At the risk of being eaten alive by the atheists, I'm curious what others think.
Someone asked a question about free will here in the forums the other day, and it sent my mind on a tangent. I've always thought time was something that ran full circle. As if our reality was simply riding a ripple caused in the void of nothing. Call it, a rock dropped on the still waters.
Sounds crazy, I'm sure; but I had always assumed if there was a god it existed somehow outside, able to see the whole circle of the ripple; which would allow it to see history, from the moment the ripple formed until it ran its course. Which would explain prophesy, and what not.
I'm sure I'm wrong, but what do you think time is? Do you think it's linear? If not, how do you see it?
For me time is forward motion, moving forward only second by second.
Time is the result of a divided mind...therefore it sees beginnings and ends...but since the two are one we can say time goes around in a circle .
Just a day turn into night and night turns into day,
the end of this ages occurs when what was in the beginning returns at the end...
So eventually just as this earth came out of the water it would return it, signalling the end of this age.
Time doesn't exist. It is simply, a structure created by man to organize his day (one complete cycle of the earth turning on axis). Today was yesterday's tomorrow and will be tomorrow's yesterday. What we view as time(the clock), is actually just a division of the earth's movement. Earth years and Neptune years are different. Both are "years" as in one complete cycle of orbit around the Sun.
Ok. I get your point. Call it our collective experience of what we perceive as time. Or better yet, what I perceive as time.
Do you think it's linear?
I would have to say that as long as there is movement, then yes it would be linear, as in only moving one direction. If it originated from one point and expanded in all directions, then I would lean more towards it being radial/spherical.
PS. Good question...
Totally agree with you DoubleScorpion, time is man made.
Time could be considered a moment of significance. Time only exists if it is significant to something.
Linear, as in algorithms? What do you mean by linear?
If we see that our universe is expanding and that all the objects are being carried along with the expansion as well as within their local groups, we can observe that everything is in motion relative to each other. The objects themselves exhibit characteristics of requiring at least three dimensions to exist. But, if not for the fourth dimension of time, we wouldn't be able to map and measure their coordinates relative to each other.
So, not only do we see clocks as a man-made tool for measuring time, we also see time as a property of space, both within the expansion and local areas. And, since it's a property of space, objects moving through it will affect and be affected by time just as they are being affected by space.
From this comes the concept of time dilation and length contraction of co-moving objects in relativity.
Hmm. Obviously, my question was poorly phrased. Thanks for your thoughts. That actually did help, though. I think.
Then, why not phrase your question correctly?
I probably will, if I run across anyone else who might be able to discuss it. I'm scared to do it with you. You'll just pick it apart and not answer it anyway.
But, like I said. You were very helpful even though your post was running a different train of thought.
Nice. There's no need to fabricate stories. I did answer your question.
The train of thought was you asking about time and me answering the question.
If you had a different train of thought, then you obviously were looking for something different and not an answer to your question.
And then, you'll need to explain exactly what train of thought you were referring so as not to waste everyone's time with what they might guess as to your train of thought.
Ok. I'll try. But Double Scorpion threw me for a loop with his answer.
I figure time is expanding, and I was visualizing something different, but I thought maybe we look at time in a linear way because we can't see far enough to perceive the arc. Science makes leaps and bounds, but with every advancement we make time expands that much further, staying just out of reach of our ability to get the answers. Time dilation does factor into that, because we obviously have figured that much out.
Anyway, the ripple example goes along with something I read, something James said and Kess touched on earlier. I think maybe reality will cease, as we perceive it once the ripple of time or reality we're on runs its course. Everything will just settle back into the form it was before the big bang or the big hand, or whatever started the process. It will just be still waters like it started out as, so to speak.
Call me crazy.
Edit: son of a gun. I didn't rephrase the question. Did I? Sorry. But that was my train of thought. Reality is expanding just ahead of our ability to catch up to find the most intriguing answers. And part of me wonders if somehow it was set up that way. Which is the part I assume you'll shred me apart on.
Oh, and the problem with your answer was you were saying what we know. Not scratching your head on what we don't. Which is ok. That's your style.
Here is something cool you might like. It doesn't really follow your question, but I thought you might like it.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/index.html
Morning JC,
It depends on whether you're talking about our perception of time or the physics of time. We percieve to see things in circular patterns (we are after all pattern-seeking oganisms).
In physics time cannot go backwards. it can speed up and slow down though. Time moves faster for people living in the international space station, than it does for us two - this is true according to relativity!
I know. I know. You scientific types are all so cute.
I'm simply talking about our perception of time in the confines of our reality. How we see it individually, and as the progression of our history. Where it began to where it will end. How it all ties in.
It is simply that patterns tend to repeat themselves throughout all we've learned of our reality. What pattern do you look at as the one that explains reality? Of course, I think time travel is possible, so I tend to try to see everything as wrapped around itself.
Somebody posted something about looking at it like a corkscrew. I find that an interesting concept.
There are patterns which can be attributed to "causing history"; the boom and bust of markets, famine, etc. These tend to be backdrop for regime changes, wars etc. It is very interesting.
Having said that, it's my feeling that people often fail to look at events objectively and often try to attribute patterns which really aren't there.
I think this is probably just human nature; we know that we try to look for patterns even when they don't exist - this is why we're superstitious about certain things; wearing the same underwear for England's second round game in the world cup, for example, or in more serious things like prayer or homeopathy.
There's a brilliant talk by Michael Shermer on TED where he talks about pattern seeking and why people believe weird things - it's really funny and worth 14 mins out of your day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k
Calling me weird now, are you?
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
I don't think it's weird at all. Our reality has to have a pattern. Everything does. That being said, I'm not talking about patterns in history.
I don't see it as a question of the supernatural. I see it as a question on the makeup of our universe. I see no reason to believe that science won't eventually be able to provide information on this. I simply think we need another Einstein to turn us into a different direction for the search, or jog us ahead of where we're standing.
No, everyone's the same - it's just how we're wired!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzOQLDwU … ure=relmfu
Ok. I'll watch your videos at lunchtime. One question though; since you believe we're wired and weird, you see no reason to wonder on the universe?
Of course, but it is just to say that we should try to remove our "human" instinct for interpretation of counter-intuitive things like the universe or else it will hold back our true understanding of what's going on.
If you do nothing else, watch that first vid!
You got my curiosity up. Couldn't wait until lunch. You're right. Great video. Thanks.
Time is a creation of the Creator-God; who is All-Knowing. He sees everything wheter it is hidden or not; past, present and future are dimension for us human beings not fro Him.
It is for this that when He witnesses a thing; there is no need for further witnessing.
[6:74] And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom; and the day He says, ‘Be!’, it will be. His word is the truth, and His will be the kingdom on the day when the trumpet will be blown. He is the Knower of the unseen and the seen. And He is the Wise, the All-Aware.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=73
Religious passages mean nothing to people who don't believe in the book they came from.
Similarly thoughts of the atheists are not believed by the believers as they have no reality.
If by "thoughts" you mean scientific research and evidence then I don't know what to say to you.
The truthful religion exhorts one to learn science; it is part of the truthful faith:
[20:115] Exalted then is Allah, the True King! And be not impatient for the Qur’an ere its revelation is completed unto thee, but only say, ‘O my Lord, increase me in knowledge.’*
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=114
* science
I already told you your religious passages mean nothing to me, so I don't know why you just threw another my way.
