The "Time" thread.

[Neogaia777]

I'll repost what @Hans Blaster just said: Greene's video isn't about what can be seen. It is about what is "now"

Tell me what is "now" then?

Because everything is always the same age equally everywhere, and always at it's same "now" equally everywhere, etc. And the only difference is only in what can be "seen", etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

Tell me what is "now" then?
..

t=0

or is it ∆t=0 ..(?)

 

[Neogaia777]

t=0

or is it ∆t=0 ..(?)

I'm not a mathematician (yet), but I can probably look it up though, etc.

I wish I knew a lot more about math, like "a lot, lot more about math", and maybe one day I will, etc, but right now most mathematical expressions are French to me right now, etc.

If you could tell me what that means in words, or using words maybe, then I might be able to respond, but right now, it's like your speaking in another language to me, and right now, it's a language I don't know, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

t=0

or is it ∆t=0 ..(?)

I know what =0 means, and I'm guessing the t stands for time maybe, but I don't know what the triangle means yet, and yes, I do know enough to know that multiplication is implied, etc.

But beyond that, I don't know yet, sorry.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@SelfSim

To tell the absolute truth, I've actually been going back to trying to memorize my basic multiplication and division tables recently, to the point to where I don't have to think about them at all, but know them immediately, as I know that's the basis for a lot of higher math, and is why I think I didn't do so well in school, or in college on it, etc, cause most concepts or ideas, once they are explained to me, I can get or understand most of the time, etc, although I'm sure there will be a lot more I will have to memorize in the future if I really want to get into mathematics, powers probably, and other things like that, etc. Memorization of what I might consider rote, or boring, or too much work, or boringly repetitive has always been difficult for me, but maybe I'm ready to work at it a lot harder at it now maybe, etc?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@SelfSim

To tell the absolute truth, I've actually been going back to trying to memorize my basic multiplication and division tables recently, to the point to where I don't have to think about them at all, but know them immediately, as I know that's the basis for a lot of higher math, and is why I think I didn't do so well in school, or in college on it, etc, cause most concepts or ideas, once they are explained to me, I can get or understand most of the time, etc, although I'm sure there will be a lot more I will have to memorize in the future if I really want to get into mathematics, powers probably, and other things like that, etc. Memorization of what I might consider rote, or boring, or too much work, or boringly repetitive has always been difficult for me, but maybe I'm ready to work at it a lot harder at it now maybe, etc?

Take Care/God Bless.

I don't exactly know why, but in high school, there was a time when I completely failed algebra, but completely aced geometry, etc.

Maybe it was because of having a visual maybe? I don't know really? I've been told that they are actually one in the same, etc?

I also got a perfect score on some spatial orientation tests that I took from the military when I was thinking about joining in back in the day, etc.

Right now though, I'm going back to the basics, and am trying to get those down to the point to where I don't have to think about them first, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Anyone know of good website, or place, where I could go, or could teach myself mathematics pretty easily for free?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Anyone know of good website, or place, where I could go, or could teach myself mathematics pretty easily for free?

Take Care/God Bless.

Why am I, or why would I be so interested in learning and/or knowing/understanding mathematics?

Well, it's "God's language" for one, and it is a language, etc, this much I know about it, etc.

It allows you to be able to plot, plan, express, predict, know, things in this universe/world in a whole new, or totally different kind of way, etc. In fact, this whole universe/world/reality can all be fully known, or can all be fully expressed mathematically, etc. And that's why I would like to know a lot more about it, etc. But you'd have to know a crazy amount of math to know how this world/universe/reality can all be fully known, or can all be fully expressed mathematically, etc, so I don't plan in ever being able to get that far anytime soon, etc, but I do believe it's possible, etc.

Another reason is to be able to see everything in the world in a whole new different kind of way, etc. I watched "A Beautiful Mind" recently, and took note of how he was trying to express pretty regular things in the world mathematically, etc. I've already been through all the craziness of A Beautiful Mind, so I don't think I'm in any kind of danger there, etc. But when you know enough about mathematics, it should change the way you see things in the rest of the world in that kind of way, and I want to be able to see things, or start seeing things in that way, etc. I don't know if the athiest ever sees this or not, but he maybe probably should, etc. If he knows enough about mathematics, then he should probably start seeing regular things in the rest of this world/universe in this kind of way, etc.

But and/or anyway, I've obviously got a long, long, way to go, and a very, very long way to go, etc, but I'm highly, highly interested in this, but have just not ever been very good at it in the past, etc, but maybe that's changed, etc, but and/or anyway, I would like to know a lot, lot more about this, both so I can more fully understand the things that have already been discovered, and so I can maybe start seeing the rest of this world (and this universe) in this kind of way, etc. And maybe it would help if, after that maybe, I could maybe come up with a few mathematical expressions of my own, if I could maybe start seeing this world or this universe in this kind of way, etc. But I obviously have a very, very long way to go currently, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Larniavc]

Unless I missed something in that video, etc.

It’s not about what can be seen.

 

[Neogaia777]

It’s not about what can be seen.

But it is about that though?

