Victor> I think you’ve stumbled across a common misconception regarding the special theory of relativity. Said theory has it’s name as it speaks of observers RELATIVE to one another observing the same event for example.
You can think of it the following way: We’re al equipped with a clock that measures what is called our eigen-time (own-time). That clock always ticks away with the same distance between seconds no matter WHAT you do.
But if you start moving relative to me, the time I see on your clock will start to run slower. The faster you go, the slower your clock will run SEEN BY ME. You will stay claim your clock is running as always.
Did that help?
The present: Physically defined it’s the instant between past and present, and as such non-existent. But when you and I talk about present, we usually mean a small area of time CENTERED around the physical present.
Before the Big Bang, there was no time. We CAN’T comprehend that, just as we can’t really comprehend infinity either.
BEFORE is a temporal concept, so without time, the word looses it’s meaning.
However can you theoretically grasp the IDEA of no time, you can also grasp how Big Bang could occur.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
I did not require 'help' with it, I would like to see people's viewpoints on that. I'm using the term relative strictly in the sense of any given moment being relative to another.
I do not think we can comprehend the concept of 'no time', I also do not think that is a satisfactory answer, it's essentially as vague as saying there is a God, there just is, and you cannot understand it.
Seeing as it's an unresolvable but interesting point, I'd prefer if people didn't try to resolve reams of theological and scientific debate within a quick post on a movies messageboard.
That's not addressed to the previous poster, just so we may move on.
How MIGHT we understand a period with no time as we know it?
Victor> You obviously DO need help in grasping the concepts of relativity. “Moments” are not relative to one another, they’re on order. Either moment a lies before moment b or it lies after it. For you, there will be no relativity with regards to said sequencing.
That an answer is not satisfying to you, still doesn’t change the facts, that space/time/energy emerged with the Big Bang – to the best of our current knowledge. As I said above – “before” is a temporal concept, hence it gives NO meaning to ask what was BEFORE time began.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
'“Moments” are not relative to one another, they’re on order. Either moment a lies before moment b or it lies after it.'
And thus moment a becomes relative to moment b. This was the sense in which I used it, you are speaking of technical terms. It's literally relative, in that very way. The sequence of moments between this reply and your post are all now relative in a strict way.
Anyway, I'm not talking about the 'special theory of relativity', I'm talking about conceiving an unexplainable scientific concept which seeks to replace the theological.
Nah, what I was originally hinting at, is that is it not weird that time had to begin? If it did 'begin', then how could we comprehend what was before 'time' as we know it.
VVD, if all time is relative to what? Define that and then no-one need be confused. Objects are relative to each other; what are you presupposing time is relative to?
However, with all due respect to Omega, my understanding of relativity from people at least as qualified as her is that as two observers moving relative to each other may not agree from observation at which point in time an event occured, they therefore can be said to have their 'own' time, and so it is impossible to create a centralised system of time for the universe, and therefore it makes no sense to talk of time as anything other than relative, any more than you can with position in space, not that the two should be separated anyway.
I think someone at least has the right to argue that, anyway.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jul 11th, 2004 at 01:25 AM
In fact, I cannot help thinking the way the question wanted to be phrased was:
"If people's perceptions of time are relative to each other, there can be no etc."
But to be absolutely honest, I don't think you need that sentence to introduce your actual question- because even if I disagreed with that statement it would make little difference- and then this is where it gets complex.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
What I mean is quite straight forward and implicit: I mean time as relative to itself, hence no other qualifier. Each passed moment is relative to the ones before, BUT.
That really wasn't the point of the thread. I phrased it loosely because I didn't intend people to concentrate on the specifics- I guess it's all good fun though.
I can see how it caused confusion, however I was using term in a general sense- the ideas I was hinting at were philosophical, as the forum dictates, not scientific.
lol me 2. im gonna stun my philosophy professor wen i go 2 college... (she's a bit nutty tho, so i cud get away with sayin that i like bagels and she'd reel somethin philosophical off about bagels and send us to sleep)
Gender: Unspecified Location: The Arena of Unwell.
Well, Time that has forever existed, which it must have coz as you stated, you can always say "Well what was before the big bang? There had to be something." Just like you can always add 1 to any number.
But the thing I'm aiming at is, infinity. Considering that time has been around for infinity, there is endless possibilities as to how that infinity could be filled. No matter how much of Time you went through filling up every single possibly possibility, there would be infinate space left. So that kind of deadens or at least wounds the theory of there being a birth of time.
Your question as to how can we know about a time period for which we have no reference, I believe there really is no way unless time travel is some how discovered which in any case is far to detrimental to our own time. We can only go by what we know, which considering the amount of answer to unanswered questions ratio, isn't alot.
"Is it possible to conceive of a time without time?
If not, is that because we are incapable mentally, or have no frame of reference, or something else."
I don't believe it is possible. I don't believe it's because we're mentally incapable but my thought is:
If time didn't exist, time couldn't pass and if time didn't pass we wouldn't have come to exist.
Whether time is/was capable of moving/progressing/passing at different speeds is another story however.
-AC
__________________
Vote Disaster!
Last edited by Alpha Centauri on Jul 13th, 2004 at 02:38 PM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 10th, 2004 10:13 PM