Atheism is not a synonym of Science; science is a common tool for both the religion and those who don't have a religion to know things in the physical realm; it is not designed for use in the ethical, moral and spiritual realm.
Actually, that's not quite true. There's moral psychology. And evolutionary psychology and sociobiology studies morals and ethics. And as far as the spiritual realm, you're probably right; but if we ever discern any evidence I'm sure science will jump right into the problem of studying it.
Thats why I threw the prophesy statement into the OP. I wanted both sides to comment. There's ends to the spectrum of thought. On the one end it always comes back to god did it all. The other end sees no purpose in pondering. Then there's those of us in the middle. Assuming the answer lies somewhere in between.
Unfortunately, I don't find much help in the doggedly religious answers, but the scientific ones are helping fine tune the question in my head.
The Instruments to Measure Time, make it linear. personaly I think of it as multi-dimentional, no refference starting point- random point set.
Watch out. If time is not linear, you may be forced to the inevitable conclusion that existence has "always" been here.
No Mark. That's the cool thing. It isn't linear and I never thought it was. You said it yourself. Reality is expanding. If that's true, then it stands to reason it expands in every direction. Backwards and forward. Left to right. Whatever. I never saw it before. The possibilities of how to look at this are amazing. It only appears eternal from your perspective, and probably the perspective of anyone standing in any particular point of 'time'. It's just an illusion. But, I honestly believe someone (much smarter than me, I'm sure) can decipher this 'illusion' created by the ongoing expansion of reality and present it in scientific terms we can all understand. It's simply a matter of time. Its not eternal, and there's a whole lot more involved in the ramifications of this answer than I think you're seeing.
Sticking with your assumption then? K - Rather assumed you would. Get a bigger box.
What assumption? That time isn't eternal? I don't see how to follow that argument Mark. I'm sorry, it just seems too bizarre.
No - the assumption that there was a beginning.
Ok. Let's put this into perspective. I'm trying to determine the beginning point that we perceive as reality. I cannot accept, at this moment, (and I concede that maybe I can't accept it because the argument hasn't been presented in such a way for me to get a grasp on it) that reality is eternal.
Having said that, since it is apparently an illusion, maybe it is an illusion of eternity. Way too much info to process. I'm still wrapping my head around the current point. Give me a break preacher man. I may be thick, but contrary to popular belief, I can be taught. Baby steps.
You are assuming there is a beginning point.
Why?
It might be more helpful if you could explain, why not.
Edit: Actually, it just occurred to me, that's pretty much what I think. The universe is eternal, but I do think there was a beginning to our illusion of reality. Still a problem, I know. I just don't know how to see around that.
Our perception begins when we are born (perhaps a little earlier) and ends when we die.
Reality is here - I can see it feel it etc. Why make the leap of faith required (admittedly a well accepted view) that it had a beginning and - was not here at some point in time.
It's so very counter intuitive, but I do admit that every thing we experience makes that so. I wouldn't possibly know how to see that as a logical approach to the problem. It just seems like a bit of a cop out. How do you do it? What led you to think it could be an answer?
It is the most simple answer. You yourself said you cannot make something out of nothing. Well then - there are only two options. Something was made out of nothing or - it has always been here.
Well, ok. But I still don't think reality is eternal. The universe maybe. And it isn't really a concept of god, per se. As I see it. I think everything is connected. Once reality ceases all energy will remain. Just in a different form. I think you're more than just Mark. Here and now. I think we're all somehow a piece of the eternal universe. I don't have any problem trying to immerse myself in your philosophy to see if it's a better fit for what we know, but I'm lost as to how to start. Tell me where you first started reading about this concept.
I wouldn't think so. No. I never thought about it, but it would seem that falsehood exists within reality only.
You mean reality and falsehood both are not Eternal; then what is eternal, in your opinion.
Existence. Maybe sentience? I don't know paar. So many of the concepts we bandy about are only a part of reality. Truth. Falsehood. Right. Wrong. They won't mean anything, in my opinion. They're corporeal. Your essence, or soul as some call it, has nothing to do with the reality of this level of existence, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Why do you think I am more than just Mark? Everything is connected. What does that have to do with the price of fish? Why don't you think "reality" is eternal? How is teh Universe not the same thing?
Still clinging to the "must have a beginning" and "must be more than this" huh? This is why we have religion.
Mark, until someone presents a reasonable, rational and logical reason to believe reality magically began, then as far as I'm concerned that answer is one of the options on the table, but not the one under consideration at the moment.
The price of fish fluctuates daily. I would think a guy born on an islandwould know that. I don't know what the price of fish is where you are, so I would have no way to determine if my statements and the price of your fish could be compared in any way.
And you are correct. This is a question that drives people into the arms of organized religion. The fact that I have spent the better part of my life refusing to participate means enough to me to know they don't offer the answer. It's a package for the masses. But, the masses swallow the placebo simply because they have felt the fact (and yes Mark, it is indeed a fact) that we are connected to something more. And they don't understand it, but need to have it simplified so the question no longer needs to be pondered.
I will continue to search and listen to everyone I can, and read what I can to attempt to put the pieces together. You say it's a super being. I call it a consciousness. Whatever it is I would like to know. I'm weird and wired, according to one of your atheist friends. I don't mind at all.
Anyway, I enjoy your thoughts on these matters. You believe in what you say. Most people seem to have taken someone else's word for it, on both sides of the fence. I suppose, at this point, you will go back to baiting me. I wish you wouldn't. Because, if you're right, it will be so much easier to listen to you if you aren't unkind on all of your posts.
No. It is a feeling - not a fact that we are "connected to something else" - this feeling is easily identified if you wish to do so, and opens up your access to other senses most people are not aware of. My background is martial arts so I will probably "sense" things differently to you, but - try this. Get as far away from civilization as you can, sit on the biggest rock you can find, close your eyes and listen to it with your mind/feelings instead of your ears. It is all there for the taking.
I am not unkind in my posts, and I have not "baited" you since you stopped doing the Kondescending passive/aggressive Kristian thing.
And you are still making the assumption that there was a beginning. Why?
I like your idea of getting away. Every time I try that people jump in front of me, like I'm crazy. If I could have my druthers, I would have saddled up a long time ago and ridden until everything was far behind me. Anyway, it'll obviously never going to come to fruition. But my problem is I'd have to sit on a rock for a very long time in order to shut my mind down. I have an extremely hard time with that.
I'm glad I ran across you and others of your mind set. My horizons of thought have been expanded and this is a good thing. Atheism is certainly a viable alternative, and needs to be on the table. Right now, I can't see your argument for eternal existence as more than frustration with the global need for god. I know I'm not looking at it from the right angle, but I'm trying to find a way to break through and follow the reasoning. It's a process. I am more open minded than you may think.
Here's the rub. While we have the concept, 'everything came from nothing' we can see two alternatives presented so far, and I'll use Marks good example:
"Something was made out of nothing or - it has always been here."
But, there is also a third alternative, and that is that everything came from something, but that something was not there before the universe came into existence.
We then find that for all three alternatives presented, we must ask the same question, what was the source of the nothing, what was the source of that which has always been here and what was the source of the something that wasn't there before. And, when we get an answer to that question, we will then have to ask where did the source of the source come from, and so on and so on, asking the same question over and over again.
Notice that very soon the question becomes redundant and loses all meaning. We are left once again with turtles upon turtles upon turtles, and never really being able to answer the original question of what created the universe.
Hence, it is a meaningless question.