Maybe you should review some of the rest of this thread, because I've had this argument with others already, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

It’s not about what can be seen.

The alien's now never changes, and neither does the man's, but only what the alien can see of the man changes when he is in motion, and then goes back to normal again when he is at rest, etc. And most of this "temporary effect" is only because they are so very far apart, or the alien is so very far away, etc.

 

[Larniavc]

But it is about that though?

Maybe you should review some of the rest of this thread, because I've had this argument with others already, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

I’ve just read the whole thing to get to this point. It’s about how the future, present and past all exist.

You keep bring what can be seen into it but it’s about different ‘bows’ being equally valid. There is no absolute time or external view who can see ‘real’ time (Bill Maher excluded).

 

[Neogaia777]

I’ve just read the whole thing to get to this point. It’s about how the future, present and past all exist.

You keep bring what can be seen into it but it’s about different ‘bows’ being equally valid. There is no absolute time or external view who can see ‘real’ time (Bill Maher excluded).

Only each one's now actually exists.

The rest is only changing vision of what can be seen.

Be Blessed.

God Bless.

 

[Larniavc]

The rest is only changing vision of what can be seen.

That’s not what Greene is saying. It’s the now that changes.

 

[Neogaia777]

That’s not what Greene is saying. It’s the now that changes.

No, the now doesn't change, and never changes.

Se posts #53, 51, and almost every other post in this thread.

It's not my fault if you don't understand it, or don't get it, etc.

But I've already said just about everything I am going to say about this specific topic already in this thread.

Argue with yourself for a while, if that's all you want to do is argue, etc, because I've already said everything I'm probably going to say about this specific topic already in this thread.

God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tell me what is "now" then?

Because everything is always the same age equally everywhere, and always at it's same "now" equally everywhere, etc. And the only difference is only in what can be "seen", etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

"Now" is basically the set of points that if the other points transmitted photon to you from their "now" toward you through the vacuum, that photon would arrive in time t=d/c from "now".

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know what =0 means, and I'm guessing the t stands for time maybe, but I don't know what the triangle means yet, and yes, I do know enough to know that multiplication is implied, etc.

But beyond that, I don't know yet, sorry.

Take Care/God Bless.

If you don't recognize the "delta" symbol in "delta tee", then perhaps you are dabbling in something you are not prepared to understand. "Delta" in standard mathematical and physical notation stands for a difference. In this case "delta t" means a difference in time between two events. They combine into one symbol and there is multiplication involved.

Take care and be prepared.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't recognize the "delta" symbol in "delta tee", then perhaps you are dabbling in something you are not prepared to understand. "Delta" in standard mathematical and physical notation stands for a difference. In this case "delta t" means a difference in time between two events. They combine into one symbol and there is multiplication involved.

Kinda like my entropy thread, where I wrote:

ΔH[Bible]/T= Ø

Meaning: The change in the entropy of the Bible over time is zero.

 

[SelfSim]

I've had some more time to think about all this. I keep coming back to the notion that our perception of 'the now' being different from the past and the future, is because our brains memorise, (or 'remember') and it notes similarities and differences between those recollections and tells us that they exist distinctly from eachother. (Mere language becomes a problem here, because the meaning of 'memory' ,(or recollections, etc), invokes the concept of the very thing we're discussing, (ie: time) .. but hey, we can't avoid that using words and their everyday meanings, other than by using math descriptions for our models, which haven't yet been applied to the human brain's abilities as far as memory goes).

Its ok to believe in a 'block universe', in which there is nothing special about: 'the now', and 'the past' and 'the future' exists in the same way as the present moment .. so long as its distinguished as being nothing more than a belief and it isn't a SR imperative. SR never says anything at all about existence.

If we assume the role of the dude at the gas station, he has no way of knowing whether or not the alien exists and is riding towards or away from him, because all he can test out, as being real, is local to him. He has no access to the information he only believes theory tells him 'exists', but is in transit. (That theory is SR). One never measures 'existence', other than locally. The same perspective applies for the alien.
All that matters is that the propagation of information takes place according to the laws of SR, because that's what eventually gets measured. This is not Greene's block-universe .. namely because it has a notion of the existence of a singular present 'moment', but it isn't in disagreement with any predictions by SR.

I think that's a consistent perspective .. (open to comments).

 

[Neogaia777]

"Now" is basically the set of points that if the other points transmitted photon to you from their "now" toward you through the vacuum, that photon would arrive in time t=d/c from "now".

Wouldn't the photon just arrive at the time at the other person's position after however far away from them you were in the amount of light years/hours/minutes distance you were away from them? (cause the photon is always traveling at the speed of light, etc) regardless of whatever kind of temporary picture you could get of the other person that would change depending on if you were stationary or were in motion or not regardless?

I mean it doesn't change the speed at which the photon is traveling, or the distance, correct? So isn't that all you would actually need to determine when the photon would arrive there, regardless of whatever kind of temporary changing picture of the other person you were temporarily seeing?

Isn't that changing picture that you could see just akin to nothing more that that of a temporary effect, or an optical illusion maybe? That would close or go away as you or the photon or whatever was traveling there maybe?

Take Care/God Bless.