pages there are. One day the writing in your book will suddenly cease, you will see the last page, and it will be "The End."  The future, like time, exists. Tomorrow is your next page.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
      
      Albert Einstein

      replyreport
   4. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Didn't I ask for meaningful and scientific conversation?
      
      Can we dispense with religion, spiritualism, mysticism, Mayans, and other assorted nonsense and focus on the science of time; the physics of time?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Barend Dippenaarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Do you want a scientific comment which is factually correct ?  Then you have to accept it with the factual basis of religion. Everything you can think of, and much more, is based on religion.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Religion???
            
            I am sorry, but no, everything is definitively NOT based on religion.
            
            Religion is about the supernatural, faith, belief.
            
            Science is about reality---the natural and physical world, facts, evidence, hypothesis, theory, experimentation.

            replyreport
   5. 84

      tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Time is a measurement that makes sense for the inhabitants of the planet earth of least today. A day on Pluto is much longer than a day on earth, yet it 'is' a day. Time is the difference between two rates of change. Time is not a dimension. Time has no location, no attributes, no separate existence or reality of its own, and time grows larger. Rates of change are perspective from a point of origin. There has to be a zero point even if it is declared 5 minutes after 4PM on such and such date. That point must be declared for late (after) or early (before) to have significance. Time does not care where that point is. That will not affect time.   
      
      Time of essence is change. Time is illusive because of memory. I remember the starting point and make measurements from it. Oddly, to travel backward into time is actually time moving forward. If it were possible how long it took to go from 2014 to 1900 (travel along a negative vector) is a positive rate of change from a zero point. Again, time grows or becomes larger. Thus, change continues along with it.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Many contemporary physicists would challenge this point you make: "Time has no location, no attributes, no separate existence or reality of its own, and time grows larger."

         replyreport
         1. 84

            tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Probably so. Having shared my thoughts I confess my views are not set in cement. Having read on time once in my life'time' (a little humor for a bit and a byte I today realize physics, philosophy, and religion all have different concepts. Generally I do not think they have found a happy ground for agreement or if so only on a few points along a line of concepts for usage. I inferred it is not a dimension in regard to 3rd dimensional and etc. and not it as a means of measuring dimensionally, e.g. distance. It compliments distance kinda' or vice versa. 
            
            However, IMHO, time as a tool or means of measurement seems always to be relative to what is used here on planet earth as the base, thus I eluded to Pluto being different. I tend to think time is a principle first and then is used as a process' for measurement. Time is time the same as an inch is an inch. You can bend it, make it into a circle, twist it, or lay it in a line. It measures how far memory spans from here to there or there to here. To me time is an absolute value of least for 'me' to comprehend it no matter the vector. Again, that may just be me and what little knowledge I have for it.

            replyreport
      2. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         A minute on Pluto is still a minute. So I fail to see how the fact they spin at different speeds has any affect on what time actually is in both places, i.e. the same. It is like saying that because my dog is large and brown and yours is small and black one of them may in fact be a cat. Time is not illusive when one refers to a shared standard of time (GMT etc) which continues to tick regardless of what one is doing.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Not if you are on Pluto.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The current GMT could be communicated to the person (or cat) on Pluto using a synchronized atomic clock. That being my point.  Where you are is irrelevant to the time it is unless you are traveling faster than light or getting crushed by a black hole.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Untrue - clocks today are accurate enough to detect a time change in orbit around the earth.  The difference in gravity means that the clocks have to be reset every day or the cheap GPS units we all use won't work.
                  