Search away, feel free. An honorable pursuit, but one that will most likely not come to fruition.
The main thing to ask yourself is whether or not you will invoke super beings or consciousness or some other conceived notion that doesn't really answer the question, anyways.
But that idea is the same as saying something came from nothing and also brings another equation in. If every thing came from something and the something was not there at some point, then the something must have been somewhere else, and we are not able to find anything outside of existence and reality. Which is surely where your "something" must have existed? Sounds awfully religious.
But Beelzedad, why can't we focus on one question at a time? You'd drive yourself crazy trying to get so far ahead. This isn't an unmoved mover paradox. It's a simple question of science. Well, not a simple question; but not a question outside of the bounds of our ability to find the answers.
If we find the answers, and find that we can see outside of this universe and theres something beyond; then fine. We come up with a whole new set of questions.
If you tell me there is sound logic for thinking reality has simply always been and will always be, I'll believe that you believe it. But I use the word believe here purposely. I cannot see how you see enough evidence for this to advocate it as the end all answer.
The point is, forget about anyone's question of god. It would be a tragedy to let that get in the way of the search for answers. I don't see any reason to stop until we can't find anything else to find out about. Or maybe I still just can't see the logic behind the argument. I don't know.
Well no, it isn't a simple question, and for the reasons I outlined above, it becomes a meaningless question, and yes, one would drive themselves crazy thinking about it. That's why scientists don't think about it, because they understand it is a meaningless question. And, there are so many more other meaningful questions to answer instead, why bother with ones that are logically meaningless and unanswerable?
Well, I would disagree with you. I believe science is attempting to understand the make up of the universe. I'm not sure where you're coming from on that. We answer the questions we can. These answers bring up new questions to work on. Will it take us as far as our curiosity extends within our lifetime. Not a chance. But the search is the fun part.
If we didn't constantly reach beyond the bounds of our understanding, we'd still be sitting in caves and hoping for a thunderstorm for lightning to start a fire for us. Searching for answers is one of the things that makes us unique as a species. In my opinion.
That's disappointing, you have reverted back to believing things about science without really trying to understand what questions are being asked and what is science doing to understand the makeup of the universe.
Are they asking the same questions as you believe they are? Not really.
That's what I enjoy about you. I sometimes get confused as whether I'm coming or going. I'll certainly investigate and see if, or where, the fallacy lies. I'll let you know what I find, as I'm sure you already know.
Hey beelzedad. I looked it up to verify. I'm not wrong. String theory most definitely was an attempt to explain the universe. And why do you think they're trying to discern what dark matter is? I don't know exactly what you think I'm expecting. If you read that statement I made that I thought science was supposed to be looking for god; that was a joke. Sheesh. How foolish do you take me to be? My degree is not in science, but I'm not an idiot.
String theory is a theory that is supposed to conciliate quantum field theory with relativity. It is a mathematical theory and does not make any predictions or can be tested.
And, they are trying to discern dark matter because of the effects of gravity around objects in which the matter is not seen, in other words, it is simply matter that cannot be detected with electromagnetic radiation.
These are not theories to explain the universe, nor are they theories in which scientists are asking the same questions as we've been discussing.
Arghh. Maybe that's the problem. To me, all questions that will answer anything we don't know about the universe are attempts to explain a piece of it. These, to me, explain a piece of the unknown. I'm not expecting a woohoo answer to everything.
And you threw a curve here. I thought I had figured out your objection. This was not it.
Exactly, which is what scientists attempt to do, explain pieces of the universe in which the questions asked are not meaningless, and that they will learn something relative.
ok, but that's what i thought i was saying all along.
The Scientist don't influence the nature; they can only, to a limit, explain what already exists in the nature; nature is their master not the scieintists.
Hey Beelzedad. It just occurred to me. You never answered the question I was trying to ask. How you perceive time. You just gave me scientific explanations. I don't suppose you would indulge me with pure conjecture for a moment. Would you?
The Atheists are not the Scientists though they take atheism as a symonym of science; it is their wrong perception. They cannot explain everything to you; they are just ordinary human beings like us. I respect them though
I respect them too. But every one has an imagination. There's no harm in using it. I'm sure they have fun every one in a while too.
Of course, it is a lie when you say you respect atheists as can be seen by your contradictory words from another thread:
It's obvious you're motive is to not discuss things but to only perpetuate a specific sect of Islamic propaganda.
Others here engage you and do not say the same things as you, as in your very fine example here where you're calling for everyone to ignore a smaller group of members within the whole; i.e. the atheists of Hubpages.
It's easy for all of us to get together and collectively ignore you too, and to make it a public announcement, just like you did in your post above.
However, that would fly in the face of having the freedom to speak, or to perpetuate Islamic propaganda, for example, which is a freedom we all share and grant to you, even though we are well aware of your motives and still freely engage you. Yet, from your post, it's obvious you don't wish to reciprocate that same freedom.
If you don't wish to respond to that critique, we could start a thread of discussion to see if it is an Islamic or Middle East custom in which the misogynist alpha male most certainly has the authority to deny the freedom to speak within his household and beyond.
How I "perceive" time is the very same way it is defined. Sorry, but do you want me to fantasize or something?
Yep. What's the harm? It isn't fantasy. Call it idle speculation.
You cannot tell me you've never just kicked back and thought about this. I truly am curious.
Oh, if it makes you feel better, I heard somewhere that Einstein would fantasize about sitting on a light wave.
...a light wave is too damned slow!
I'd wanna be my definition of the singularity!
Pure, intelligent energy that could override time, space and dimension and "become" anything in any place with just the action of "thought."
Time would have become a primitive, functionless concept.
I have written a "hub" about this "singularity: titled: "The Reward."
Qwark
Well yes, I have had the same fantasies of sitting on a light wave, too. My fantasies are called, gedankens or 'thought experiments" In fact, if you will indulge a little personal idle speculation, my gedankens in that regard are often with objects moving a near light speeds or objects in a gravitational field or both. Yeah, I know that sounds totally lame, but if you could see it from my point of view, it's spectacular.
And of course, I always make sure to work within the confines of the laws of physics and to push the parameters and envelopes of those laws to their extremes, which is sometimes not seen in nature. Hence, the 'thought experiments' can can often trigger new ideas.
For example, in order to satisfy high velocity speeds and gravity, I try to visualiz what a massive black hole would look like moving at near light speeds, and then colliding with another one moving at near light speeds in the opposite direction.
Neutron stars are also a wealth of imaginative ideas. The list goes on and on and remains fully intact within what we know about reality.
Time is different though. Time is so well defined and mapped out logically that it doesn't really offer anything new. And, what has been done already has been done to death, time machines and time travel, as an example. Done to death.
But, here's a little something from a science forum about conceptualizing time and moving at near light speeds that I've often enjoyed.
"Imagine driving a car across a dry lakebed. The lakebed has lines on it, which run north to south, and these lines are one mile apart. If you drive directly east, and exactly 60 mph, you'll cross one line every minute. However, if you turn the car 45 degrees north, traveling at the same speed, it will take you two minutes to reach the next line. This is because only half of your total speed is now dedicated to eastward progress, while half is being used to get you further north.
