does the past still exist ?

[new boy]

One thing that's always puzzeled me.

If time slows down the faster you go (relativity)

How long is an actual second from a stationary reference versus how we see a second.


Because we are standing on a planet as it spens on its axis, which is spining arpund the sun in orbit, which itself is spining in orbit around the galactic center which itself is streaking across the universe.


So with all that phenomenal and constantly varying speed just how much is time slowed for it

there is no stationery reference. time is relative durr

 

[Tombstone]

Thats not it at all... U dont get it

I would guestion reading (or even better listening to on e-book with stephen fry narating) a breiff history of time and the universe in a nutshell by stephen hawking. I would also not be ashamed if u dont ghet every chapter first go, in fact I weould listen to both twice each as a matter of course

Even if I did, why then should I accept that Hawking is 100% correct? That his conclusions and evidence will not in thousands of years (like many esteemed scientists in the millenia before him) eventually be proven incorrect? Why should I simply outright dismiss any possibility at all, that perhaps he is wrong?

I am not taking a black and white standpoint here, I am not saying that its categorically wrong, neither am I saying its categorically right, I am just not that extreme. What I am saying is that we dont know, we say we do and we present proof to back up that claim but I am someone who simply believes that there is always a possibility of something, somehow, at some time, thus I must believe that there is a chance that what we think we know right now, may just not be right

 

[new boy]

Even if I did, why then should I accept that Hawking is 100% correct? That his conclusions and evidence will not in thousands of years (like many esteemed scientists in the millenia before him) eventually be proven incorrect? Why should I simply outright dismiss any possibility at all, that perhaps he is wrong?

because his calculations fit with all the models we have now.

edit, but sure, maybe its all wrong #science init.

edit2, sorry, reading back it sounds sarcastic but its wasnt meant to be

 

[Tefal]

there is no stationery reference. time is relative durr

Yes bur relative can be compared.


Ie time for us passes 5% slower than a turley stationary point.


If you left our planet our galaxy and cane to an absolutle stop shedding all your inertia etc.

How much faster would time pass for you

 

[FoxEye]

One thing that's always puzzeled me.

If time slows down the faster you go (relativity)

How long is an actual second from a stationary reference versus how we see a second.


Because we are standing on a planet as it spens on its axis, which is spining arpund the sun in orbit, which itself is spining in orbit around the galactic center which itself is streaking across the universe.


So with all that phenomenal and constantly varying speed just how much is time slowed for it

It's literally impossible, is it not, to know if you are stationary in the absolute sense of the word.

Speed is a relative measurement. We can only measure speed by comparing two objects. If there is an "absolute speed compared to a stationary object" we could never know what it was.

 

[Tefal]

because his calculations fit with all the models we have now.

edit, but sure, maybe its all wrong #science init.

Do not all the major models for quantum mechanics calculations work.

Hence the problem.

Many theories that all work which is right

 

[Tombstone]

because his calculations fit with all the models we have now.

Its those last 3 words in that sentence that are the foundations of my hope for the future.

 

[Combat squirrel]

One thing that's always puzzeled me.

If time slows down the faster you go (relativity)

How long is an actual second from a stationary reference versus how we see a second.


Because we are standing on a planet as it spens on its axis, which is spining arpund the sun in orbit, which itself is spining in orbit around the galactic center which itself is streaking across the universe.


So with all that phenomenal and constantly varying speed just how much is time slowed for it

There is not stationary reference in the universe, everything is moving, even if you 'stopped' everything else would keep moving thus changing its relativity, its all relative.

 

[new boy]

Yes bur relative can be compared.


Ie time for us passes 5% slower than a turley stationary point.


If you left our planet our galaxy and cane to an absolutle stop shedding all your inertia etc.

How much faster would time pass for you

This is way way beyond my paycheck here. I'm sure the awsnerers are there for you, but if your asking me to give you a formula for how fast time goes between an object that is stopped (whatever that is) and an object that is 5% quicker than stopped,d then I'm a retail manager so like I said, a bit beyond my paycheck LMAO

 

[new boy]

Its those last 3 words in that sentence that are the foundations of my hope for the future.

I would ofcouse encourage you to believe what you want to believe, but please look / listen to what I suggested and feel free to ask me any questions if you have any, as its a lot to take in

edit, unless its about string theory, cos I dont get that sizzle lol.

