Where did life begin? (Merged)

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I have a question about time. I just read through every bit of this, understood a reasonable amount, didn't particularly care for much of it.

Can I get my time back or would that be just an illusion?

 

[rjd970]

You really are a piece of work.

If you want to wordsmith between "relative" and "non-linear" then go ahead.

The mass of an object causes space-time to bend. Hence, time can bend. That is non-linear. Time curves. It opens the possibility of time travel and one could arrive at a place and time before they left.

Experience of the passage of moments is relative to one's frame of reference and the speed of light stays constant independent of that frame of reference. Depending on one's speed, they experience the passage of time different. Even right now, if I were to get on a plane and travel to go see you, the speed of the plane would cause me to experience the passage of time slower relative to you, its just that the speed is so minute compared to the speed of light that the change is indistinguishable.

I really do have a hard time believing, with the questions you are asking, that you understand special relativity.

 

[Vol8188]

I am wondering if you are just trolling. I am serious. I think you have to be too intelligent a person to not understand the contradiction your are proposing.

Time is relative, dependent on speed, thus time is not linear.

Think very carefully about that for a second.

Hint: Speed is the measurement of an object through space in linear time. Without linear time, there is no speed. You just used the measurement of something to prove that it doesn't exist.

Time being dependent upon speed,that's basically the definition of a function. But not all functions are linear.

This would probably be exponential. To be linear it would require a steady rate of change. But since time slows down, as speed increases, it would not be linear.

 

[rjd970]

So you are just basically saying that sequential time breaks down at the speed of light, while saying that the speed of light is impossible (for anything but light, I guess).

OK.

So cause and effect exists for everything but light. I guess, when astronomers claim that we are peering into billions of years of history through telescopes, physicists would tell them that is impossible since there is no actual sequential time for light?

First off, I'm not saying anything. I am rehashing the theory for you. Feel free to point out where I am wrong.

Second, the bolded is wrong. The cause and effect that we experience everyday gets progressively more problematic as you approach the speed of light. The faster we travel, the worse it gets. Our reality, including mass, time sequence, cause-effect, the whole nine completely breaks down at the speed of light.

 

[rjd970]

I am wondering if you are just trolling. I am serious. I think you have to be too intelligent a person to not understand the contradiction your are proposing.

Time is relative, dependent on speed, thus time is not linear.

Think very carefully about that for a second.

Hint: Speed is the measurement of an object through space in linear time. Without linear time, there is no speed. You just used the measurement of something to prove that it doesn't exist.

Nope, wrong again. In fact, this is magnificently wrong. There is no preferred frame of reference for the passage of time. For your reality time is linear, for my reality time is linear. For the reality of an outside observer time is passing differently for each of us, and different for him. If it makes you feel better, call it non-uniform instead of non-linear. It really doesn't matter to me, but your views that time is linear only works for very limited cases.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Our reality, including mass, time sequence, cause-effect, the whole nine completely breaks down at the speed of light.

That's the basic point I was getting at rjd. I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk. I promise. I am trying to make sure that I understand you and that we are speaking the same language. "Relative" and "non-sequential", "non-linear", however you want to put it, are different concepts within the discussion, so I need to know whether we are having the same discussion.

I really don't know how else to have a discussion unless we know we are speaking to the same concepts.
So, we both agree that time is relative. We can both agree on that. The question is whether it is relative yet sequential.

You say that time can be bent, which I agree with. You mention time travel, which I agree with. We are traveling through time right now. Sequentially. Going forward in time. The "bending" of time doesn't necessitate that it becomes non-sequential as it is bent. I showed that in my example of time relativity between two people, one at the top of a tall building and one at the bottom. They both experience time relatively, but it is proven that they experience time sequentially, since they come back into a time sync when the relativity is removed.

That is why physicists believe that we can "technically" time travel forward in time as we move closer to the speed of light. Time would move at a different rate, but it would just move at a different speed, still forward and still sequentially. I have seen no one, ever, propose that time begins to move non-sequentially as it get closer to the speed of light. So, cause and effect would still be valid-- just at a different rate.

Basically, as I follow it, you are saying that cause and effect cease to exist with the other laws of nature in a singularity, which I whole-heartedly agree with. So it may be that there is no disagreement with us.

