- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
This will be a thread strictly about discussing "time", and what we know about it, and maybe also what we don't know about it, or might not know about it as well, etc.
But let's try to keep it on the topic of time, ok.
A certain CF poster posted this here (below), and so I'm going to try and respond to it, or will be using it here to start this off, ok.
www.christianforums.com
I've been aware for a while now of how this works on the larger scales, so I'll discuss it first, ok.
For the record I did state that light, or the speed of light has little to nothing to do with time, etc, and I'm going to try and explain that one here in a minute, etc.
On the larger scales, the universe is the same age, and is therefore set at the same time, equally everywhere, etc. This is evidenced by when we look at places in the universe very, very far away, we're seeing them just as old as they are in the past, as it is light years away from us, and it would be vice-versa from that position observing us very, very far away from where they are at, etc, or they would also be seeing us as many years in the past, as they were the number of light years they were away from us, etc, and this is because either way, or from each reference point, that is the time it takes the light to reach there, but that is not the real or actual picture of how it is now, or how it would be if we were able to travel to it very, very, very quickly, etc. We'd have to account for billions of years of stellar change, if we could travel nigh instantly to something billions of light years away very, very quickly, etc.
But I never thought of applying this to much, much smaller scales, etc. This CF poster pointed out to me very correctly that light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond of time, etc, and he is very, very correct about that, but didn't agree with me when I said light itself, or the speed of light itself, has nothing to actually do with time, etc. And also in my opinion, he's only halfway correct about events at different places not being able to be simultaneous, or not being able to be happening simultaneously, or at the same quote/unquote "time", etc, and I will try to explain that one here in a minute also, etc.
Two events happening 1 foot apart from one another, etc. Now when one is looking at the other, it takes the light 1 nanosecond to travel to his frame of reference, or reference point, or his eyes, etc. Now you could say they didn't or don't happen at the same time, but what's really happening is that from one of them's reference point, etc, the light took 1 nanosecond of time to get to each the other's reference point, so they are seeing each others events 1 nanosecond in the past, or one nanosecond old, etc, but as far as the "now" goes, they both happened at the same time, or simultaneously if they were truly the same age and/or old, or really did happen at the same "time" once they (those simultaneous events) had passed into "the past" simultaneously, etc. The pictures that we are getting are just older from each one another's reference point or frame, etc.
It is possible for two separate events in different reference frames to happen at the same "time" (and/or simultaneously) if they both happen in the "now" simultaneously, but no observer would be able to observe that unless they were in each others reference frames/points simultaneously, or could be one thing existing at those two places at once simultaneously, etc.
"Now" is how everything is actually at the same age everywhere equally, etc. But you'd have to be the same thing in two places at once to observe that directly. Honestly, it makes much, much more sense on the much larger scales, but it also applies to everything on a much much smaller scale also, like two persons, places, or things being one foot apart, but seeing each other as being one nanosecond old, due to the time it takes the light to reach them in each others reference frames, but that really has nothing to do with the actual time at all, the time it takes the light to reach each others reference frames, etc.
There are two other things that can actually affect how slow time passes for a person, place, or thing, etc. One is speed or motion through spacetime, etc, if it is fast enough for whatever happens to be moving or traveling this quickly through space, time will slow down or go slower for that thing, etc. The other is strong gravitational pulls, etc, if you are close enough to a strong enough one, this will also slow down the flow of time for that thing, etc. Obviously all gravitational pulls, and all speed of motion affects this slightly always, but it's barely measurable until it gets past a certain point in gravitational pull or speed, etc, and then it can start it's increase towards affecting the slowing down of the flow of time for that thing after that increasingly exponentially, etc, to where, like with speed, at the speed of light, anything having any mass, is said to maybe stop the flow of time for that person, place, or thing completely, etc. But everything else in the universe that was not with you in these situations or states, nothing changes for them unless they were with you in these situations or states. Time, and the flow of time, for them, etc, is still the same as it has always been for them always since you left them, or before your own situation ot state changed, etc.
Another thing which might be a third thing that I was researching, was acceleration alone possibly affecting time, or time dilation, but there are varying answers to this, and until I do more research I do not know if acceleration all alone, or all by itself, can affect time, or time dilation, some say it only can indirectly, by changing one of the two other factors just mentioned, but there are also some who disagree, etc, so I haven't been able to get any for sure answers about this possible third factor yet completely.
Anyway, this thread is for "all talk about time", etc, but I would please ask if we could please limit it to just that only please, etc.
I know many of you will probably disagree with a lot of what I just said, and that's more than ok, etc, and that's way, way ok, etc, because most of this is just to get "the talk about time" going, ok.
It came up so much in my other thread, that I had to make this one for it, as it was way, way off-topic in my other thread.
So let's hear everyone's ideas, and let's let "the talk about time" begin, ok.
Take Care/God Bless.
But let's try to keep it on the topic of time, ok.