This is the situation we find ourselves in living in a 4-D universe. Our total velocity is constantly at c, with most of that velocity being dedicated to progress through time. However, any velocity with which we move through any of the other three dimensions is subtracted from our progress through the fourth dimension. If you travel at light speed forward, sideways, or upward, then all of your total velocity is dedicated to progress in that direction, and you become perfectly synchronized with a single moment in time. Just as the car traveling straight north on the lakebed will never reach the next line, so to a person traveling at c will never reach the next moment, because he is traveling parallel with it.
Of course, this also means that to exceed c, one would have to dedicate more than 100% of his total velocity to progress through one of the other three dimensions."
Ok. You win the prize on the thread. That was the best post out of all of them. Thanks for sharing.
Hey, I wanted to tell you. I didn't say it before because I was kind of blown away. That was really, really a great post. Wherever you lifted that piece from for conceptualizing time; it was excellent. Not that what you wrote wasn't good too, it was; but the other was kind of a wow moment. You should post stuff like that more often.
Great post. I've (attempted to) read Brian Green's book too. Beautiful!
Beautiful.
Never seen a better post from you.
I see you have an vivid imagination, despite ridiculing (the likes of) me for doing the same thing.
You, sadly fail miserably, in your "experiment". You are thinking in three dimensions, and trying to apply that to the 4th.
But, enjoy your delusion. I see now you do have one (at least!).
In what sense does this thought experiment "fail"? I'd like a fuller explaination please.
That was somewhat unkind dj. That was a great post. The best one on the whole thread..I tell you, when I read that about conceptualizing time it was almost like a spiritual moment. It was so cool.
Thanks for the compliment!
However, although I have a vivid imagination, notice that I don't use it to rule my worldview.
Also notice, that your so-called rebuttal lacks explanation other than I'm "thinking in three dimensions, and trying to apply that to the 4th" which is not what I was doing at all had you read and grasped the analogy.
"But, there is also a third alternative, and that is that everything came from something, but that something was not there before the universe came into existence."
Good use of language, but it again boils down to the same thing- everything started from nothing, though you simply added a something between "nothing" and "everything" -creation-ex-nihilo!!
Seriously, can't you come up with some better "creationism"?!
What is the difference whether it is 'god' or 'singularity' that created?
Beel, creation is a consummated event. All consummated events can only be explained, never proved. Hence all explanations should be rational.
Creationism in any form is irrational. I'm not arguing for eternal matter, but it is the position by default!
Actually, it appears you've brought up another option. If reality is expanding, then reality is creating reality which means the creation process is not yet consummated. Or is that the reality has always been here argument? I'm getting confused.
The universe is expanding (if this is what you mean by reality), but it's not creating any new material or space - just what's already there expanding.
If that makes sense...
Actually, the only thing that is expanding is space, which is essentially the distance between objects. The interesting part of it all is that this expansion is "carrying" all of the objects in the universe along with it, hence they are all moving apart from one another. The analogy is like raisins in a loaf of bread that is baking. The dough in the bread is space while the raisins are the objects, like galaxies, for example.
As the dough bakes it expands, carrying the raisins along with it and increasing the distance between each raisin.
Space expanding?
You can't get more comical!!
Space is "Nothing". And you say nothing expands taking everything along with it? Marvelous!!
Science, indeed!!
Ok, but doesn't the yeast replicate, making the dough rise? You know I'm dense when it comes to this, but I'm becoming horribly interested. While I'm reading, to come up to speed with everyone, try not to call me dense. Your saying emptiness is getting bigger? There's nothing going into the growing space between objects? I always thought that's what they meant by the term dark matter.
Yes, but the makeup of the dough is not important here other than understanding what bread dough will do when it bakes.
The only thing going into the space between objects is more space. But, it doesn't mean that space can't exhibits it's own set of properties.
Dark matter is simply matter that we cannot see because it does not get detected by the usual means of detection. We know it's there because it has a gravitational effect on the objects around it.
Well, forget the obvious question. Theres no answer to it anyway. But since they say the universe will begin contracting at some point, doesn't that mean that they think space is more than emptiness? There'd have to be some reason why they thought the movement would reverse course. If they think it's just nothing, wouldn't everything simply stop outward movement at some point and start drifting?
Actually, no one really thinks the universe will contract as the evidence would indicate the expansion is accelerating the farther we look out. To understand this phenomenon is to understand what is happening at those distances if all objects are in fact moving away from each other.
Here's a bit of an explanation:
A-----B-----C-----D
We are on galaxy A and are looking at the other galaxies, B,C and D respectively.
For the sake of argument, we are going to assume that each galaxy is moving away from the galaxy beside them at 10,000 kph.
A - 10,000kph - B - 10,000kph - C - 10,000kph - D
So, from the perspective of galaxy A, galaxy B is moving away from A at 10,000 kph. From the same perspective of A, galaxy C is moving away at 20,000kph from A and galaxy D is moving away at 30,000kph. With me so far?
In other words, we must add the velocities of the other galaxies together.
Hence, if we look out billions of light years away, the galaxies there will be moving away from us a near light speeds.
Anybody have any theory on why? Its seems odd somehow. Are they sure the galaxies are moving like that? Or is this just a best guess.
It is observed and not a guess at all. Mountains of evidence and observations support those findings.
Unbelievable. Not really..I believe you. Its just unbelievable I haven't heard of this. I think I've been a mushroom too long.
Hey. You didn't answer my other question. No one has a theory on why the expansion is accelerated the further out it is? Somebody has to have a theory.
I might can offer something that might help you visualize this. Picture a small circle with 3 circles at equal distances from the first small one. Now with each of the 3 outer circles expand the first one 1 inch from the inner small one. And each of the other circles 1 inch from the one before it. The original is same size by look at the size of the others and the actual distance they moved from their original spot. Now picture this happening all at the same moment. With respect to the small inner circle... the outer circle moved 3 times faster (and further) than the closest circle. But They all moved apart at the same speed for the same duration
I wasn't coming up with an answer, but merel offered another possible alternative.
That depends, which god do you refer, Zeus or Thor?
Word salad.
"I wasn't coming up with an answer, but merel offered another possible alternative"
No you just re-worded the second alternative.
"That depends, which god do you refer, Zeus or Thor?"
For the time being let us just call it "singularity".
In your free time when you do "thought experiments" you can decide what new name you want to give it.
"Word salad"
I know you would say that. You just renamed the gods, there is nothing rational. All you want to do is tell the theists that your god is better than theirs.(Just like a Christian arguing with a Muslim!)
Sorry, but again, I don't define words or give new names to that which has a name, but I understand your need to do.
If you knew I would respond with that, why did you present it in the first place?
Oh I forgot. You have words with so many meanings that you can constantly change or modify.
Great Religion you got, Should replace christainity!
That is not true. Again, I use defined words only.
You use words but not defined words. You use words like in common parlance. There you can use same word to mean different things and different words to mean the same thing. Hence it will not convey ideas properly. Hence we define first, to let others know what we are talking about, exactly. In Science whatever is spoken should be unambiguous and consistent, and hence the need for definition.
You don't define anything, so you never understand whether you are talking is rational or irrational!
The audience also interpret as to their liking and hence there is no discussion.
About the evidences and proofs, it is just like in a court of law, SUBJECTIVE. The proof always depends on the skill of the lawyer! In physics everything is objective, hence we only explain rationally, that is, without contradiction, and not prove.
This discription sounds like the bible and the religious doctrines that follow it.
Yes, they are defined and I use them as defined. This is the necessity of communication with others.
Conveying ideas properly would also require one to have reading comprehension skills.
Define what?
What needs definition, exactly?