My argument all along has been that cause and effect are binding until we reach a singularity, then it's by definition supernatural.

Since I seem to be annoying you, I'll let it go. That is not my intent, and it's literally not important enough for all of that.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Time being dependent upon speed,that's basically the definition of a function. But not all functions are linear.

This would probably be exponential. To be linear it would require a steady rate of change. But since time slows down, as speed increases, it would not be linear.

I believe I was unintentially equivocating. By "linear", I was referring to "on a line", whether straight or bent. I should have been using the term "sequential", I think.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

That's the basic point I was getting at rjd. I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk. I promise. I am trying to make sure that I understand you and that we are speaking the same language. "Relative" and "non-sequential", "non-linear", however you want to put it, are different concepts within the discussion, so I need to know whether we are having the same discussion.

I really don't know how else to have a discussion unless we know we are speaking to the same concepts.
So, we both agree that time is relative. We can both agree on that. The question is whether it is relative yet sequential.

You say that time can be bent, which I agree with. You mention time travel, which I agree with. We are traveling through time right now. Sequentially. Going forward in time. The "bending" of time doesn't necessitate that it becomes non-sequential as it is bent. I showed that in my example of time relativity between two people, one at the top of a tall building and one at the bottom. They both experience time relatively, but it is proven that they experience time sequentially, since they come back into a time sync when the relativity is removed.

That is why physicists believe that we can "technically" time travel forward in time as we move closer to the speed of light. Time would move at a different rate, but it would just move at a different speed, still forward and still sequentially. I have seen no one, ever, propose that time begins to move non-sequentially as it get closer to the speed of light. So, cause and effect would still be valid-- just at a different rate.

Basically, as I follow it, you are saying that cause and effect cease to exist with the other laws of nature in a singularity, which I whole-heartedly agree with. So it may be that there is no disagreement with us.

My argument all along has been that cause and effect are binding until we reach a singularity, then it's by definition supernatural.

Since I seem to be annoying you, I'll let it go. That is not my intent, and it's literally not important enough for all of that.

:hi:

We appear to experience time sequentially. Physics does not necessitate it. The past, present, and future are all equally real at the simultaneously via the equations. There is no reason we have to experience the flow of time sequentially forward vs sequentially backward or intermediately.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We appear to experience time sequentially. Physics does not necessitate it. The past, present, and future are all equally real at the simultaneously via the equations. There is no reason we have to experience the flow of time sequentially forward vs sequentially backward or intermediately.

I will not belabor the point. Over the past week, I've gotten on some nerves, which is not my intent. It's not that important. I'll just say this:

Mathematically, "physics does not necessitate" that we experience time sequentially. That brings me back to my earlier philosophical and logical points. Obviously we do. If we didn't, we could not have sequentially developed in such a way that evolved our ability to experience it sequentially. It seems that experience and logic can define bounds of reality that mathematics do not.

Good day. Thanks for weighing in and clarifying. I sincerely appreciate it. :hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

I will not belabor the point. Over the past week, I've gotten on some nerves, which is not my intent. It's not that important. I'll just say this:

Mathematically, "physics does not necessitate" that we experience time sequentially. That brings me back to my earlier philosophical and logical points. Obviously we do. If we didn't, we could not have sequentially developed in such a way that evolved our ability to experience it sequentially. It seems that experience and logic can define bounds of reality that mathematics do not.

Good day. Thanks for weighing in and clarifying. I sincerely appreciate it. :hi:

1) First bolded statement is presumptuous and false. In reality, we experience reality intermediately. There are many, many moments of reality that happen in-between our sensed moments of forward sequencial reality.

2) Thinking as a mere human with your experience and logic that you can "define the bounds of reality" is comical. There is far more that we don't know than we know. Mathematics has predicted plenty of phenomena that experience could not. Brings up the question of whether mathematics/natural laws were invented by man or discovered by man?

 

[rjd970]

First off, you aren't annoying me. Arrogance is one thing, but you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of the theory while stating you do. Just because we perceive time sequentially doesn't mean it actually is. We perceive the magician making the coin disappear, it doesn't mean the coin is actually disappearing.

