Philosophy Now Forum

Oh and incidentally if a Physicist tried to suggest that time could go backward in any other way but an analogy of the path of antimatter creation being reversed in time as opposed to matter, they would probably be fired from a cannon into the sun. Or lose tenure, and be assigned to Arkham one of the two.

Read up on that shit is a lazy answer, and you could well fall afoul of someone who has. Not that Hex reads my posts anyway, but meh, the lurkers are amused.

Ginkgo wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Question: How fast do current scientists believe we are traveling as a result of the big bang, and relative to what, as nothing should be stationary, relative to what? Do our clocks speed up and slow down relative to the earths yearly cycle, as surely at some point we are traveling more additively and more negatively relative to that original big bang trajectory. It can get really complicated when we add the milky ways plane of spin to the mix. Has time changed on earth, throughout it's billions of years of existence, as surely time dilation would seem to indicate as much.

There was no "original trajectory" when it came to the Big bang. The Big Bang didn't occur in a particular region of space because there was no space. A way of saying this would be that the Big Bang occurred everywhere at the same time.

The Big Bang is not galaxies moving away from each other, it is the expansion of space between galaxies that gives the impression of increasing distance. Expansion is looked upon as everything moving away from everything else in the universe. There is no privileged position.

All the above is hypothetical, yet you speak as if it's certain. Still speed of movement is speed of movement, however one frames it. And sorry but a bang, omni-directionally, yields trajectories, just like a star going supernova. Maybe you need to change it's name to "The Big Instant Materializing," but then that wouldn't indicate something that's expanding, whereas 'bang' does. For there to be movement within this space, their had to be a force. And it wouldn't matter if there was space before hand.

If I'm at extreme depth, and I blow out a minuscule bubble, there is relatively very little space for it to occupy, until it rises to the force of pressure, and it expands, all the points on the spherical edge, have trajectory, as it expands, originating from the center of the expansion, not to be confused with a place in space, as remember it is rising from it's original place. See the minute particles in my bubble, from my lungs, as if galaxies and stars and planets, as it expands they indeed have trajectories relative to one another, and that smaller sphere, from which they originated.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:What experiment on dilation, correlated varying speed with varying clock difference, that also negated the frequency at which the clock in motion broke through the earths magnetic lines of flux, as it surely increases with speed. You are aware that an east west heading was the absolute worst heading in which to conduct the experiment, right?

Well the classic is the Hafele-Keating in which clocks that went east-west were compared with clocks that went west-east, as well as clocks that went nowhere. You can see my take on it here, Spheres: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... plane.html

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The earths magnetic lines of flux are longitudinal, not latitudinal. With every break of a line comes disturbance, where the frequency of said disturbance is relative to speed, (more lines broken, more disturbance). Remember, I was trained by the US DOD to monitor such occurrences.

The Earths magnetic field spins with the Earth, so that it would not make any difference whether you fly eastwards or westwards, but the H-K results would imply that direction affects how many field lines are broken if that were the cause.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Question: How fast do current scientists believe we are traveling as a result of the big bang, and relative to what, as nothing should be stationary, relative to what?

All you can ever do is measure your speed relative to something else. Galileo made the point that if you were aboard a ship smoothly sailing along, everything behaves exactly as if the ship was in port. It is only when you look outside that you can tell you are moving. (Any acceleration, a change in speed or direction, will give the game away too.) It was assumed that there was something that you could measure your absolute speed relative to. Since light demonstrably behaves like waves, it was believed that it had to propagate through a medium, just as water waves travel through water, or sound waves travel through air. At the time, it hadn't been discovered that the universe is expanding, so the medium, the luminiferous aether, was believed to be static and that we were drifting through it. If that were the case, it would be possible to measure the difference in the speed that light waves approach you, just as you can if you are running into or out of the sea; it's the Doppler effect. (See here for details: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/waves.html ) Most famously the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to find any difference; there is no absolute frame of reference.
As we now believe, the universe is expanding, which allows the possibility of a 'relativistic aether', but as Ginkgo pointed out, there is no point you can look at and say that is where it started. This seems terribly counterintuitive, on the face of it the Big Bang might resemble a colossal firework, with sparks flying off in all directions. A better analogy is to imagine a firework that blows up, and then all the sparks blow up, and then all the sparks of the sparks, and then all the sparks of the sparks of the sparks of the sparks of the sparks until every point is at the centre of it's own explosion. From the inside, there is simply no way of telling where it all started. Using the Doppler effect to measure Red shift, you can judge how fast galaxies are moving away. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head how fast, but it's getting faster, and just as you would expect if you were at the point of origin of your own personal explosion, which ever way you look, galaxies are receding at the same speed, and if there is anyone out there, they will see exactly the same thing.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do our clocks speed up and slow down relative to the earths yearly cycle, as surely at some point we are traveling more additively and more negatively relative to that original big bang trajectory. It can get really complicated when we add the milky ways plane of spin to the mix.