That is because I use defined words, so that I don't need to redefine them. Defined words work fine.
That would be what you are doing.
I can see what you mean when you say people have a hard time conveying their ideas. Perhaps, a dictionary would help you immensely in trying to get your ideas across.
Yes, they are defined and I use them as defined. This is the necessity of communication with others.
Tell me one you are using "defined"
Conveying ideas properly would also require one to have reading comprehension skills.
When you say nonsense, only irrational idiots will comprehend!
Define what?
Try time and space first!
That is because I use defined words, so that I don't need to redefine them. Defined words work fine.
You haven't used a single defined word yet!!
I can see what you mean when you say people have a hard time conveying their ideas. Perhaps, a dictionary would help you immensely in trying to get your ideas across.
Yea, continue your novel, and call it science. You will have a good following from the relativistic fools! Don't forget your thought experiments, that will be your "evidence", to verify.
Well, I think you're done here since you are unable to move beyond definitions and possessing a dictionary.
It is a good question. I understand linear to mean moving in one direction (Ie forward).
Of course we dont know much about this dimension other than it can speed up or slow down near to black holes and other phenomena in space but I dont think there is any evidence or hypothesis of it being reversed.
Since time is thought to be a dimension within this universe, what about the thought that this universe is inside another universe which has its own time that is running at a much differet speed to ours.
For example, lets say our entire universe is the size of an atom inside the black hole inside another universe. Time inside our universe could be running a billion years a second in comparison to the other universe.
Or maybe, there is another universe inside a black hole inside this universe, that has gone through a billion years since you started reading this post.
Here's some food for thought, If the total matterand anti matter in this universe equal zero, then this universe is made of nothing and therefore everything in it including time doesnt exist....
Time is a dynamic concept, which is used to denote two locations of an object. As with all concepts it requires a brain to conceive. Time require something with memory to remember the previous location, and to conceive it. Hence yo can say it is linear, as walking back will not make time go back. As time is not an object, it does not affect anything. To be precise it is the change that we call time! As it is not an object it will not dilate or contract.As space is not an object, they never interact either.
So to make it short, time is linear or should I say forward as memories are recorded one after the other. Time will end the moment all beings(Video cameras included)with memory end. For our universe there is nothing called time!
I prefer to think of our existance as likened to a ring. Like a ring we are endless entities without begining or end. When put into this mortality a split is made in the ring causing it to have a begining point and an end point. When we become resurrected to a perfected being the ring is repaired and we once again are endless entities without begining or end.
...time is but a concept that has been invented and exists only in the mind of the conceiver.
It's as simple as that.
Yes. I assumed we would all take that as a given. We'll call that concept 'my bad'. I was actually trying to find out how others perceived it. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Curious:
That is my concept/thought.
As long as we semi-conscious creatures exist we will adapt that concept, in whatever manner we can, to better understand the cosmos.
But, of what "real" use is it to us since the probability exists that we will eventually succumb to extinction or...we will escape the bonds of this planet and try to find other habitable cosmic entities.
If and when that happens, our earthly concept of time will be replaced by another "human" invention which may or may not be deemed the concept "time."
At the moment, we are involved in educated guessing.
Qwark
Just Curious -
I actually agree with you and your search.
In trying to get at a concpet of god, how do you deal with the concpt of Time vs. god.
I think time is linear. But what gave me an inkling of the god concept is that, according to Einsein theories, time slows as you approach the speed of light. This would then tell me there is a proven physics theory that permits the existence of an eternal god.
Once I reached this conclusion that there is a "possiblity" of time standing still, I looked no further since I don't have the brainpower to exend that concept.
I'm sure I lack the brain power too, but it's fun to try to figure out what started it all and how it might end. I mean, really. What would be cooler than finding out what's beyond our reality?
Ok. I guess you're right. We all die sometime. But, the way I figure it is we've got one of two options. Either we die and the answers are given, or we die and we're dead. I like answers, so to be on the safe side I'll keep on thinking about it, even though I'm sure it will end as idle speculation.
It's my belief that if God exists, he must exist outside of time as we understand it. If God is all knowing, then he must see life as an entirety with no beginning and no end. If God were trapped in the same time we are, then he could not be all knowing.
It's like an infinite moment with no beginning and no end, just our perception. It's a reality created by humans to organize our lives in this reality to cope with sickness, death, disease ect... and to organize our lives to have a new beginning and a new end every day.
"There's no time like old times..."
Since imagination is the most important ingredient in developping theories, I tell you boys, that time doens't "move" in circles.
It moves rather in spirals.
It is measured by earth's rotation, and one rotation equals 1 day, that is 24 hours. And 1 hour equals 15 degrees of longitude. At the latitude zero (earth's equator) it means about 900 nautical miles. Each hour, we travel 900 miles. And the police can't do nothing about that.
So, time and space are intimately linked. But the earth moves around the sun and the sun moves or spins around the milky way, "our" galaxy, in its journey towards vega.
Here on earth, when the day is done after a complete rotation, each point of the earth has been travelling across new points in space. Meaning that the rotating earth's movement is a composite movements like a turning screw, since the earth follows the sun.
So, even though we make a complete circular rotation each day, we're never back to the same point in space at midnight (relatively to an absolute referencial).
Spirals have indeed a great role in the universe as we perceive it.
So, neither time nor space should be linear, but composite.
And this composite ingredient is the salt of life.
Of course, if we've had enough drinking we could easily switch to a methaphysical range...
Time is linear. It moves in spiral motion upwards, and is in constant motion. But I seen someone trying to compare time to God. I don't like the idea of such comparison. We can not compare the creator to his creatures. time is nothing but another creature like all of us, and it has its own purpose for being here. The rules that apply to us do not apply to God. He can be anywhere and every where without being effected by time. He made time and applied the rules that it goes by, but these rules do not apply to his Greatness. Time has a beginning and it will have to end at a certain point. just like us we are born and at one point our life ends. and for those who believe in the hereafter, I believe that then we will exist in a no time zone, and that to me is what explains the fact that we will have an eternal life in the hereafter. Love to all
Other people have already explained time as a concept better than I could, so I'll just say I see no need to "explain" prophecy, as there's never been a credible one.
Yes, time is a concept. I'm speaking of our perception of time. How our history moves within it. What our reality is, in the final analysis. Poorly worded, I do admit, but I've seen some pretty cool answers from people pondering it so far.
That is the question I answered, yet you weren't satisfied. I think it doesn't matter what I say, you will just toss it aside. Clearly, you aren't actually here to learn anything or get your questions honestly answered.
Oh, please don't look at it that way. I was wrong anyway. And, for that, I apologize. You have no idea how helpful your answer was.
I was, at first, just looking for other ideas. I wasn't looking at it like you were. But your post made me put two and two together. It's actually moved me forward in a way I hadn't expected. I thought I was just pondering, but now I see that once I get a firm grasp on the question it can possibly boil down to a mathematical equation. Which is pretty cool.
Won't prove anything of import, I'm sure, but I made a step forward thanks to the fact that you stand firmly grounded in reality. So thanks, and honestly, you have my sincerest apology if it looked like I was blowing your answer off. That was not my intent. I'm simply scared of you. I'm always expecting an attack move whenever we're posting in the general vicinity of one another. I suppose I was in defense mode and I was wrong.
Not to be rude, although I know I always come off that way to you, a simple 'apology accepted' or 'go to heck' would be warranted.