You say that time can be bent, which I agree with. You mention time travel, which I agree with. We are traveling through time right now. Sequentially. Going forward in time. The "bending" of time doesn't necessitate that it becomes non-sequential as it is bent. I showed that in my example of time relativity between two people, one at the top of a tall building and one at the bottom. They both experience time relatively, but it is proven that they experience time sequentially, since they come back into a time sync when the relativity is removed.

They come back into time sync? Really?

I'm not sure you understand what time dilation is. Because the speeds we experience are so miniscule compared to c it is negligible. Even right now, clocks GPS satellites have to be re-calibrated every so often because of time dilation. If we were to bring those satellites back after years in orbit without re-calibration, the clocks would be off, they don't just magically come in sync again with earth clocks. See below....

In theory, and to make a clearer example, time dilation could affect planned meetings for astronauts with advanced technologies and greater travel speeds. The astronauts would have to set their clocks to count exactly 80 years, whereas mission control – back on Earth – might need to count 81 years. The astronauts would return to Earth, after their mission, having aged one year less than the people staying on Earth. What is more, the local experience of time passing never actually changes for anyone. In other words, the astronauts on the ship as well as the mission control crew on Earth each feel normal, despite the effects of time dilation (i.e. to the traveling party, those stationary are living "faster"; whilst to those who stood still, their counterparts in motion live "slower" at any given moment).

With technology limiting the velocities of astronauts, these differences are minuscule: after 6 months on the ISS, the astronaut crew has indeed aged less than those on Earth, but only by about 0.007 seconds (nowhere near the 1 year disparity from the theoretical example). The effects would be greater if the astronauts were traveling nearer to the speed of light (approximately 300,000 km/s), instead of their actual speed – which is the speed of the orbiting ISS, about 7.7 km/s.[3]

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is why physicists believe that we can "technically" time travel forward in time as we move closer to the speed of light. Time would move at a different rate, but it would just move at a different speed, still forward and still sequentially. I have seen no one, ever, propose that time begins to move non-sequentially as it get closer to the speed of light. So, cause and effect would still be valid-- just at a different rate.

Theoretically you can also travel back in time, and reaching a singularity or c isn't required. If we can technically time travel and I can theoretically arrive at a place before I leave, I would really like to hear your explanation on the implications of cause/effect.

 

[n_huffhines]

Theoretically you can also travel back in time, and reaching a singularity or c isn't required. If we can technically time travel and I can theoretically arrive at a place before I leave, I would really like to hear your explanation on the implications of cause/effect.

I thought it was pretty well agreed that this isn't possible. Forward yes, but backward no.

 

[rjd970]

I thought it was pretty well agreed that this isn't possible. Forward yes, but backward no.

It is theoretically possible without violating any laws of existing physics. It's less likely than forward time travel, but it is possible.

One possibility is explained here (skip to 3:40):

Through The Wormhole - episode 3 (Is Time Travel Possible?) pt 3 - YouTube

There are other theories as well, but it is possible.

 

[Spartacavolus]

If coach woulda put me in, we woulda won state.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I thought it was pretty well agreed that this isn't possible. Forward yes, but backward no.

It is agreed that it is possible, mathematically. Einstein was embarrassed when it was pointed out that it is (mathematically) possible according to his theory. But then he pointed out that our universe is expanding, not spinning-- so he proposed it is not possible in his theory. Others discovered that, mathematically, it is possible within spinning black holes-- but not probable due to the effects that the black hole's gravity would have.

In other words, in an expanding universe, Einstein stated that it is not the "natural flow" of time. Others pointed out that it is theoretically possible if a singularity is involved.

However, before Einstein died, he was faced with an embarrassing problem. Einstein’s neighbor at Princeton, Kurt Goedel, perhaps the greatest mathematical logician of the past 500 years, found a new solution to Einstein’s own equations which allowed for time travel! The “river of time” now had whirlpools in which time could wrap itself into a circle. Goedel’s solution was quite ingenious: it postulated a universe filled with a rotating fluid. Anyone walking along the direction of rotation would find themselves back at the starting point, but backwards in time!

In his memoirs, Einstein wrote that he was disturbed that his equations contained solutions that allowed for time travel. But he finally concluded: the universe does not rotate, it ex- pands (i.e. as in the Big Bang theory) and hence Goedel’s solution could be thrown out for “physical reasons.” (Apparently, if the Big Bang was rotating, then time travel would be possible throughout the universe!)