                  Something I ran across a few months ago - I had no idea that our instruments were so accurate.  I had always assumed location was determined by triangulation, but it turns out that it is the difference in the time reported by different satellites (by the time our GPS gets the signal) that is used instead.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I am not sure what you are saying is untrue.  All I am saying is that a minute on Pluto is the same length as a minute on Earth.  How you measure it accurately is a technical issue--but the minute is still the same length and time itself is the same in both places.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        But a clock ticking off minutes, even an atomic one with tremendous accuracy, will yield different lengths of that minute because of the differing gravity they are subjected to.  A gravity well slows down time, and clocks in that well will not record that same time passage that one outside the pull of gravity will.  It isn't just a black hole that does this; it is every source of gravity, i.e. every particle of mass.  The difference in the passage of time between the surface of the earth and in orbit a few miles above is easily measured and must be taken care of just to run our GPS systems here on the surface.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           relative to earth.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              No, not really.  The question was clocks on Pluto and Earth, and I merely point out they will keep time at differing rates to an independent observer.  Say, one floating around between Mars and Jupiter (whose clock will keep at yet a different rate as there is no gravity well at all).

                              replyreport
                              1. 77

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Time is surely relative to the planet one is on.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Do all planets rotate at the same rate?
                                    Maybe so.
                                    In which case a minute is a minute whatever planet you are on.
                                    I guess.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 77

                                       Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       -would time exist if the planet you were on stopped rotating?
                                       no.

                                       report
                                    2. 96

                                       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Rotation has little to nothing to do with it; the amount of gravity does.

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          "Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."
                                          
                                          http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what … z399q77i3n

                                          report
                                    3. 0

                                       mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       NO...all planets do not rotate at the same rate or even rotate at all.
                                       
                                       Time---as understood in physics, is NOT about day and night (among the end-results of planetary rotation).

                                       report
                     2. 60

                        Chris Challisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        If I may try to clarify; I see what you are saying psycheskinner. To the immediate observer of the minute, be they on Puto or anywhere else, the minute experienced will always be the same length. However, what the others are saying and what Relativity tells us, is that to an external observer comparing both 'minutes' one will appear longer than the other. Its like the classic fantasy scenario of disappearing into another world and experiencing an extended period of time before returning to find that a far shorter period had passed in the real world. Your first-hand experience of time's passage never changed, but you ended up out of sync because the 2 worlds represented different frames of reference. This has been empirically proven using atomic clocks within different gravitational field strengths.

                        replyreport
         2. 84

            tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Another way to look at that is a 'day' is one rotation of the planet. That is divided by 24 (Hour). That is divided by 60 (Minute). That is divided by 60 (Second).
            
            A 'day' on Pluto is in earth measurement = 6days + 9hours or 153hours
            
            If you lived on Pluto you would say an Earth day is 0.157 of a Day or about 1/6 of (Pluto) Day.
            
            Using the formula above an hour on Pluto is in earth hours 6.375 hours and etc.
            
            A minute is a minute. An hour is an hour. However, is it arrogant to say an hour measurement based on Earth to'day' is correct? On Pluto an hour is an hour too. It simply is an hour. It is only when a rate of measurement is compared to a different rate of measurement that difference occurs for a day or hour or minute or etc. Who says the base rate from (at) earth is correct for the universe?
            
            [ All of my calculations are subject to correction]
            
            Another concept is 370 million years ago using the same method to determine a day (1 rotation) a day was 22.7 of our hours today. A year was 400 days. 4.6 billion years ago the earth day was 14 of our earth hours today. (Source: http://infidels.org/library/modern/dave … otate.html)
            
            That as a concept means a man today age 60 lived 525,600 present day hours. Those same present day hours 4.6 billion years ago means a man would be 102.85 years old (525,600hrs ÷ 14hours x 365 days) based on the present hour we know and our present day formula for a year. Or, he saw the sunrise and sunset more times. He simply was older then.
            
            Notation: At 370 million years ago a year was 400 days. No information was provided for 4.6 billion years ago for a year.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               A 'day' has been defined by the Universal System of Units as 86400 seconds. A second itself is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".
               
               This increases the accuracy because a day isn't defined as the time period of an Earth solar day anymore. Back in that system, a day was a solar day, an hour was 1/24th of the solar day, and a second was 1/60th of an hour. The solar day is different on Earth and Pluto, but a day in SI Units is exactly the same because it is standardised.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  SI Units
                  "International System of Units noun
                  a system of physical units (SI Units) based on the meter, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, and mole, together with a set of prefixes to indicate multiplication or division by a power of ten." Dictionary

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm somewhat confused why you've posted a dictionary reference for the SI?

