A question of temporal expansion (philosophy)

Forums: Science, Philosophy, Space, Time, Big
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Time is reliant on space. Space expands. Thinking along these lines, if time expands from a constant zero, the past would not be moving backwards, nor the present forwards, but both would be expanding away from each other from the initial point of expansion.

Thus, in negative time (the past), one would see "negative" shadows of all that exists in the positive to keep the balance of 0. constant. Interestingly, anti-matter looks precisely like matter moving backwards through time, and dark energy appears to be a polarisation of gravity.

Though I do not know enough about physics to attempt to make any claims as to the truth of what I have just said, and I am sure there are many people on this site more qualified, who should make any suggestion as to whether this hypothesis could ever hold any water. It just seemed, to me, to be interesting idea that I had whilst thinking of the principle of first cause. Has there ever been any work done on this?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 3,263 • Replies: 19

No top replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quick visual aid:
...(-2 (-1 (0) +1) +2)...

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

Though I do not know enough about physics to attempt to make any claims as to the truth...

Neither do I. Not to fret, though, neither do modern theoretical physicists.

Quote:

Space expands

A dubious proposition.

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

Time is reliant on space. Space expands. Thinking along these lines, if time expands from a constant zero, the past would not be moving backwards, nor the present forwards, but both would be expanding away from each other from the initial point of expansion.

Thus, in negative time (the past), one would see "negative" shadows of all that exists in the positive to keep the balance of 0. constant. Interestingly, anti-matter looks precisely like matter moving backwards through time, and dark energy appears to be a polarisation of gravity.

Though I do not know enough about physics to attempt to make any claims as to the truth of what I have just said, and I am sure there are many people on this site more qualified, who should make any suggestion as to whether this hypothesis could ever hold any water. It just seemed, to me, to be interesting idea that I had whilst thinking of the principle of first cause. Has there ever been any work done on this?

This is obsolete philosophy and obsolete physics as well.

Time is an invention of man which was created with the purpose to have an idea of the motion and decay of things.

The ruler of the universe is motion. Man used the regular motion of the earth, the moon and the planets -and today of the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium- as a standard, and from here man calculated the period of traveling from one town to another, the harvest season, and so forth.

Philosophers fell in the trick that time "flows" as something that exists physically, but such is just an illusion.

Physicists inherited the illusion, and one of them even invented the idea that time "dilates", and with his stupidity he turned the branch of physics to the most ridiculous fantasy ever made by man.

On the other hand, in reference to space no one can establish its expansion, because it can't be detected any motion of space. We can detect the motion of physical bodies only, the rest is just conjectures.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

The ruler of the universe is motion.

Thanks to Al (see below) many modern-day physicists have now denied that motion exists in some cases. Al said the speed of light cannot be exceeded. Yet modern astrophysicists detect galaxies that are receding from us a at speed faster than light. Hmm, how to resolve this conundrum? Could Al have been wrong?

Of course not!! What's happening here, they say, is that, in fact, the galaxies are motionless, but they appear to be moving because the space between them expands. Now time, space, and motion all become undefined, undetectable, and entirely incomprehensible, eh?

Quote:

Philosophers fell in the trick that time "flows" as something that exists physically, but such is just an illusion. Physicists inherited the illusion, and one of them even invented the idea that time "dilates", and with his stupidity he turned the branch of physics to the most ridiculous fantasy ever made by man.

I agree. It is one thing to say that clocks (and processes of nature in general) slow down with increased speed. But such processes are merely the means by which we measure our (totally abstract) concept of time. Once you go over the top and claim that time itself has changed, you're on a path to total absurdity, eh?

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

According to Al, if I am walking down to the liquor store at a steady pace to pick up a case of malt liquor, I am not moving at all. Instead, the street below me is the thing moving, while I remain motionless, and the liquor store then comes to me.

As if this proposition wasn't absurd enough, they have taken it one step further. Now nothing (not me, not the street, not the liquor store) is moving. I don't go to the store, and it doesn't "come to me." The space between us just contracts, that's all. As the ancient greek philosopher, Parmenides, said centuries ago, "all motion is illusory."