Then in 1963, Roy Kerr, a New Zealand mathematician, found a solution of Einstein’s equations for a rotating black hole, which had bizarre properties. The black hole would not collapse to a point (as previously thought) but into a spinning ring (of neutrons). The ring would be circulating so rapidly that centrifugal force would keep the ring from collapsing under gravity. The ring, in turn, acts like the Looking Glass of Alice. Anyone walking through the ring would not die, but could pass through the ring into an alternate universe. Since then, hundreds of other “wormhole” solutions have been found to Einstein’s equations. These wormholes connect not only two regions of space (hence the name) but also two regions of time as well. In principle, they can be used as time machines.

Dr. Michio Kaku

The Physics of Time Travel : Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

Did you get that? Time travel is not the natural order of time in our expanding universe. It would have to pass through a singularity-- in effect leave our universe.

Even if it were possible within our universe...

Most physicists maintain that it would not be probable due to time paradoxes that it would create. They realize that if a time-line turned on itself in a loop, it would still be operating sequentially, thus still be constrained by cause and effect. These theoretical physicists recognize and take seriously the importance of the laws of causation,, so they are far less prone to throw the laws out for a mathematical model.

However, rather remarkable advances in quantum gravity are reviving the theory; it has now become fair game for theoretical physicists writing in the pages of Physical Review magazine. One stubborn problem with time travel is that it is riddled with several types of paradoxes. For example, there is the paradox of the man with no parents, i.e. what happens when you go back in time and kill your parents before you are born? Question: if your parents died before you were born, then how could you have been born to kill them in the first place?

Dr. Michio Kaku

The Physics of Time Travel : Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

Superstring theory hints at the possibility that, if reverse time travel were to happen, it could escape the cause/effect paradoxes by creating a new universe, instead of fracturing the laws of causation with a paradox. A couple of notes, even in superstring theory: The laws of causation were not fractured or set aside. Second note about superstring theory:

But superstring theory, which happens to be my specialty, is still to difficult to solve completely. The theory is well-defined, but no one on earth is smart enough to solve it.

Dr. Michio Kaku

The Physics of Time Travel : Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

Go read the article. You'll note that the greatest physicists on the planet struggle with the idea of time travel for the very reasons I've mentioned-- the problems of the paradoxes, which are based in the fact that they do not set aside the sanctity of the laws of causation as some in here are so liberally doing.

The Laws of Causation are sanctity in science. That has been my entire point.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I am wondering if you are just trolling. I am serious. I think you have to be too intelligent a person to not understand the contradiction your are proposing.

Time is relative, dependent on speed, thus time is not linear.

Think very carefully about that for a second.

Hint: Speed is the measurement of an object through space in linear time. Without linear time, there is no speed. You just used the measurement of something to prove that it doesn't exist.

Hint: Speed is the rate of change of the position of an object. In other words dx/dt. If dt is sufficiently small, t in a macro sense does not have to be linear to measure a change in position with respect to time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It is theoretically possible without violating any laws of existing physics. It's less likely than forward time travel, but it is possible.

One possibility is explained here (skip to 3:40):

Through The Wormhole - episode 3 (Is Time Travel Possible?) pt 3 - YouTube

There are other theories as well, but it is possible.

3:25 -- "The answer is, no one knows." Ironic.

3:34 -- "Meanwhile, another renegade physicist worked up a different way..."

4:00 -- "Cosmic streams are streams are thin strands of energy that may run through the universe..."

4:40 -- "No one knows if cosmic streams are real..."

6:00 -- You actually travel "back" in time by traveling forward in time. In other words, you take a shortcut and sequentially beat a beam of light, traveling sequentially, to the same time/place-- just sooner. With two cosmic streams, you could travel forward, sequentially, in time and circle back around. IN other words, you are always traveling sequentially "forward" in time, one moment after the next. You just circle back around to moments.

7:00 -- "But there are a couple of problems..." Like b;acl holes, death, things of that nature...

7:50 -- "They don't claim they can build working working time machines today. They are trying to figure out if the laws of physics permit time travel at all."

