I am timeless. You are timebound.
An event along a timeline is an observable action that can be reproduced with the same results every time.
What isnât an event is Deja Vue due to the fact that observations made in the environment that create sense of having been in the location before but have never been in the location one time is an association of other places that seem familiar.
Deja Vue could also be the beginning of Alzheimers or other memory related issues involving the memory part of the brain fizzing out in some parts where other parts remain. When the subconscious tries to associate a new place and person has Alzheimers, the person might think they have been in the location, a memory based on other associations when in fact the person had never been in the new location, not even once.
People tend to see time as something real, while it is only a perception function of animal mind.
Imagine your mind is that tool you measure lengths and changes with, you cant have that tool while you are light or having no mind at all. You will be truly timeless at some point, same as you have been once, as Aiko wrote: WHAT WAS WILL BE. But without was and will. Truly timeless.
I like to call it merging with the one.
Nana, time is a real thing because atoms and molecules function based on time. If time was an illusion of an animal mind, then atoms and molecules would not function or at least the animal mind would be able to bend and mold the atoms around the animal into whatever construct the animal wanted.
Such a construct would constantly be in conflict with other animal constructs rearranging atoms and molecules that the universe would be torn apart.
What I think youâre describing is called neptotismic narcissism.
Nothing as such. Atoms and molecules function instead of time perception.
The clocks will tick with different rates if they have different speeds perceived, but what is perceived?
Speed of the photon is constant. Gravity field is of course affecting space, its compacting it.
Like in gravitational field the photons are affected by gravity in the same way as stretching space is affecting them. They will be redshifted if coming out in direction from big mass. But going with light of speed they dont experience time, they do travel with constant speed, only thru more of space near massive objects, light wave stretched or contracted when they enter strong gravitational field, because they will be affected by space being different in close proximity to masive objects.
Thats why gravity will affect even massless photons. It doesnt affect time, it doesnt affect speed, it affects the route light takes.
Wrong. Time is not a perception. clocks tick differently due many factors, such as low battery power, broken parts, but never perception. When someone perceives time âdifferentlyâ the person might be experiencing anxiety over a possible up and coming roof repair or something that weighs on their mind, everything that can go wrong will go wrong is what weighs on the persons mind. But at no time, does the person encounter a different perception of time as time ticks the same for everyone.
The speed of clock will influence the rate with which clocks are ticking. Those with more speed tick slower. That was proven experimentally. Independent observer will see the difference.
Time is not everywhere the same. If 2 clocks show 12:00 on the earth, after one will be launched into space with enormous speed will start ticking slower. If you have 2 people, one on spaceship and one on earth looking at them, there would be difference between those clocks and those people would experience time differently and even if they dont notice it, they would.
Their perception of time would be influenced by speed they would achieve. If they would achieve light speed, everything would appear instantly, they would be at the end of their road when they start their journey. For someone with great speed everything around just happens faster.
Light speed means that on earth billions of years may have elapsed, and the light doesnt care, its already at the end of its journey and no time elapsed on the lightâs clock.
You can see everything in an pretty slow rate because often you check on changes. Imagine you perform only one check in your lifetime. Everything that was or will be registered only once as a memory image, and you are the memory image. This is how timeless and predefined world is. You can only read a portion in a really slow probing speed because your mind works like that, slow pace, while it is all available at once really.
Nana, I hid your comments permantly.
Or in other words
âNa na na na canât hear you!â
⌠because you donât want to admit that time can pass by faster or slower depending on the speed or gravity in your frame of reference.
Time can tick faster or slower, which has to be taken into account for example for accurate gps using satellites that experience time at a different pace than us on Earth.
1 Like
Someone attacking special relativity ? Ballsy, but uninformed 
No, time does not pass by faster for some than others. A 24 hour day is the same for everyone.
You cant use cancer that accelerates the aging process either, nice try though, but not even wrong.
Time is based on the gravity of a planet that determines the rotational velocity of the planet. Time is not a perception.
This is the basis of my theory, it contains no need to understand the speed of light or the possibility of faster than light speed.