 

[sityeuropa]

With quantum mechanics who knows what is actually going on.

Quantum entanglement of two particles suggests that the spin of one particle when observed can decide the fate of its entangled particle even faster than the speed of light.

 

[Tombstone]

I would ofcouse encourage you to believe what you want to believe, but please look / listen to what I suggested and feel free to ask me any questions if you have any, as its a lot to take in

edit, unless its about string theory, cos I dont get that sizzle lol.

I have to believe that there is a possibility that what we know right now is wrong , its fundamental to my beliefs as a human. The moment we stop questioning what we are told, the moment we as a species stop trying to do something that we are told is impossible, is in my opinion, the moment that we stagnate as a race.

 

[Threepwood]

Well science says we can't travel faster than the speed of light.

I think the only way to trick physics on that count is to go from one place to another place instantly via a portal or wormholes or whatever.

But if that could be managed, the place behind the door can not ony be anywhere, but also anywhen.


I believe this train of thought is what lead to D.Adams Infinite Improbability Drive.

 

[new boy]

I have to believe that there is a possibility that what we know right now is wrong , its fundamental to my beliefs as a human. The moment we stop questioning what we are told, the moment we as a species stop trying to do something that we are told is impossible, is in my opinion, the moment that we stagnate as a race.

Yes you should always be sceptical.

You should understand the current theory's (if you are interested in these things) else you are just a crack pot TBH.

If you do and refuse to accept them, then I guess that's cools, but its all pretty convincing stuff IMO lol.

You should probably provide a decent counter argument other than durrr me no like following sheep though.

 

[Tombstone]

Yes you should always be sceptical.

You should understand the current theory's (if you are interested in these things) else you are just a crack pot TBH.

If you do and refuse to accept them, then I guess that's cools, but its all pretty convincing stuff IMO lol.

You should probably provide a decent counter argument other than durrr me no like following sheep though.

Oh I have no doubt its convincing, just as many things have been convincing in the past. I have no issue with the believability of it all, I'm sure it fits perfectly with our understanding of the universe. My query isnt about the limitations of its viability, its with the limitations of our understanding. Again, I am no loony saying they ARE wrong, just saying isnt there a chance...even if its a microscopic one, that they might be wrong. If there is even the smallest of chances, then thats good enough for me, if thats not the case, if its simply that this is the way things are, we are 100% correct , there is no way around it, ever. No matter what. Then I find that quite saddening

 

[Tefal]

There is not stationary reference in the universe, everything is moving, even if you 'stopped' everything else would keep moving thus changing its relativity, its all relative.

Yes thats what ime saying!!

If if you "stopped" the earth continued as it always has what would the differnce in time be.


We know how to work it out as GPS satelites adjust for the fact time is slower for them, we've stuck atomic clocks on aeroplanes and spacestations and seen the tint differnces as a result.

I suppose what tim asking is how fast are we going (obvioudly this will change as times our orbit will say counter our spin) but assuming everything lined up so our maximum possible speed (and maybe our minimum) it would be interesting to see how much we are slowed in time by our speed.

Despite of course 1 second being perceptibly as fast in either reference.

 

[Tefal]

I think the only way to trick physics on that count is to go from one place to another place instantly via a portal or wormholes or whatever.

But if that could be managed, the place behind the door can not ony be anywhere, but also anywhen.


I believe this train of thought is what lead to D.Adams Infinite Improbability Drive.

Or warp.

Compress space infront of you expand it behind you and move in a little region of normal.space in the middle.

We know space can be streched ao it fots in with our laws its just we have no idea how to do it

 

[new boy]

Oh I have no doubt its convincing, just as many things have been convincing in the past. I have no issue with the believability of it all, I'm sure it fits perfectly with our understanding of the universe. My query isnt about the limitations of its viability, its with the limitations of our understanding.

Sigh... I'm not being funny, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support out point of view as u seam to acknowlede. Yet you cant provide any evidence that suggests otherwise?

 

[wildman]

The past always exists, the only problem is you need a DeLorean and someway of producing 1.21 jigawatts of electricity to get there......................

 

[Tombstone]

Sigh... I'm not being funny, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support out point of view as u seam to acknowlede. Yet you cant provide any evidence that suggests otherwise?

Thats because I am not attempting to prove otherwise , all I am attempting to do is suggest its a possibility.