Some of the experiments that have been done are mind-bogglingly accurate. Since we are spinning around the axis of the Earth, the higher we go, the greater our speed. Conversely, the lower the strength of the gravitational field. Scientists can register the effects of relativity in objects that are only a couple of feet apart. If you take a clock upstairs, you affect how it ticks.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Has time changed on earth, throughout it's billions of years of existence, as surely time dilation would seem to indicate as much.

I've no idea.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: All the above is hypothetical, yet you speak as if it's certain.

I guess this is because science is hypothetical. All science ever postulates is that a hypothesis is consistent with observations. I am sure I have mentioned this on many occasions.

SpheresOfbalance wrote: Still speed of movement is speed of movement, however one frames it. And sorry but a bang, omni-directionally, yields trajectories, just like a star going supernova.

Sounds, reasonable but not actually the case when it comes to the Big Bang. I will explain this in a little more detail as we move on to the next bit.

SpheresOfbalance wrote:
Maybe you need to change it's name to "The Big Instant Materializing," but then that wouldn't indicate something that's expanding, whereas 'bang' does. For there to be movement within this space, their had to be a force. And it wouldn't matter if there was space before hand.

I wouldn't consider changing it because it is not my theory.

SpheresOfbalance wrote:
If I'm at extreme depth, and I blow out a minuscule bubble, there is relatively very little space for it to occupy, until it rises to the force of pressure, and it expands, all the points on the spherical edge, have trajectory, as it expands, originating from the center of the expansion, not to be confused with a place in space, as remember it is rising from it's original place. See the minute particles in my bubble, from my lungs, as if galaxies and stars and planets, as it expands they indeed have trajectories relative to one another, and that smaller sphere, from which they originated.

What you have here is a very good example of what constitutes an explosion. I don't have a problem with it. As you say, an explosion is such that it creates pressure in a very confined region. Extrapolated in terms of the Big Bang it is the imbalance between the pressure and heat inside inside the embryonic Big Bang and the outside environment that causes an explosion. As you also comment, there must have been an original place whereby trajectories originated and can be measured relatives to other objects.

What you are saying sounds reasonable in terms an explosion, but this interpretation it is actually a popular misconception when it comes to the Big Bang. By this I mean the observations don't support an explosion of space theory. Rather, the observations support an expansion hypothesis. Basically this is all science is telling us.


P.S.

Upon returning to this thread I realized I am addressing the wrong quote. What I should have said is that you have a good example of a partial pressure explanation. Nonetheless, your explosion example and your subsequent pressure example- even though scientifically verifiable, still doesn't explain the observations pertaining to the Big Bang.

Time is not a conserved value in space time. It would be better not to say time has changed since x or y, rather that it was never the same given x or y, and never will be, all things being less than absolutely equal, which they never exactly are except at distance = 0, which is of course impossible. It all is basically a simple equation, time is a concept, time is relative, if there is a relation to something, it is not a conserved principle or law, or matter of exact fact. Hard to describe in a few words, but the experiment will out, as ever.