We have all heard and read the following; There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun. With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets in orbit within the habitable zone. The estimated age of the universe is 13 billion years or more. Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than our Sun. If Earth-like planets are typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago. Some of these civilizations may have developed space travel, a step humans started to develop less than a 100 years ago.
Even at the slow pace of currently interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years. Since many of the Sun-like stars are billions of years older than the Sun, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.
However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.
Physicist Enrico Fermiâs name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski.
The Fermi Paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. To put it bluntly,
âIf life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now.â While walking to lunch, Enrico and his friends discussed recent UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel. The conversation moved on to other topics, until during lunch Fermi asked, âBut where is everybody?â
My thoughts on this subject is the following;
Multitudes of cultures across the galaxy come to an end from war, plague, and other self destructive means, before entering space exploration. The US only went to the moon because of the space race and JFKâs pretty speech he made about it. We humans are limited to a life span of 70 to 100 years at best. Who would be willing to live in a space ship for their entire life knowing they will not reach the next system in their lifetime? The volunteers would need to be mentally prepared for a very limited experience. Even their grand children would be born and die in space before reaching the first system. A system that might not be suitable for colonization.
Look at your world here on Earth, most leaders are old as dirt, and this is why they really donât care about the climate 50 to 100 years from now. NASA weather predicts that I will live long enough to see hot dry cursed Earth in my remaining years. All I have to say, good luck trying to live anywhere without industrial air-conditioning in that bleak future. If you believe it can be âfixedâ then you are watching too many sci-fi movies. Maybe in the future the alien probe or the alien in person will arrive to our planet and salvage the ruins of our culture. I seriously doubt they will find anything living here.
Time is influenced by the gravitational field. Thatâs covered by general relativity, and has not only been experimentally verified, itâs daily reality for satellite operators e.g., for gps systems.
However, relativistic speed also influences time intervals. And that was what I was referring to.
It doesnât per se, but both can have some indirect influence on each other.
Correct. Perception has nothing to do with the measurement of time intervals. Measurements are objective per definition. However, for two observers moving relatively to each other at speeds relevant in the special relativity (close to c), time interval measurements are objectively different in both intertial reference frames. If you want to verify this, just look up muon decay time dilation, Lorentz contraction and all that good special relativity stuff. From all that follows that the flow of time can be different between observers if they relatively move at relativistic speeds. Itâs not subjective, itâs not imaginative, itâs not even paradoxical (although one âthought experimentâ is called the Twin Paradox). Itâs measurable e.g., when determining the half life of muons in cosmic radiation vs. the half life of muons created in the lab on Earth.
2 Likes
Then explain this, if time is influenced by a gravitational field and gravity is created by the mass of a planet or star, solar system, blackhole, comet, etc. then how were particles held together before the Big Bang when planets and stars did not exist, but time, the measurable distance between particles and how far the particles travel due interacting with each other did still exist?
Based on relativity, space-time before the Big Bang did not exist and could never exist and therefore our Universe could never exist either.
Why are you assuming that space-time and the universe did exist before the Big Bang?
And why do you assume that space-time and the universe functioned similarly before as they do after the Big Bang?
2 Likes
As there is no way to âlook back in timeâ beyond the leftovers of the Big Bang, there is also no way of knowing anything about what âexistedâ before the BB.
Why do you assume that there even was a thing you could call âparticlesâ, or like @Gerard_Amatin said âspace-timeâ before the BB ? There is no proof, and there is no experimenting. And that is why Iâm not particularly fond of cosmology. And why no one on this planet, and maybe this universe, can give a sensible answer to that question.
Thatâs a non sequitur.
And yet here we are. Einstein didnât create this universe. There was one well before he was born.
Relativity is a theory in the current universe. It does not - and never did - attempt to explain the whyâs and howâs of the Big Bang, let alone what existed before it, but only for some of what exists after the BB. Relativity is older than the BB theory as well. So itâs wrong to couple the two together as such.