I've often pondered on this very question. Of course we experience time in a linear manner, because it helps us to make sense of things. But I do believe there are those who can move between time frames, or even manipulate their relationship with time. We all know people who can achieve a phenomenal amount very quickly, whilst others struggle to do a minimal amount in the same time frame. Plus, have you noticed how time seems to speed up or slow down dependant on what you are doing? You mention prophecy, and there are proven examples of people who have had that gift. Perhaps time is accessible going forwards as it is going backwards, it's just that we don't all have the knack?
What proven examples are there of prophecies?
There are any number of people around who get flashes of insight, but not too many of them seek publicity. Here's two that do:
http://www.psychictwins.com/predict.html
Have you seen this time traveller clip, BTW?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8WF3vGUn8
Time is a con trick invented by the Swiss so that they could charge us exorbitant prices for their watches.
Time is both constant and relative. How can that be?
Realtivity
If you have a date with a beautiful girl in two hours it will seem like it takes FOREVER for that two hours to pass, so you may start the date.
But if the date with the beautiful, and as it turns out, intelligent an witty female is to last two hours, it will seem like only 15 minutes.
Linearity
Time is constant; a second is a second, a minute a minute and this description fits fine with linearity.
How ever since, as shown above time is both relative and constant it cannot be linear.
This is why space and time travel someday might make it possible to travel to distant galaxies in an instant. The space time fabric, which you might think is linear, actually can morph and warp bringing distant locations close to each other so you can step through what is called a worm hole.
Thus time is not really linear, but rather elastic.
Wow - I cannot believe I remembered all that.
Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow doesn't yet exist. There is one moment. Now. Images can bleed into the now from the past, or the future, but time itself is extremely localized because time is not a constant. Time to me is not the same time which you are experiencing, not the same time which is passing on the moon or on mars. Time speeds up, time slows down, and for some, these increases and decreases are perceptable, like a diving rod. Time can reverse, too, and we would never know it has, because we perceive it as always going forward. How can this be? If you look through a telescope into space, you are always looking at the past. No matter where you point it, you cannot see the future. You can see the past, but you can never experience it ever again, and, because there is something beyond us, we can glimpse the future with our consciousness, but only because it has been revealed to you by that "Something".
This discussion is very intriguing and thought provoking. Thank you. Just a quick thought on it. For time to be linear does it not need a point of origin, as stated the big bang or some such? Geometrically to be linear doesn't it exist on one plane, even if a circle? As stated above time is constant and it is a measurement of something. Or, can time measure infinity? Or just the finite? My belief system, not necessarily scientific or a philosophical truth, is perception is reality, therefore subjective to both the observed and observer, therefore time may very well be linear. Or, now has just become then, but when it did become then, is linear. For myself the wonder of time is it is infinite as a concept, yet useful as a tool and more than likely linearly then, but as for tomorrow it is a mystery.
Time exists. It's only boundary is reality.
Reality exists outsides of any thoughts, desires, will or wishes. Which means that it is outside of self and has nothing to do with your inner workings.
Wherever reality exists, so does time.
JC there are symposiums, lectures and discussions on the subject of time, the beginning of the universe, (13.7 billion years ago) what made us, when and how we came on the scene etc by Lawrence Krauss, who has won awards for his capacity to explain it all in layman's terms.
If you search him you will find his full series on BBC as well.
Science has to validate all such theories across all the scientific and mathematical disciplines to be able to present theories that are robust. none of these theories were gained by believing in "truth" without testing its validity.
If you even watch one of his lectures, it will give you a good basis for some of this discussion.
Time is granular,existing one grain at a time,embedded in space and therefore inconsistent.Time is a figment of the imagination and exists so that everything doesn't happen at once.The illusion of time units and the consistency of time is there only so Rolex can charge $100,000 dollars for a watch when they know the impossibility of the question...What time is It?
It was the right time for Jesus' Second Coming; and so he came in the symbolic form of the Promised Messiah 1835-1908.
The Scientists don't influence the nature; they can only, to a limit, explain what already exists in the nature; nature is their master not the scieintists.
Reading about the expanding universe in the last few post, got me to thinking about something:
If the universe is truly expanding, and science so far supports this theory, then, it stands to reason, that it is moving away from a central point of some sort.
If that central point was at one time a huge "ball" of all the elements we see in the universe today, then we can say that "life" did come from one source.
But in creating the "life" we currently know, the original piece was broken into billions upon billion of particals which, over time, developed into what we see today. "Life from death cycle"
And on the theological side...If the original source is god, then to create the universe we have today, "he" had to destroy himself to accomplish that creation.
This is just something to think about, for those who enjoy that sort of thing.
Ah, but it isn't moving away from a central point if all objects in the universe are moving away from each other, in that regard, we can then say that either all points in the universe are the center, or none of them are.
We were talking about your raisin bread (dots on a balloon) the other day in a science class I am taking. If I am undetanding correctly, it is thought that objects are moving out and away from each other. I understand this to mean, there was at one time a central area of origination and from that "spot" all objects are expanding exponentially over "time". Would you mind explaining your thought some more?
Yes that is true, if we backtrack all the objects in the universe to a central point in a void.
We can also look at that central point to be the entire universe, in other words, the central point IS the universe, hence when it expands the central point IS still the entire universe, or every point in the universe is the central point, or none at all.
Ahh...Ok...I think I understand what you are saying now. The Central point is still the central point...it size is just increasing. It cannot be anything but a central point, because there is nothing beyond it that can be used as a comparable. There is only one universe. If there was two, we would have a point of reference from one to measure the other.
As well, from within the universe we cannot find a central point of expansion as all points WERE the points of origin.
Got it. Interesting. Makes sense. I am going to have to look into that theory some more.
Its getting better!
All "points" in nothing, producing something!
I wonder why it stopped that 13.7 billion years ago, the seeds of nothing might have run out of stock!
The great science of 21st century. I bow my head in front this wisdom.(I'll ask the so many gods, if I see them, to do the same. After all singularities are so rare, it should be greater than Mr.God of gods).
This is interesting. People talking science appear to be separate sects. Just like religion. Are you playing the role of the fundamentalist today?
Beel is not doing any science. What he is doing is, in his own words, "thought experiments". Dreaming would have been better!
It is impossible for anything, be it god or singularity, to create anything from nothing.
It is impossible for "nothing" to expand.
It is impossible for concepts to dilate. Only objects can do that. Time is a concept, not an object. A concept is conceived by an intelligent brain. 'Time' is there, only, if you are there, atleast a video camera should be there, to have more than one frame. In a photograph there is no time.
He's always sounded like the voice of reason to me. Now he's reasonable, and interesting. Go figure. Anyway he, at the least, sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
Good for you. Now you can discuss your religion!
Jomine, it has been a constant mystery to me since I stumbled into this forum as to how often people feel the need to belittle and laugh at others. Of course, there are times when it would seem appropriate, but to constantly
conduct oneself as if somehow smarter than others smacks of childish insecurities.
Using the term religion as a slur simply because another is interested in a conversation seems oddly unbalanced and rude.
Anything irrational is religion JC.
They all use magik, be it the standard religion, or relativity.
If you define space as nothing, then you will know that space cannot expand, nor it can produce anything.
Time is a concept, that is conceived by brain. Concepts don't exist that is it has no physical presence.
Only that which are objects(having a physical presence/shape/form) can expand or contract or dilate.
Time and space are not objects.