Stand on a hill and time runs faster than at the bottom, move to another galaxy at a speed approaching light, likewise, the exact equation says, if you are not at exact impossibly close points you are not at exact times you are co moving differently from another point. Which is a fine way of saying no variable position is ever absolutely the same in time and it can't be; bringing us back to the start. You can't be absolute about time unless you are absolute about space or position and that is impossible.

ahh, the absolute brilliance of the student mind forever engaged in the words of others to seek answers to the age old question regarding 'time'... but yet regardless of the amount of words used by countless semi-thinkers to explain the mystery of time not only to themselves, but to another friendly ear that will engage in the same futile argument solving the pressing question itself.

And why not? Why in the fuck not..? Because we have time to sit and discuss, argue and opine for what? To grow our intelligence into a further putrid state of muck that easily drowns out any semblance of truth to endure more and more opinions as if there shall come a day in our too short of a lifespan when the heavenly gates will spring open and flood us, the confused, to the tasty fruit of truth..? Time to grow up. Time to move forward. Time to turn off the mind. Time to forget about time. Life has existed far longer than our puny minds and the need to make questions our reality. Life is being... being what is without doubt, without questions, without opinions, without desires to be what we will never be - Hu'man Beings.... beings, my friends, BE'ings... not bogged down in the ridiculous hoping one day to arise out of that very ridiculousness we are ourselves have created with Mind in control. Not the Being but Mind... the very Mind we hu'mans have so slavishly fallen into listening to and responding to as if Mind is all we believe we are and all we are able to be. Such nonsensical lies we continue feeding ourselves, our gluttonous selves that are subject to the needs and wants of MIND.

Fuck MIND in the dark recesses of it's madness, it's greedy ass that cannot get enough of our stupidity and foolishness but you reject the alternative because MIND has convinced you that YOU are the TOOL of MIND and not the other way. You walk through life blinded by the false light of MIND assured that what you see is what is.

Over 90 posts made on this one topic: "Can time be infinite?" Listen to that question... Can Time...? What does that question deserve..? Not an answer but an opinion. That question was never meant to get any answers!! It asks "Can" ... indecisive, inconclusive, perhaps, inconsequential because whatever answer when gives, the rebuttal will always be there because the question questions itself.

"Can time be infinite?" What if time is finite? What if Time is of the MIND and has no relevance to infinity? Mind is as infinite as the life that nourishes it. Time is as long as YOU want to spend seeking an unknown. Time is measurements of moments that hu'manity soon grows weary of... not knowing what the fuck time is. There is NO answer that everyone will agree to. Time to end that ridiculous question that asks and asks and asks but never! answers satisfactorily because the question would no longer be a question!! What then? Go take a shit and think about that. Really! In the quiet privacy of your john, there is a moment where time is non-existent. Bodily functions predominate over MIND. A good shit is is liberating. It cleanses. It unloads not only the colon but that MIND's nonsense. A good shit is beneficial for a new outlook on life... one unencumbered by stupid, unanswerable questions that only question for the questions sake and not for YOU to continue weaving your way thru the maze.

Philosophy was never meant to get answers, it only gets more questions, it aint science.

I agree though for the "time" being EOT.

As to people thinking for themselves, I am subservient to such a notion, if only it could happen. We can't all be creative geniuses but we can learn by standing on the shoulders of giants. There are no stupid answers only stupid people.

Blaggard wrote:Philosophy was never meant to get answers, it only gets more questions, it aint science.

I agree though for the "time" being EOT.

As to people thinking for themselves, I am subservient to such a notion, if only it could happen. We can't all be creative geniuses but we can learn by standing on the shoulders of giants. There are no stupid answers only stupid people.

TY for walking into this, Blaggard.

I've been coming to these boards for years, not on a regular basis but whenever I feel like it. The biggest aggravation I have is with the large amount of wannabee first year "philosophers" who like the readers to know how much they have read up on the philosophers of their choice. Who gives a flying fuck who they read and how wonderful they have become because they read a book or two on that particular philosopher. Nothing out of their own fucking heads!! Zero!! it's all repeating some the words of their fav for the week.

All you assholes out there, LISTEN UP!!! If you want to pretend you're a philosopher, don't bother coming to a board that it tied into Philosophy Now! Go to 'Dummies guide to Philosophy" or some other pretend group. Don't tarnish the name, (as so many other fuckers who have been on these boards have and offered absolutely NOTHING to the board or the readers!). Stop asking piss poor, foolishly trite questions like "Can Time be Infinite?" Fuck that! If 'nada-vsof' wants to write some intelligently written thesis or essay on why he believes time is either finite or infinite, GET OFF your tired little ARSE and write something that challenges your interest. Don't be a goddamn c*nt about it and think you're contributing to the boards bey asking an asinine question that begins with the boring "can?" like you want permission from your teacher to go the the loo and play with yourself. Use your fucking head, your mind, your intellect to the potential that was given you to use that head of yours and write what the hell you want to say and stick what you want to ask up your ass! Nobody worth their salt gives a flying fuck about what you want to ask!! Questions beget questions. Ideas and theories beget real thinking!

"Nada" and all you other wasted minds, grow the fuck up and quit wasting these boards with your useless drivel.

Move these boards forward, goddammit, and stop with the juvie bullshit!!

And now I return you back to the regular program the way it should be...

mtmynd

mtmynd1 wrote:And now I return you back to the regular program the way it should be...

Thanks mtmynd1. So: Can time be infinite?

"'I read a book once it was called:

'Who the Hell is Tom Baker.'"

Tom Baker.

I couldn't agree more.

1st year degree students think they know everything, they only know enough to be dangerous to themselves and others and no more.

uwot wrote:

mtmynd1 wrote:And now I return you back to the regular program the way it should be...

Thanks mtmynd1. So: Can time be infinite?

No, except the propensity for humans' stupidity.

Blaggard wrote:

uwot wrote:Thanks mtmynd1. So: Can time be infinite?

No, except the propensity for humans' stupidity.

Well, yes, but how long does it take?

uwot wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

uwot wrote:Thanks mtmynd1. So: Can time be infinite?

No, except the propensity for humans' stupidity.

Well, yes, but how long does it take?

About half an hour with a good knowledge and hand on the back of someone' head.

Without summoning the philosophers of old; without tossing out others ideas; using only what I have and that which I have closely calculated within my Self -

We hu'man have historically measured time thru the observations made of the heavens above, the movement the Earth around the Sun, the measurement of the seasons, etc... Over the years we have more closely measured the phenomenon of the Earth's journey around the Sun down to incrementals. But it is that journey which all our time is measured. We are even measuring light years using that same journey around the Sun as the basis for space distances.

Given that, when we ask the question "Is time infinite?" we have to ask is our earth and the Sun infinite?

Of course not. We, hu'manity are not infinite. Our planet is not infinite. The Sun we rely on for life is not infinite. To make the argument that 'time' is infinite is nothing more than mental masturbation... and exercise in opinion, period.

mtmynd1

mtmynd1 wrote:We hu'man have historically measured time thru the observations made of the heavens above, the movement the Earth around the Sun, the measurement of the seasons, etc...

That more or less was Plato's point; time is comparing one periodic event with another. So, yes, the Earth spins on its axis about 365 times as it orbits the sun is how we measure days and years. But we measure other things; the SI unit 1 second is measured by counting the 'vibrations' of a caesium atom, or as Wikipedia puts it: "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

mtmynd1 wrote:Given that, when we ask the question "Is time infinite?" we have to ask is our earth and the Sun infinite?

Well, certainly days and years won't mean anything when the Earth and sun are gone, but caesium atoms will still be vibrating and will do so gazillions of times that would equate the Earth orbiting the sun billions of times, if they still existed. Eventually, caesium atoms, along with everything else will unravel and there will be no meaningful way of counting events and no one to do it, but a lot of things are going to happen in the meantime.

mtmynd1 wrote: We, hu'manity are not infinite. Our planet is not infinite. The Sun we rely on for life is not infinite. To make the argument that 'time' is infinite is nothing more than mental masturbation... and exercise in opinion, period.

So we're wankers. What of it?