8:03 -- "Nature appears to have a driving force that may always cause a time machine to self destruct the moment you try to activate it."

Now let me just say, I do not begrudge that this is theoretical and I am excited about the studies. But let's not try to pass off the whole idea, as has been alluded here, that the laws of physics as we know and understand them inherently point to time as an inherent thing that naturally flows back on itself, or is anything but a forward-moving, sequential thing.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I have a question about time. I just read through every bit of this, understood a reasonable amount, didn't particularly care for much of it.

Can I get my time back or would that be just an illusion?

Only if Freak came in and deletes all of the posts.

 

[82_VOL_83]

You really are a piece of work.

If you want to wordsmith between "relative" and "non-linear" then go ahead.

The mass of an object causes space-time to bend. Hence, time can bend. That is non-linear. Time curves. It opens the possibility of time travel and one could arrive at a place and time before they left.

Experience of the passage of moments is relative to one's frame of reference and the speed of light stays constant independent of that frame of reference. Depending on one's speed, they experience the passage of time different. Even right now, if I were to get on a plane and travel to go see you, the speed of the plane would cause me to experience the passage of time slower relative to you, its just that the speed is so minute compared to the speed of light that the change is indistinguishable.

I really do have a hard time believing, with the questions you are asking, that you understand special relativity.

The terms relative and non-linear actually have no relationship to each other.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I believe I was unintentially equivocating. By "linear", I was referring to "on a line", whether straight or bent. I should have been using the term "sequential", I think.

:hi:

By definition, linear is not on a curved line. A curved line is the graph of a non-linear function.

 

[Orange_Crush]

By definition, linear is not on a curved line. A curved line is the graph of a non-linear function.

I understand and submit. It was a poorly chosen word which should have been "sequential". I withdaw and apologize to the readers for the confusion cause.

 

[rjd970]

The Laws of Causation are sanctity in science. That has been my entire point.

If you think that is the case, then what kind of science or philosophy are you using to justify the uncaused cause?

 

[rjd970]

3:25 -- "The answer is, no one knows." Ironic.

3:34 -- "Meanwhile, another renegade physicist worked up a different way..."

4:00 -- "Cosmic streams are streams are thin strands of energy that may run through the universe..."

4:40 -- "No one knows if cosmic streams are real..."

6:00 -- You actually travel "back" in time by traveling forward in time. In other words, you take a shortcut and sequentially beat a beam of light, traveling sequentially, to the same time/place-- just sooner. With two cosmic streams, you could travel forward, sequentially, in time and circle back around. IN other words, you are always traveling sequentially "forward" in time, one moment after the next. You just circle back around to moments.

7:00 -- "But there are a couple of problems..." Like b;acl holes, death, things of that nature...

7:50 -- "They don't claim they can build working working time machines today. They are trying to figure out if the laws of physics permit time travel at all."

8:03 -- "Nature appears to have a driving force that may always cause a time machine to self destruct the moment you try to activate it."

Now let me just say, I do not begrudge that this is theoretical and I am excited about the studies. But let's not try to pass off the whole idea, as has been alluded here, that the laws of physics as we know and understand them inherently point to time as an inherent thing that naturally flows back on itself, or is anything but a forward-moving, sequential thing.

This is typical. Attacking the science, because unlike the believers, they are freely admitting there are issues to resolve.

 

[rjd970]

And another thing....The paradoxes are problematic. Not sure why you think I propose otherwise? None of that changes the fact that the physics allow for their possibility within the framework of the theories.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is typical. Attacking the science, because unlike the believers, they are freely admitting there are issues to resolve.

Where in the heck did you get that from? Did you miss where I said:

Now let me just say, I do not begrudge that this is theoretical and I am excited about the studies. But let's not try to pass off the whole idea, as has been alluded here, that the laws of physics as we know and understand them inherently point to time as an inherent thing that naturally flows back on itself, or is anything but a forward-moving, sequential thing.

Did it register better when I bolded?

Let me translate: I don't expect them to know everything, but the bottom line is they don't know. Rjd is spouting stuff as fact that the most respected physicists in the world are confused by, admit they don't know, and about a theory that they admit the smarted person in the world couldn't solve.

I didn't attack science. I attacked your premise.