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Just to clarify. We need to know, don't you think? I greatly appreciate what you have contributed to this discussion!

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Okay, fair enough. SI units are standardised to increase accuracy.
                           
                           For example, the metre was once defined as one ten millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole. Now it's defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second".
                           
                           Because the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, standardising the metre to this means that accuracy is greatly improved.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Thank you!

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Happy to have helped.

                                 replyreport
               2. 84

                  tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Cool! I learned. Thank you

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     No problem

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        So, time is simply relative and is based on a principle with an observer? Time seems to not exist with infinity. Time only exists as a measurement between before and after. Even if time is measured as a negative value as with a vector it still has a before and an after. Time fills space as a measurement as long as the space is finite, (a before and after as observable by an observer) yet itself has not dimension until distance is introduced. Then there is dimension(s).

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Time as a measurement is used by humans to plan their lives and such. I suppose you could say it has a past, present, and future relative to our own experience. The current moment is present, an hour ago is the past according to the definition of time that we live around, and the future is yet to come.
                           
                           Time in terms of physics is something else entirely. I do not purport to understand it to any great degree, but it is a separate dimension. You have the 3 spatial dimensions, then time is another dimension. String theory would suggest that there are even more dimensions than this.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I have always thought along that line until recent debate. Seems there is dispute regarding time as a 4th dimension with physicist today. [Source: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists … space.html & http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 … nsion.html].
                              
                              I venture to say I gather what they are sharing, however I could never really explain it to another. It apparently says it is a measurement and nothing else. Quoting the first article, "“We consider time being only a mathematical quantity of change that we measure with clocks. This is in accord with a Gödel view of time."

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 Maffew Jamesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 There is also a relatively new belief that time is a result of quantum entanglement. Experiments are beginning to show evidence of this. Only 'time' will tell whether this is the case.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 84

                                    tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Baffling

                                    replyreport
2. 88

   Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago

   Time is a piece of animation, and the universe is an animation studio. I have nothing to add to this; it just sounded more profound than it probably is.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      We are all in "the matrix"...

      replyreport
3. 71

   lone77starposted 9 years ago

   I love a good scientific discussion, but when you talk about the basis of time, you're treading on creation.
   
   Things persist, because the one who created them allowed them to take off on their own. When you know the truth of something, you suck the persistence out of it. I've seen this thousands of times.
   
   There's more to the universe than is dreamt of in your philosophy, dear mbuggieh.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You believe in Creationism. How is anyone supposed to take your "scientific" ideas seriously? I bet you're also a 9/11 Truther and a Moon Landing Hoaxer, because they're all on the same plane of ideological idiocy.

      replyreport
4. 69

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   Of course time is an illusion. We think in directional terms : past, present, and  future, simply because we are designed to operate in this fashion. As someone has suggested, an animation studio is a very primitive example of what is happening here. In other words, our perception of time is only a matter of focus. And it is our limited focus that creates the illusion of time. In the real world, all events are occurring simultaneously, and perpetually until the "end of time", so to speak. This is why every old misery must be erased, and each point along the timeline brought into a harmonic balance.Once such a balance is achieved throughout the timeline, the collective soul is born. Essentially, we are in a giant womb; the evolving consciousness of a collective soul.

   replyreport
5. 69

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   Before Pythagoras and Aristotle, the earth was round. Their belief that it was round, and then all of the empirical evidence that followed, did not make it so. The "science" of man simply discovered and verified an existing fact. Prior to this establishment of "scientific fact", it would not have been uncommon for an ignorant person to demand proof, or evidence from anyone who claimed the world was round. Of course, the enlightened individual, not being able to "prove" what was actually true, would then be held up to ridicule, as being a man with an overactive imagination, or even worse, a lunatic!
   
   However,an intelligent man does not rely solely on the writings, and teachings of men. Men of limited understanding, who lack creativity, will memorize facts and formulas that have been written in books, and then agreed upon by men. They will then attempt to demonstrate their "knowledge" and superiority by parroting these facts and figures. Although this can be quite entertaining to watch, the arrogance that almost always accompanies such performances is quite pathetic. (see Planet of the Apes)
   
   Much of the knowledge that had been documented on this continent prior to the European Invasion was purposely destroyed, because it challenged the myth of European superiority. The great irony here in "America", is that what the Europeans have yet to discover, has already been known by various Indigenous entities, for thousands of years. Although some of my brothers understandably reject all that is European, this is not my way. I accept wisdom and knowledge wherever I may find it; even if it has been delivered by the hand of a butcher. And so, when it comes to discussions concerning time and motion, I often refer to the words of Jesus:
   
   "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
   
   These are very valuable words. Whether Jesus was real or not, is beside the point. Whoever wrote these words was a very intelligent person.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Time is so entrenched into the world that we depend on sleep to survive. Without sleep we die. We are completely dependent on the illusion of time to the point that it IS an undeniable reality.
      
      "Much of the knowledge that had been documented on this continent prior to the European Invasion was purposely destroyed, because it challenged the myth of European superiority." WrenchBiscuit
        Can you elaborate on this statement, wB?
      Are you saying those people knew the earth was round?
      and therefore understood the "movement" of the moon, planets and stars?

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         ??What does sleep have to do with time?  We need sleep when our body begins to run down, not when the clock says to.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Time is related to the cyclical nature of our bodies. We are wired to fall asleep every night for the sake of the life of the body.  You don't think even the body's ability to shut down every night is dependent on the rotation of the earth toward and away from the sun?
            
            -my point is this: We are completely dependent on the illusion of time to the point that it IS an undeniable reality.
            
            The fact that our hearts eventually give out due to old age (even if we eat perfectly or stay perfectly healthy) is also proof of the power of time as established on earth. You can say time is an illusion, but you can also say the illusion of time is a very powerful reality.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I don't see time as an illusion, any more than the three spatial dimensions we experience are. 
               
               But that does not mean that passage of time is why we sleep; we sleep because the body needs renewing, not because it is night.  That we evolved as day time animals rather than nocturnal means nothing - we (typically) sleep at night because our body needs rest every 24 hours or so and that is the period when we huddled in a cave to stay away from the predators.  Might as well sleep then rather than in the day when we had to be up and about, finding berries and grubs (Yum!).
               
               Maybe your hearts give out because they had beaten all they could, not because 80 years passed.  Or because we smoked or ate fatty foods; those will do it to and without the necessity of all that time to old age.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               We are definitely not "wired" to sleep after dark. Humans sleep are "wired" to sleep as needed---generally frequently and for short periods of time.
               
               The pattern of sleeping at night is socio-economic and cultural and related to the fact that once-upon-a-time there was nothing other than natural lighting...
               
               So when it got dark, people could not work or do much of anything so they began to use the time as sleep time. Humans, not out of wiring but out of necessity, engaged in a pattern of wake/work between sunrise and sunset.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe you and wilderness are not, but most people are. As they get older the system starts to get weaker, but it is still a very strong system…part of the the limbic system.
                  
                  "The limbic system (or paleomammalian brain) is a complex set of brain structures that lies on both sides of the thalamus, right under the cerebrum. It is not a separate system, but a collection of structures from the telencephalon, diencephalon, and mesencephalon. It includes the olfactory bulbs, hippocampus, amygdala, anterior thalamic nuclei, fornix, columns of fornix, mammillary body, septum pellucidum, habenula  septum pellucidum, habenular commissure, cingulate gyrus, Parahippocampal gyrus, limbic cortex, and limbic midbrain areas."

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh, I sleep at night.  My grandkids, on the other hand, typically hit the bed a little before sunrise and sleep until noon or later.  Most older children will, given the chance - how many studies have we seen saying that teens don't wake up in time for school, that we need to change school hours to start much later to accommodate the teen that sleeps half the day away?