Beel continuously say these are objects and say matter moves through time and space expands.
Now tell me what I shall call it? It is irrational and only word I can use is religion, all others will be more disrespectful!
Well, I don't want to argue with you. This is apparently an emotional issue for you. It's probably an argument for you and Beelzedad. I'm not quite sure how you and I got on the topic anyway.
There is no emotion there JC.
Beel says he use common meanings. I say you cannot words with different meanings in science as the word cannot be used consistently, so we have to define a word first.
Beel says he cannot define as once he define a word, he will find it difficult to rationally explain.
For example, the common meanings of space are
1. interval of time: a period or interval of time
In the space of two hours the situation was resolved.
2. enough room: room to fit or accommodate something or somebody
There isn't space for the table.
3. area set apart: an area set apart or available for use
floor space
4. region beyond Earth's atmosphere: the region that lies beyond the Earth's atmosphere, and all that it contains
space travel
5. region between all astronomical objects: the region, usually of negligible density, between all astronomical objects in the universe
6. three-dimensional expanse where matter exists: the unbounded three-dimensional expanse in which all matter exists
7. printing blank area between type: a blank area between characters, words, or lines of type, or an interval the width of a single character
8. music interval between lines of musical staff: an interval between the lines of the musical staff
9. communication time or area available for advertising: broadcast time or an area in a publication available for specific use, e.g. by advertisers
10. mathematics set of points governed by axioms: in mathematics, a collection of points that have geometric properties in that they obey set rules axioms, e.g. a Euclidean space that is governed by Euclidean geometry.
Each non-Euclidean geometry, having its own axioms, has its own non-Euclidean space containing a collection of points governed by those axioms.
11. printing piece of type to create blank: a piece of type used to create a blank interval in printing
12. freedom to assert identity: the freedom or opportunity to assert a personal identity or fulfill personal needs (informal)
I need my own personal space.
13. communication interval in telegraphic transmission: an interval during the transmission of a telegraphic message when the key is not in contact
From these, you might understood that we cannot use "space" without first letting the audience know which meaning of space you are using!
Hence Beel is irrational.You might have seen him vehemently opposing any theists here for saying nonsense, but then he start with his own nonsense. It is just like two religious people arguing, and nothing else.
I just gave him a taste of his own medicine. I know people are set in their ways and no amount of reasoning is going to change it. "To believe" is the basic human need. I was just getting some amusement!
Jomine, you have pointed out the great problem I have found with communication in this site. Every word haas multiple meanings. Many times I am confused, because I attribute one meaning to the word while others use a different one. That's life. It is what makes it interesting. It is why it is important to keep talking, so you can slowly work your way to an understanding.
What bothers me is how often people ridicule others in the process of reaching this meeting of the minds. It stands in the way of progress. We should all find a different form of amusement.
Notice that you have to lie in order to support your argument?
Ah, that would explain your lies.
Beel can you define at least one word?
You said you use words as defined, yet never gave a definition yourself. You asked me to consult dictionary.
I've given all the dictionary meanings of space(from Encarta), tell me what do you mean by space?
If you can't define a word, you say nothing , and that is what you were doing!
Of course, you can avoid giving any definition that can be consistently used, for if you do, it may kill your religion!
Yes, with the use of a dictionary. Such a quaint notion, dictionaries, don't you think?
Like I said before, I see no reason whatsoever I need to be your personal dictionary. Usually, if one comes across a word they are not familiar, they will look it up in a dictionary.
Interesting books, those dictionaries.
Such a novel approach to understanding words, yes? Dictionaries, neat ideas.
Why should I have to tell you the definition of space when you have already found it?
If you are unable to understand a dictionaries purpose, you know nothing.
As you are so incapable of understanding, I give you an example
Space
1. interval of time: a period or interval of time
In the space of two hours the situation was resolved.
2. enough room: room to fit or accommodate something or somebody
There isn't space for the table.
3. area set apart: an area set apart or available for use
floor space
4. region beyond Earth's atmosphere: the region that lies beyond the Earth's atmosphere, and all that it contains
space travel
5. region between all astronomical objects: the region, usually of negligible density, between all astronomical objects in the universe
6. three-dimensional expanse where matter exists: the unbounded three-dimensional expanse in which all matter exists
7. printing blank area between type: a blank area between characters, words, or lines of type, or an interval the width of a single character
8. music interval between lines of musical staff: an interval between the lines of the musical staff
9. communication time or area available for advertising: broadcast time or an area in a publication available for specific use, e.g. by advertisers
10. mathematics set of points governed by axioms: in mathematics, a collection of points that have geometric properties in that they obey set rules axioms, e.g. a Euclidean space that is governed by Euclidean geometry.
Each non-Euclidean geometry, having its own axioms, has its own non-Euclidean space containing a collection of points governed by those axioms.
11. printing piece of type to create blank: a piece of type used to create a blank interval in printing
12. freedom to assert identity: the freedom or opportunity to assert a personal identity or fulfill personal needs (informal)
I need my own personal space.
13. communication interval in telegraphic transmission: an interval during the transmission of a telegraphic message when the key is not in contact
These are the dictionary meanings.
Which of these is increasing when you say space increasing?
[color=blue] Energy
1.the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy.
2.an adequate or abundant amount of such power: I seem to have no energy these days.
3.Often, energies. a feeling of tension caused or seeming to be caused by an excess of such power: to work off one's energies at tennis.
4.an exertion of such power: She plays tennis with great energy.
5.the habit of vigorous activity; vigor as a characteristic: Foreigners both admire and laugh at American energy.
6.the ability to act, lead others, effect, etc., forcefully.
7.forcefulness of expression: a writing style abounding with energy.
8.Physics . the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done; potential energy. Symbol: E
9.any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation.
Which of these exists?
Time
1.the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
2.duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration.
3.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time.
4.a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.
5.a particular period considered as distinct from other periods: Youth is the best time of life.
6.Often, times.
a.
a period in the history of the world, or contemporary with the life or activities of a notable person: prehistoric times; in Lincoln's time.
b.
the period or era now or previously present: a sign of the times; how times have changed!
c.
a period considered with reference to its events or prevailing conditions, tendencies, ideas, etc.: hard times; a time of war.
7.a prescribed or allotted period, as of one's life, for payment of a debt, etc.
8.the end of a prescribed or allotted period, as of one's life or a pregnancy: His time had come, but there was no one left to mourn over him. When her time came, her husband accompanied her to the delivery room.
9.a period with reference to personal experience of a specified kind: to have a good time; a hot time in the old town tonight.
10.a period of work of an employee, or the pay for it; working hours or days or an hourly or daily pay rate.
11.Informal . a term of enforced duty or imprisonment: to serve time in the army; do time in prison.
12.the period necessary for or occupied by something: The time of the baseball game was two hours and two minutes. The bus takes too much time, so I'll take a plane.
13.leisure time; sufficient or spare time: to have time for a vacation; I have no time to stop now.
14.a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it?
15.a particular part of a year, day, etc.; season or period: It's time for lunch.
16.an appointed, fit, due, or proper instant or period: a time for sowing; the time when the sun crosses the meridian; There is a time for everything.
17.the particular point in time when an event is scheduled to take place: train time; curtain time.
18.an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right.
19.the right occasion or opportunity: to watch one's time.
20.each occasion of a recurring action or event: to do a thing five times; It's the pitcher's time at bat.