A certain CF poster posted this here (below), and so I'm going to try and respond to it, or will be using it here to start this off, ok.
Mathematically Speaking?
I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. *** I noted that the apparent timing of events depends on the reference frames of the two events. This refutes the claim that time is just the passage of a series of events. As I also noted, discussion of time is really above my pay...
www.christianforums.com
I've been aware for a while now of how this works on the larger scales, so I'll discuss it first, ok.
For the record I did state that light, or the speed of light has little to nothing to do with time, etc, and I'm going to try and explain that one here in a minute, etc.
On the larger scales, the universe is the same age, and is therefore set at the same time, equally everywhere, etc. This is evidenced by when we look at places in the universe very, very far away, we're seeing them just as old as they are in the past, as it is light years away from us, and it would be vice-versa from that position observing us very, very far away from where they are at, etc, or they would also be seeing us as many years in the past, as they were the number of light years they were away from us, etc, and this is because either way, or from each reference point, that is the time it takes the light to reach there, but that is not the real or actual picture of how it is now, or how it would be if we were able to travel to it very, very, very quickly, etc. We'd have to account for billions of years of stellar change, if we could travel nigh instantly to something billions of light years away very, very quickly, etc.
But I never thought of applying this to much, much smaller scales, etc. This CF poster pointed out to me very correctly that light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond of time, etc, and he is very, very correct about that, but didn't agree with me when I said light itself, or the speed of light itself, has nothing to actually do with time, etc. And also in my opinion, he's only halfway correct about events at different places not being able to be simultaneous, or not being able to be happening simultaneously, or at the same quote/unquote "time", etc, and I will try to explain that one here in a minute also, etc.
Two events happening 1 foot apart from one another, etc. Now when one is looking at the other, it takes the light 1 nanosecond to travel to his frame of reference, or reference point, or his eyes, etc. Now you could say they didn't or don't happen at the same time, but what's really happening is that from one of them's reference point, etc, the light took 1 nanosecond of time to get to each the other's reference point, so they are seeing each others events 1 nanosecond in the past, or one nanosecond old, etc, but as far as the "now" goes, they both happened at the same time, or simultaneously if they were truly the same age and/or old, or really did happen at the same "time" once they (those simultaneous events) had passed into "the past" simultaneously, etc. The pictures that we are getting are just older from each one another's reference point or frame, etc.
It is possible for two separate events in different reference frames to happen at the same "time" (and/or simultaneously) if they both happen in the "now" simultaneously, but no observer would be able to observe that unless they were in each others reference frames/points simultaneously, or could be one thing existing at those two places at once simultaneously, etc.
"Now" is how everything is actually at the same age everywhere equally, etc. But you'd have to be the same thing in two places at once to observe that directly. Honestly, it makes much, much more sense on the much larger scales, but it also applies to everything on a much much smaller scale also, like two persons, places, or things being one foot apart, but seeing each other as being one nanosecond old, due to the time it takes the light to reach them in each others reference frames, but that really has nothing to do with the actual time at all, the time it takes the light to reach each others reference frames, etc.
There are two other things that can actually affect how slow time passes for a person, place, or thing, etc. One is speed or motion through spacetime, etc, if it is fast enough for whatever happens to be moving or traveling this quickly through space, time will slow down or go slower for that thing, etc. The other is strong gravitational pulls, etc, if you are close enough to a strong enough one, this will also slow down the flow of time for that thing, etc. Obviously all gravitational pulls, and all speed of motion affects this slightly always, but it's barely measurable until it gets past a certain point in gravitational pull or speed, etc, and then it can start it's increase towards affecting the slowing down of the flow of time for that thing after that increasingly exponentially, etc, to where, like with speed, at the speed of light, anything having any mass, is said to maybe stop the flow of time for that person, place, or thing completely, etc. But everything else in the universe that was not with you in these situations or states, nothing changes for them unless they were with you in these situations or states. Time, and the flow of time, for them, etc, is still the same as it has always been for them always since you left them, or before your own situation ot state changed, etc.
Another thing which might be a third thing that I was researching, was acceleration alone possibly affecting time, or time dilation, but there are varying answers to this, and until I do more research I do not know if acceleration all alone, or all by itself, can affect time, or time dilation, some say it only can indirectly, by changing one of the two other factors just mentioned, but there are also some who disagree, etc, so I haven't been able to get any for sure answers about this possible third factor yet completely.
Anyway, this thread is for "all talk about time", etc, but I would please ask if we could please limit it to just that only please, etc.
I know many of you will probably disagree with a lot of what I just said, and that's more than ok, etc, and that's way, way ok, etc, because most of this is just to get "the talk about time" going, ok.
It came up so much in my other thread, that I had to make this one for it, as it was way, way off-topic in my other thread.
So let's hear everyone's ideas, and let's let "the talk about time" begin, ok.
Take Care/God Bless.