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        My daughter's natural rhythm as a child was arise at eight o'clock and go to sleep at eight o'clock. Parents are negligent in allowing their children to stay up past ten at the latest. I fall asleep right at ten. It is like clockwork how I get sleepy at that time. (Now)
                        
                        According to the dictionary, the circadian cycle within our brains is not dependent on light. However, I had a concussion and found that darkness indeed helped me. In fact, it is now recommended that those who have suffered traumatic head injury blacken their rooms at night to re-set the brain's sleep patterns. I disagree with the dictionary based on first hand experience.
                        
                        In order to get sleepy, I would often go outside, climb in my sleeping bag, and stare up at the stars. Finally I would fall asleep. You cannot imagine how terrible you feel without enough sleep.
                        
                        The body's ability to fall asleep is something to be valued and not tampered with. Becoming dependent on sleeping pills is the worst. (I have a friend who is having a very hard time trying to get off them.) I recommend going outside at night when one has trouble settling down the mind.
                        
                        I have thought about writing a hub about this. I discovered so much during this last year. Many times I just wanted a drug. But, look what happened to Michael Jackson! He  was desperate to sleep! I resisted the impulse and now I am much better.
                        TWISI

                        replyreport
      2. 69

         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Kathryn,
         
         Many of the Mayan Codices ( folding books made from a type of bark cloth) were destroyed by the Spaniards in the 16th century. Out of thousands of books that were destroyed, only 4 survive. Only 3 of these 4 have been authenticated. There are differing accounts as to whether the Maya knew the Earth was "round". I have heard arguments in both directions. I am inclined to believe that they did know the Earth was round. My belief is based on  their accurate observations of planetary movement, and  their overall knowledge of astronomy.
         
         Yes, they were aware of the solar system, and planetary movements, at least the planets that are observable with the naked eye. They were also aware of other star systems such as Pleiades. In fact, they believed that the Maya originated in the Pleiadian star cluster.
         
         The "Dresden Codex" which is dated 11-12th century, details a lot about what the Maya knew of planetary movement, and astrology in general.  Here is the link: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/maya/boehm/boehm51.htm
         
         Here are some interesting facts:
         
         • Their calculation of the solar cycle was quite accurate: l 1/10,000th of a day more accurate than the present calender.
         
         • Their lunar calculations are off by only 33 seconds after 1500 years.
         
         • The complex orbit of Venus was predicted within 1 day in 6000 years. Their predictions of the orbit of Mars are equally accurate.
         
         • Maya scribes wrote about "a dark rift in the center of the world ( in this context "world" meant  galaxy) that is the home of all evil and the doorway to the underworld" 3000 years before modern astronomers discovered the black hole in the center of the Milky Way.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Mayans...really???

            replyreport
            1. 69

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               mbuggish,
               
               Here Ye! Hear Ye! Original thought is what drives the scientific method that you so highly esteem. The ability to think outside the box is nothing but a very basic example of "creationism". Einstein did not invent language, or a number system. The mathematics and the foundation upon which he built his theories existed long before he was born.
               
               What set Einstein apart was his creativity. his  imagination, and his ability to see beyond what some other man had written in a book. Because of this , he was able to write his own chapter. The whole world had access to the same tools that men like Einstein, and Tesla used . It was their ability to mimic God at a primitive level that set them apart; their ability to actually create, rather than simply parrot what had gone before. Rather than become slaves to the scientific method, and followers of lesser men, they dared to be the master of it all.
               
               I am amazed at the millions who have chosen to simply follow  Einstein and Tesla, rather than emulate their creationist approach.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Creativity and creationism are NOT equivalents. Creationism is not engagement with or belief in creativity.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     But creativity was used to create the ideas of creationism...

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I hear you wilderness.
                        
                        Quite the "creative" mind at work here to create such a "tangled tale".

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                  2. 69

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     mbuggish,
                     
                     Of course it is! we are like biological machines.We mimic, in a more simplified fashion, that which created us. Look at what we create as humans. Everything that we create is based on the same geometrical shapes that exists within us. In fact it is impossible for us to create anything that is not a square, circle, polygon,polyhedron, triangle, etc. Everything that we build or create is essentially a duplicate, variation, or "remix" of something that already exists within us.  Even when we go to a molecular level, these shapes are still present.This fact is inescapable.
                     
                     It only follows that this form of replication would be manifest throughout the universe; from the epicenter of creation, to all other entities  above, and below us. The confusion here, is that you have chosen to define the term "creationism" in a more specific sense that is directed exclusively toward theology. In the context of my comment , I am defining creationism in a much broader sense. And so this exercise alone, demonstrates how language itself can be a major stumbling block when trying to understand various scientific, or metaphysical concepts. I have already explained to you that all events that we consider to be past, present, and future are simultaneous and perpetual , and that these events exist upon a circular or elliptical timeline. This knowledge existed here upon this continent long before Columbus, and even before the Maya. But apparently, like many of your predecessors, you find it difficult to accept any knowledge that may challenge the imagined superiority of the European .
                     
                     You have asked the right question, but it appears you do not recognize the right answer.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Whatever.
                        
                        If you think things can't "un-happen", you need to read some contemporary physics papers.
                        
                        I think you've read way too much into Abbott's "Flatland".

                        replyreport
                     2. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        "I have already explained to you that all events that we consider to be past, present, and future are simultaneous and perpetual , and that these events exist upon a circular or elliptical timeline. This knowledge existed here upon this continent long before Columbus, and even before the Maya."
                        
                        What, pray tell, are you using for evidence/support that the predecessors of the Maya thought all events took place at the same time and that the future was already written?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           I think this was "explained" on "Ancient Aliens" (Season 1-5) and/or in any number of books written by Ancient Aliens theorists...

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Definitely a tome that belongs in every biology/chemistry classroom in the country.  Valuable if the heating system goes out, don't ya know?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Exactly!

                                 replyreport
                        2. 69

                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           wilderness,
                           
                           Various organs of the state will often pose as commentators on internet forums.Also, many sites on the internet were actually created by various agencies to gather information on the general populace. But this only displays the overall ignorance of world governments during this particular era. It is just another waste of taxpayer money.
                           
                           The problem with their methodology is that that there is a natural failsafe, so to speak, that prevents certain information from being freely disseminated to the public. But unlike a cryptograhic code, which has been purposely designed by men, and then set into motion by said men, this "natural code" behaves like an automatic parental control device. If the viewer cannot deliver the appropriate passcode, or key sequence, they cannot access a particular program.
                           
                           With that in mind, I have already answered your question and provided the empirical evidence that you have requested. It can be found in the structure of my comments on this thread. If you cannot see or understand what I have clearly written, then there is nothing else that I can provide. You asked a reasonable question, and so I have provided you with a reasonable answer. Of course, I am aware that many Americans believe that knowledge can always be obtained by force, purchased for a price, or exchanged freely, but these are only popular misconceptions.

                           replyreport
         2. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you, wB.

            replyreport
6. 94

   Maffew Jamesposted 9 years ago

   The more I think about this question, the less I feel I can separate time from entropy in my mind.
   
   The idea that there is a timeline containing a discrete past, present, and future seems more and more foreign to me now. This is quite possibly the illusion of time, that we believe once events happen they are bound in the past and could be revisited if travel to the past was possible. But for these events to occur, entropy must increase, and entropy can't be reversed.
   
   A hot cup of coffee is the ubiquitous analogy for this, where you can clearly see that heat from the coffee gradually permeates into the colder surrounding air, warming the air until both the coffee and air are the same temperature. This is a process that is irreversible. In order to add heat back into the coffee, we need to use energy to heat it up again. The heat itself will never flow back into the coffee from an environment at equilibrium.
   
   You can see this same system at work everywhere. Even when you lift up an arm, your metabolism is creating kinetic energy from glucose and fat to fuel the movement of your muscles. Your body can only cause your muscles to move because it can take advantage of the change occurring between a low entropy state and a high entropy state.
   
   As such, it seems that all change results in an increase of entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase. I may be wrong here, but from what I understand, nobody has ever found a way to reverse entropy.
   
   Should the universe achieve a state of overall maximum entropy, where it enters heat death, there is no more change. Stars have since died out, and life itself has no means to derive the energy to grow and move itself. If change does not exist any more and everything in the universe stays the same, has not time itself stopped?
   
   Evidently, looking at the very nature of entropy, you can see that things happen and they can't 'un-happen'. If you drop an egg and it breaks all over the kitchen floor, you can never put the egg back together again. In order to go back in time to before the egg was broken, there would have to be a way to reverse entropy.
   
   I believe this is what gives time direction. If time itself is separate and discrete from entropy, it wouldn't matter if it was moving backwards. As long as entropy continues to increase, we have no idea what direction time is moving towards. The very process that forms memories in our brain follows the direction of entropy.
   
   So, in conclusion, entropy is what drives our perception of time, and for all intents and purposes entropy and time may be the exact same thing, at least as far as it matters for humans.

   replyreport
7. 69

   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

   The confusion about time has much to do with the language. For instance, many use the expression "time", to describe two different things. The clock is simply a mechanical device that divides the distance between the rising and the setting sun. The seconds, minutes, and hours, are only real in a mathematical, or abstract sense. Such things do not really exist; only in the imaginary world of men. But men have also tried to apply the same definition to what is happening in the real, 3 dimensional world, or the world that is common to all creation.  If we are going to speak of time, then we must stop using one definition for two distinct phenomena.
   
   To further illustrate, the word "pain" is also used to describe two distinct phenomena; one real and the other imaginary. A man who has experienced the death of a loved one experiences an imaginary emotional pain. To expedite a conversation, he may make the common remark that he is "in pain". Anyone familiar with the context would understand his meaning. Yet, with even the greatest empathy, or most sympathetic heart, a third party cannot actually "feel" this man's pain. This is because the emotional pain of a subject is imaginary, or only relevant to the subject. However, if we were to put 100 people in a room with no escape, flood the room with gasoline, and then set the room afire, each participant would experience a common "pain"; a feeling that would require  no explanation. This type of physical pain can be appropriately defined as "real" because it is common to all. Of course, to someone who could feel no physical pain, both emotional, and physical pain would be imaginary.
   
   The point is, we cannot reach an understanding of either type of pain, if we restrict ourselves to a common definition. Neither can we get a better understanding of time if we are relying on imaginary mathematical constructs to explain a real phenomena.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Pain is intrinsically subjective in that two observers cannot look at a single "pain". 
      
      Time is objective in that all observers can observe its passage in objective way such as the time taken for the radioactive decay of a substance.
      
      Time, in that sense, is no difference of linear distance and very difference from any human feeling.
      
      There is only one time, and it is real and shared.  The fact that methods of measuring it are fallible does not change that a minute has a certain length all over the universe, and something only has its one length at any given point of time.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You have only proven my assertion to be correct. You used an imaginary construct to explain the decay of a radioactive substance.You have also made the assumption that the imaginary measurements of time used by men are universal; existing apart and independent of human consciousness. This is the kind of thinking that kept the Europeans locked in a geocentric interpretation of the universe for thousands of years.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            velocity is a concept directly dependent on time.  The speed of light in a vacuum and outside a gravity well is inviolate everywhere, and that velocity is dependent on time being real and not a construct of humanity.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               wilderness,
               My statement, "the imaginary measurements of time ", in my previous comment, does not suggest that time is not real; only that perception, and a primitive approach , have created an illusion. Since you cannot challenge my argument, you have obviously resorted to "spin". Your "speed of light" example only further proves my point. You are attempting to explain what is real with measurements that exist only in the imagination of a man. Apparently this is a concept that is foreign to you. But your same measurements would be just as accurate when applied to a holographic insert.
               
               Like I stated earlier it appears that you don't have access to this information, so there is nothing I can say that will help you understand.  Hafa Adai!

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  My error - I didn't see any argument, just a bogus claim that time is imaginary and responded to that.  I obviously misunderstood your post.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     wilderness,
                     
                     Perhaps you think that your derogatory comments will hurt me somehow, but it only provides a record for others to study. Your belief, or disbelief ,does not affect the truth. It appears that you have spent a lifetime getting secondhand information from books, or from a third party who read it in a book. It reminds me of a story I read as a small child.
                     
                     The story was about a  boy who brought a bouquet of flowers to a girl , but she was disappointed because they were not plastic; consequently they would not last as long. You expect knowledge to come at an appointed time, and wrapped in a familiar package; branded with a particular stamp.
                     
                     My purpose here was to offer something of value to a discussion. You have made your own choices in deciding to follow other men, and so this is your reward. I decided long ago to find my own way, and so, this is mine.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        You take offense when plainly none was offered.
                        
                        But as far as offering something to the discussion, it did not work for me, as I was unable to understand your post and read into it something you now say was not intended.  You seem to indicate that your superior mind has perceptions and illuminations not available to anyone else, but when pressed they are only imagination at work without any supporting evidence - something we can all do.  Most of us just realize that such things are of no real value to others and do not bother to communicate them.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Exactly wilderness!
                           
                           We are being schooled, it seems, that wrenchBiscuit's mind is superior---fully capable of understanding things that are, apparently, beyond the scope of our puney cognitive capacities; puney capacities that (as I recall from wrenchBiscuilt's previous comments) we should understand to be associated with our being (essentially) Americans.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              So far, about the only thing I've gotten from such posts is that the prior civilizations and peoples of the Americas (that wiped out their own predecessors) are far advanced from what we are today.  Their cookfires, bows and arrows, and primitive religions far outpace anything we have, to say nothing of their massive knowledge base of cosmology, chemistry and physics.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 
                                 
                                 I think you got the long and the short of everything "wrenchBiscuit" posts.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 88

                                 Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I know, right? I would love to go back in time and see Teotihuacan all lit up with their super-efficient LED lights while the priests flew around in their sky cars.

                                 replyreport
               2. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Problem wrenchBiscuit:
                  
                  Your claim that time is an illusion is just plain WRONG.
                  
                  For the last 100+ years physics (experimental physics as well as theoretical physics) has demonstrated that time is real not an illusion; time is an actual dimension.
                  
                  Before you mock and insult others, you need to educate yourself about what is IN REALITY known about the universe in which we live.
                  
                  And your patented lined about "following other men"....it's really worn out.

                  replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Does the moon spin the same rate as the earth?
   If you lived on the moon you might want to create your own units of measurement based its particular rate of spinning.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The moon rotates at approximately 1 RPM (revolution per month).  It's why we see only one side.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         what are our units of measurement based on here on earth? the division of 24 hours?

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not positive what Colorado Springs uses; whether it is the rate of radioactive decay or the time for light to travel a specific distance.  It USED to be the rotational period of the earth, but that was not accurate enough and changes have been made.
            
            According to wikipedia, it is atomically defined:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               oh, thank you.

               replyreport
9. 70

   AshtonFireflyposted 9 years ago

   To me, time appears most likely to be a mental construct of sentient beings and has no existence outside one's mind.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Prodioposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What is 'mind'?

      replyreport
      1. 70

         AshtonFireflyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting question to which I don't know the true and complete answer. I can best describe it as consciousness or sentience in my personal opinion.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Prodioposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I thank your 'mind' for asnwering 'my' question.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               AshtonFireflyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               My mind says 'you're welcome'
               
               Am I missing a message here?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Prodioposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  The real question is:  What are these 'you' and 'me'?

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     AshtonFireflyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     An even more difficult question, and one to which I will not pretend to have an answer. I don't know.

                     replyreport
10. 77

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    would time be based on the size of the planet? some planets have longer days.

    replyreport
    1. 96

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Only in that larger planet will normally have higher gravity at the surface.  And the length of day has zero to do with the length of a second.  "Day" is defined by the rotation period, "second" is defined by the distance light travels in that second, or perhaps in a clock the rate of radioactive decay.

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          But, a second is an earthling measurement and based on the rotation of the earth. Who told you it is based on distance light travels in one second? At what point were seconds established? after measuring the distance time travels in one second?
          ...obviously not.

          replyreport