21.times, used as a multiplicative word in phrasal combinations expressing how many instances of a quantity or factor are taken together: Two goes into six three times; five times faster.
22.Drama . one of the three unities. Compare unity ( def. 8 ) .
23.Prosody . a unit or a group of units in the measurement of meter.
24.Music .
a.tempo; relative rapidity of movement.
b.the metrical duration of a note or rest.
c.proper or characteristic tempo.
d.the general movement of a particular kind of musical composition with reference to its rhythm, metrical structure, and tempo.
e.the movement of a dance or the like to music so arranged: waltz time.
25.Military . rate of marching, calculated on the number of paces taken per minute: double time; quick time.
26.Manège . each completed action or movement of the horse.
–adjective
27.of, pertaining to, or showing the passage of time.
28.(of an explosive device) containing a clock so that it will detonate at the desired moment: a time bomb.
29.Commerce . payable at a stated period of time after presentment: time drafts or notes.
30.of or pertaining to purchases on the installment plan, or with payment postponed.
–verb (used with object)
31.to measure or record the speed, duration, or rate of: to time a race.
32.to fix the duration of: The proctor timed the test at 15 minutes.
33.to fix the interval between (actions, events, etc.): They timed their strokes at six per minute.
34.to regulate (a train, clock, etc.) as to time.
35.to appoint or choose the moment or occasion for; schedule: He timed the attack perfectly.
–verb (used without object)
36.to keep time; sound or move in unison.
—Idioms
37.against time, in an effort to finish something within a limited period: We worked against time to get out the newspaper.
38.ahead of time, before the time due; early: The building was completed ahead of time.
39.at one time,
a.once; in a former time: At one time they owned a restaurant.
b.at the same time; at once: They all tried to talk at one time.
40.at the same time, nevertheless; yet: I'd like to try it, but at the same time I'm a little afraid.
41.at times, at intervals; occasionally: At times the city becomes intolerable.
42.beat someone's time, Slang . to compete for or win a person being dated or courted by another; prevail over a rival: He accused me, his own brother, of trying to beat his time.
43.behind the times, old-fashioned; dated: These attitudes are behind the times.
44.for the time being, temporarily; for the present: Let's forget about it for the time being.
45.from time to time, on occasion; occasionally; at intervals: She comes to see us from time to time.
46.gain time, to postpone in order to make preparations or gain an advantage; delay the outcome of: He hoped to gain time by putting off signing the papers for a few days more.
47.in good time,
a.at the right time; on time; punctually.
b.in advance of the right time; early: We arrived at the appointed spot in good time.
48.in no time, in a very brief time; almost at once: Working together, they cleaned the entire house in no time.
49.in time,
a.early enough: to come in time for dinner.
b.in the future; eventually: In time he'll see what is right.
c.in the correct rhythm or tempo: There would always be at least one child who couldn't play in time with the music.
50.keep time,
a.to record time, as a watch or clock does.
b.to mark or observe the tempo.
c.to perform rhythmic movements in unison.
51.kill time, to occupy oneself with some activity to make time pass quickly: While I was waiting, I killed time counting the cars on the freight trains.
52.make time,
a.to move quickly, especially in an attempt to recover lost time.
b.to travel at a particular speed.
53.make time with, Slang . to pursue or take as a sexual partner.
54.many a time, again and again; frequently: Many a time they didn't have enough to eat and went to bed hungry.
55.mark time,
a.to suspend progress temporarily, as to await developments; fail to advance.
b.Military . to move the feet alternately as in marching, but without advancing.
56.on one's own time, during one's free time; without payment: He worked out more efficient production methods on his own time.
57.on time,
a.at the specified time; punctually.
b.to be paid for within a designated period of time, as in installments: Many people are never out of debt because they buy everything on time.
58.out of time, not in the proper rhythm: His singing was out of time with the music.
59.pass the time of day, to converse briefly with or greet someone: The women would stop in the market to pass the time of day.
60.take one's time, to be slow or leisurely; dawdle: Speed was important here, but he just took his time.
61.time after time, again and again; repeatedly; often: I've told him time after time not to slam the door.
62.time and time again, repeatedly; often: Time and time again I warned her to stop smoking. Also, time and again.
63.time of life, (one's) age: At your time of life you must be careful not to overdo things.
64.time of one's life, Informal . an extremely enjoyable experience: They had the time of their lives on their trip to europe.
Which one is dilating?
Exist
1.to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2.to have life or animation; live.
3.to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4.to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5.to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
Which meaning when you claim something exist?
When a theist say "god exists", he won't tell what is god, nor what is exist.
When you say "energy exists", neither you say what is energy, nor what is exist.
As is shown above a single word has so many meanings. Religion thrives on that inconsistency and ambiguity.
But in science we can't do that. Every word should be used consistently and unambiguously, hence the need to define.
Of course, only a scientist will understand it.
You can use all the different meaning and claim space expand, time dilate and such, but it is not science. That is to cone the unwary and if that is your profession, continue, you always get gullible. As is shown by the religions, there is no dearth of people who want to be deceived!
So, jomine. Your consistent posts on the infinite variation of the meaning of individual words begs the question; how, on earth, do you post? By this constant complaining one would assume that each word you type would be automatically followed by its proper definition, to ensure you did not fall into the religious mentality of assuming others could follow what you were saying. Yet you, like everyone else, do not. It appears you, like everyone else, trusts in the fact that your words are conveying the meaning you intend them to.
Yes, and it would be consistent of you to not know which meaining is used when discussing physics. Perhaps, it's this one for space:
"area set apart: an area set apart or available for use
floor space"
... and this one for energy:
"forcefulness of expression: a writing style abounding with energy."
... and this one for time:
"the movement of a dance or the like to music so arranged: waltz time."
... and this one for exist:
"to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists."
It sure would be nice to know what it is you're talking about as you appear to be quite excited in hearing yourself talk.
"It sure would be nice to know what it is you're talking "
I ask you the same.
What do you mean, when you say "everything/something" came from "nothing"?
What do you mean, when yo say space which is our conceptualization of "nothing", expands?
What do you mean, when you say a concept called "time" dilate?
So far you have said nothing, except some nonsense. All you are good at is telling all the theists how irrational they are, but all your sentences are Irrational!!
by flacoinohio 12 months ago
Is it possible that our earth is actually hell?I have difficulty believing that there is a reason for our world being in the shape that it is in other than we are being tested. What if being banished to hell is not for an eternity, but for what we perceive a our lifetime, a place where we...
by richtan 10 years ago
what is a succubus? based on the info from my relationship with one over a year. they are neither angel or demon. nor human. but a little bit of both.they are neither good nor evil. but are like us; have both natures. they are found in every mythology. and in every religion. either as peris,...
by Osa Osazuwa-Tosan 14 years ago
I have heard and been told about heaven so many times. That there is heaven is not my question, my question is where is heaven, and where is the way to it. I'm most interested in having the answer to this question because it is a very important one to me and to those I will be talking about heaven...
by somethgblue 10 years ago
My question is, could our perception of what linear time is, be what is actually coming to an end?Could it be that what everyone thinks of as the end of time, is actually they way in which humanity perceives of time? To clarify the question, humanity ATM thinks in terms of the past, present and...
by Brenda Trott, M.Ed 11 years ago
I'm looking for questions you had as a new parent. What didn't you think about until you need the answer? What questions did you think you knew the answers to and then realized you need more information?
by Helna 10 years ago
What On Earth Am I Here For?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |