At the speed of light time does not stop

fieldofforce
fieldofforce: Time is (a measure of change). If change ever stopped space would collapse. At the speed of light it is much more likely that time/change is reduced to its slowest rate.

Think about it if change stopped then the electric and magnetic waves that make up light would stop undulating.

There are 2 types of change. Symmetric change and Asymmetric change. The type of change we can observe is asymmetric change.
The type of change we are at the present time unable to observe is symmetric. One of the possible results of symmetric change is entanglement and spooky action at a distance.

The speed limit in this universe for asymmetric change is the speed of light. The speed limit of symmetric change is instantaneous.
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: grey aliens have said time can be slowed, speeded up, and stopped ...and abductees have experienced it...time as we know it doesn't exist...
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: You write, "...time as we know it doesn't exist..." Time is a measure of change. Of the two only change exists. Time is a measure of change invented by man's mind in the form of (sundials, clocks, etc.)
If change stops then space will collapse. I do agree that change slows or speeds up relative to the speed of light. But change can never stop because it is inseperable from space. If one stops they both stop existing.
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: There is more for scientists to learn about our multi-dimensional existence....I think the greys know what they are talking about.....the past,present and future all occur in the now moment on different dimensions...all time is simultaneous... I have had accurate dreams of my future events and know it is true.....I am sure our ideas about space are wrong too...
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: Seth by Jane Roberts--- Seth ----------------"-I will go into this in a later chapter, but in a very real manner, space as you perceive it simply does not exist. Not only is the illusion of space caused by your own physical perceptive mechanisms, but it is also caused by mental patterns that you have accepted - patterns that are adopted by consciousness when it reaches a certain stage of "evolution" within your system.
-----Your planetary systems exist at once, simultaneously, both in time and in space. The universe that you seem to perceive, either visually or through instruments, appears to be composed of galaxies, stars, and planets, at various distances from you. Basically, however, this is an illusion. Your senses and your very existence as physical creatures program you to perceive the universe in such a way. The universe as you know it is your interpretation of events as they intrude upon your three-dimensional reality. The events are mental. This does not mean that you cannot travel to other planets, for example, within that physical universe, any more than it means that you cannot use tables to hold books, glasses, and oranges, although the table has no solid qualities of its own."
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: Actually some of our perceptions have been independently confirmed by mathematical laws. For example the inverse square law of gravity is what confirms that we live in a 3-dimensional space. There are many other proofs, but you can look them up for yourself.
What I have written so far in this forum is what I can safely state When I have confirmed more I will post more.
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: According to superstring theory, there are at least ten dimensions in the universe (M-theory actually suggests that there are 11 dimensions to spacetime; bosonic string theories suggest 26 dimensions.)
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: Scientists show future events decide what happens in the past

www.digitaljournal.com/science/experiment-shows...decide.../434829 ---------An experiment by Australian scientists has proven that what happens to particles in the past is only decided when they are observed and measured in the future. Until such time, reality is just an abstraction. -------------Quantum laws tend to contradict common sense. At that level, one thing can be two different things simultaneously and be at two different places at the same time. Two particles can be entangled and, when one changes its state, the other will also do so immediately, even if they are at opposite ends of the universe – seemingly acting faster than the speed of light.
Particles can also tunnel through solid objects, which should normally be impenetrable barriers, like a ghost passing through a wall. And now scientists have proven that, what is happening to a particle now, isn't governed by what has happened to it in the past, but by what state it is in the future – effectively meaning that, at a subatomic level, time can go backwards.
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: "For almost a hundred years science has been haunted by a dark secret: that there might be mysterious hidden worlds beyond our human senses. Mystics had long claimed there were such places. They were, they said, full of ghosts and spirits. The last thing science wanted was to be associated with superstition but ever since the 1920s physicists have been trying to make sense of an uncomfortable discovery. When they tried to pinpoint the exact location of atomic particles like electrons they found it was utterly impossible. They had no single location.

The only explanation which anyone could come up with is that the particles don’t just exist in our universe. They flit into existence in other universes too and there are an infinite number of these parallel universes, all of them slightly different. In effect, there’s a parallel universe in which Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo. In another the British Empire held onto its American colony. In one you were never even born." ------ BBC Horizon Documentary
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: Since you insist on multiple posts it will be necessary to respond to one issue at a time. First, all of the dimensions that you reference (string theory, etc.) are exactly that theoretical. None of these extra dimensions have ever been proven to actually exist.
In your second post you reference entanglement and spooky action at a distance. Remember in my first post I asserted that could be explained by symmetric change. The speed limit for symmetric change is instantaneous. The speed limit for asymmetric change is the speed of light. Asymmetric change we can observe. Symmetric change we have not been able to observe to date.
Until we can observe at the quantum level without collapsing the wave any conclusions from experiments are questionable at best.
All of your other assertions have never been proven.
(Edited by fieldofforce)
7 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: People have traveled in the other dimensions and had similar experiences....
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: @ fieldofforce

It's interesting to hear your thoughts, but some of your comments don't seem to make much sense; incoherent even.

Take, for example:

"But change can never stop because it is inseperable from space."

The very notion of change stopping seems to me a contradiction in terms. Change does not stop by the very definition of the word "change". I see no need to invoke any elaborate theory of space and time. We don't have to do any physics to know that change cannot stop; all we have to do is examine the meaning of the word "change". Could there be any possible world in which there is change with no change? Static change, so to speak (cf. Is there any possible world where triangles do not have three sides?)