Btw, space after the BB expanded at a speed greater than c. Or else we wouldnât be able to be where we are and observe the remnants of the BB, and âlook back in timeâ via the background radiation⌠So the notion of
is a wrong one. âDistanceâ needs multiple dimensions. Without space there are no multiple dimensions. A point is one-dimensional. And Lemaitre described the origin as a single primeval particle - so no distances possible.
As to the BB itself, well, wouldnât it be fun to imagine that the primeval particleâs wave function collapsed ? As to that alleged primeval particle, wouldnât it be fun to imagine it being a black hole on the point of inverting, as an alternative ? People can (and probably do) go crazy pondering this stuff.
If I could, people would build temples for me 
1 Like
If I could, people would build temples for me
So basically, you want people to build a temple to worship you in because all you have value in or have been programmed to have value in is money. All you want is wealth based on pseudo forms of associations. Basically the hustle of, someday.
Relativity is a theory in the current universe.
Relativity is a model and not a theory of how our Universe functions in the realm of Einstein gravitational formulas.
If we take everything we know about how particles function in Einsteinâs Universe and carefully examine each interaction, we will be able to understand how the universe functioned before the Big Bang.
For example, light speed is the fastest known velocity that a particle can travel. Is light a wave or a photon? Without a star, there is no light photon But what ia light? If I rub two pieces of wood together, do I get sparks that travel at x velocity? No the wood warms up and eventually burns.
But with atoms of the sun colliding, sparks are formed, much like the sparks from a welders grinding wheel creates sparks when the wheel rotates fast enough to molecularly separate some of the atoms that allows the steel to be cut into two pieces.
The sparks can be likened to photons that accelerate away from the interior of a sun.
In Primordial Space metallic atoms that are unfamiliar to humans could have been travelling through the Universe at FTL velocities due to gravity not being present because stars hadnt been born yet.
The atoms collide and create a single spark, thaf single spark lasts only a Planck second, but in the Planck second, the region where the spark generated more heat than before could have started other chain reactions that then started other chain reactions until atoms formed into the Big Bang.
If you use Einsteins formulas with the universe before the Big Bang, youâll never understand.
This is false, the theory (general relativity) has been proven over 100 times. fact check this brother.
You may not have liked my cheeky reply, but anyone who is able to answer the question of not only how the current universe came into existence but also what was there before the current universe is, in my humble opinion, worthy of a few temples here and there.
You may have to brush up on your knowledge of scientific terminology. General and Special Relativity are very much called a theory. Iâve had a similar, fun discussion a year or so ago about the Gravitational Law - which someone claimed to not be a law at all. It ended in a very funny way.
Unfortunately, General Relativity - the theory of the very large, like space - and the Quantum theory - the theory of the very small, like elementary particles and the interactions between them - are not linked yet. The search for the unified theory is an ongoing effort. Thereâs also the slight problem (pardon my irony) of dark matter and dark energy which do not appear in either theory.
While it âburnsâ (and even before that visual reference) that wood will already be emitting electromagnetic radiation in the form of microwave photons (infrared, red and maybe even some orange visual light photons). So you do not need a star for photons to exist. Photons occur whenever elementary particles fall back from a higher to a lower energy state (electrons and nucleons, as an example) e.g., during a chemical reaction like oxidation of wood, or the physical process of heating a filament, or the process of decaying nuclei.
Or also⌠why can/do particles behave as a wave. The classic class room reply is: itâs both⌠So, âit dependsâ how and when you try to observe it. I know, very unsatisfactory, but thatâs how far the old boys and girls got, and where we still are today. Personally Iâm more inclined to follow the interpretation of the collapsing wave function. Btw, there is no speed difference when observing light propagating as a wave or as a group of photons, the maximum allowed speed being c in vacuum, if that is what you meant.
Exactly my point. You canât just use theories that only came into being because of the properties of the universe we live in, derived by beings living in this universe, to describe something that may be entirely different from this universe - if we can even call what supposedly existed before the BB a âuniverseâ. But that is philosophy, not science, however many dreamed up, and unverifiable models anyone can produce. They make for great SciFi novels, but nothing else.