I suspect the confusion lies in vacillating between a realistic and an instrumental (antirealistic) reading of General Relativity. Our pre-scientific common sense delivers us the notions "space" and "time". Then Einstein comes along with general relativity and posits a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold. Now, we must choose one, and only one, of the following two options:

1. Take the theory at face value; that is to say, give the theory a "realistic" interpretation. The theory is understood to be a description of reality, and all entities posited therein are assumed to actually exist. On this view, our traditional categories of "space" and "time" do not exist. All that exists is a single entity: "spacetime". If we continue to speak of "space" and "time" we do so with the understanding that these concepts refer to nothing in reality; they are no more than figures of speech.

2. Do not read the theory literally. The theory is understood not to be a description of reality, but merely an "instrument", albeit a very useful one. Entities posited by the theory (e.g. "spacetime" ) should not be regarded as real, any more than we suppose that certain other theoretical entities such as "point masses", "the ideal gas", or "the average American taxpayer" actually exist. Our traditional categories of "space" and "time" survive unscathed. "Spacetime" is a mere façon de parler.


Which one is the appropriate interpretation? That's for you to decide. Einstein himself changed his views on the matter, switching from an antirealist interpretation in his younger days to a realistic reading in later years.

What you CANNOT do is have both. Can't have your and eat it. I'm afraid that's what you might be doing.


(Edited by MagicMoments)
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: Consider, for example, the very title of your thread. If you're a realist about General Relativity, then the title itself is incoherent: there is no such thing as "time".

So, which are you: realist or antirealist?
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: Or again in your second post:

"You write, "...time as we know it doesn't exist..." Time is a measure of change. Of the two only change exists. [i.e. change exists; time does not - Me] Time is a measure of change invented by man's mind in the form of (sundials, clocks, etc.)"

So here you're explicitly telling us that time does not exist. But isn't this inconsistent with the title of your thread?

If time does not exist, as you claim, then we should hardly expect it to stop, or start, or do anything at all, at the speed of light, or the speed of anything else. It doesn't exist, remember?

Compare: "Santa Claus does not exist. He never stops on his sleigh because [insert esoteric physical theory here]".
(Edited by MagicMoments)
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: Time does not exist. Change exists. Change slows to its lowest rate at the speed of light. If I had titled the forum " At the speed of light change does not stop.", the first impression is that is obvious.

I don't have to prove change exists. It is obvious on its face, and you admit in your posts that it exists.

Please prove that time exists. Notice I wrote exists as an observable phenomenon. Not change measuring devises that we as human beings choose to call time
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: As I asserted before. Change is an observable phenomenon. Time does not exist. Time is a concept devised by man to measure change.

If change stops then space collapses and you have the absolute void. The absolute void is not possible because of the math principle: There are no absolutes. And, the exception proves the rule.

Change cannot stop at the speed of light. because then the electric and magnetic waves that make up light would stop undulating.
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: I'm afraid you're missing my point. Think of it this way...

A car that stops is still a car. There is no contradiction in speaking of a "stopped car".

Same goes for airplanes, clocks, and hearts.

But to even speak of change stopping is a contradiction in terms. A stop in change WOULD NO LONGER BE CHANGE. There can be no "stopped change" or "changeless change" for the same reason there can be no blackless black things or 4-sided triangles.

We do not need an elaborate scientific theory to know this. A dictionary will suffice.

That's the way I see it anyway
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: No, you are missing the point. If change stops then space collapses and you get the absolute void. The absolute void is not possible because of the mathematical principle: There are no absolutes.
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: What about space? Are we in any danger of space becoming spaceless?
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: "There are no absolutes."

You mean, except for the absolute statement you just made?
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: It's absolutely true there are no absolutes
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: You still didn't give any proof of time existing. Remember it has to be a naturally occurring phenomenon. It cannot be some man-made change measuring device.

The statement, "There are no absolutes" is just a statement. It has no substantive meaning or application regarding absolutes. Unless you are only concerned with form which in this case is meaningless.
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: "You still didn't give any proof of time existing."

I'm not here to defend time. Fine with me if it doesn't exist.
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: "The statement, "There are no absolutes" is just a statement. It has no substantive meaning or application regarding absolutes."

But more than once in the thread you've told us "There are no absolutes", right?

Then in your own words, you're advancing statements with "no substantive meaning".

Why should we listen then?
7 years ago Report
0
fieldofforce
fieldofforce: So you are a nay sayer. Instead of contributing something to the discussion in this forum.

Your argument about absolutes is the same quandry that philosophy ran across when philosophers tried to determine the meaning of meaning. As I wrote in my previous post you are trapped in the form rather than function.

"...I'm not here to defend time. Fine with me if it doesn't exist..." Well, this is a step off ground zero.

Now the next step is to realize that change is the observable phenomenon that we use technology to measure and we call the measurement time.

Second, there are 2 types of change. The first type is Symmetric change. This type of change we are at the present time unable to observe. The second type is Asymmetric change. This type of change we are able to observe.
7 years ago Report
0
MagicMoments
MagicMoments: "So you are a nay sayer. Instead of contributing something to the discussion in this forum."

Not in a gratuitous way. Just drawing attention to what I see as incoherencies.

Please go on. What exactly are "symmeteric" and "asymmetric" change? Can you provide some examples?
7 years ago Report
0
Page: 12345