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

Time is reliant on space. Space expands. Thinking along these lines, if time expands from a constant zero, the past would not be moving backwards, nor the present forwards, but both would be expanding away from each other from the initial point of expansion.

Thus, in negative time (the past), one would see "negative" shadows of all that exists in the positive to keep the balance of 0. constant. Interestingly, anti-matter looks precisely like matter moving backwards through time, and dark energy appears to be a polarisation of gravity.

Though I do not know enough about physics to attempt to make any claims as to the truth of what I have just said, and I am sure there are many people on this site more qualified, who should make any suggestion as to whether this hypothesis could ever hold any water. It just seemed, to me, to be interesting idea that I had whilst thinking of the principle of first cause. Has there ever been any work done on this?

Time is reliant on movement , which logically implies space

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

Time is reliant on movement , which logically implies space

Ya think?

It seems to me that our sense, or measurement, of time (but not time itself) is reliant on change. But that change doesn't have to be made in terms of physical space. As an example, if I lie in my bed, without moving, reviewing the events of the day, I will sense a passage of time by virtue of my changing thoughts.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Time is reliant on movement , which logically implies space

Ya think?

It seems to me that our sense, or measurement, of time (but not time itself) is reliant on change. But that change doesn't have to be made in terms of physical space. As an example, if I lie in my bed, without moving, reviewing the events of the day, I will sense a passage of time by virtue of my changing thoughts.

Or measurement , of time , but Not time itself , what do you mean here ?

But your thoughts are based on the events of the day that has passed

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

Or measurement , of time , but Not time itself , what do you mean here ?

In what sense do you mean? I'm simply making a distinction between a "thing" (which time is NOT in any physical sense) and our measurement of it. Without a change (of some kind) which we can sense, we can't sense the passage of time.

Quote:

But your thoughts are based on the events of the day that has passed

Yeah, so?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Or measurement , of time , but Not time itself , what do you mean here ?

In what sense do you mean? I'm simply making a distinction between a "thing" (which time is NOT in any physical sense) and our measurement of it. Without a change (of some kind) which we can sense, we can't sense the passage of time.

Quote:
But your thoughts are based on the events of the day that has passed

Yeah, so?

Just asking

And the essence of change is based on .....what ? To you

So how do you connect thoughts with time ?

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

And the essence of change is based on .....what ? To you

So how do you connect thoughts with time ?

Your question is about the example I gave, which did not involve motion in space?

Changing thoughts. A succession of them requires changes, which gives one a sense of the passage of time. Nothing profound here.

0 Replies

What we observe in close environment, the same happens in far way scenarios.

We travel to the store, and it is not space inside our atmosphere expanding or contracting what makes us reach the store.

From this simple principle, any idea of expanding space moving static galaxies is nothing but pure crap to the square.

Period.

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Isaac-A-Russell wrote:

Time is reliant on space. Space expands. Thinking along these lines, if time expands from a constant zero, the past would not be moving backwards, nor the present forwards, but both would be expanding away from each other from the initial point of expansion.

Thus, in negative time (the past), one would see "negative" shadows of all that exists in the positive to keep the balance of 0. constant. Interestingly, anti-matter looks precisely like matter moving backwards through time, and dark energy appears to be a polarisation of gravity.

Though I do not know enough about physics to attempt to make any claims as to the truth of what I have just said, and I am sure there are many people on this site more qualified, who should make any suggestion as to whether this hypothesis could ever hold any water. It just seemed, to me, to be interesting idea that I had whilst thinking of the principle of first cause. Has there ever been any work done on this?

Time is reliant movement

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

"Boy, that Albert Einstein, that fucktard ignoramus, he offends me on a personal level. It's a good thing he's been dead for decades or, when i inevitably met him on our mutual Nobel tour, *POW* right in the kisser! He'd wish he hadn't left Germany when he did. Thank goodness i've accomplished so much in my life or else i probably wouldn't get away with such barbarity. What a dumbass he was!" -- most of the people involved in this thread

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

....sheeeesh you scared me for a moment...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

hahaaaaaaa

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Time expands nothing , it is the movement(s) between objects , the interaction between objects and their self motion which causes movement.

Time in and of its self has no force .

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

Time expands nothing , it is the movement(s) between objects , the interaction between objects and their self motion which causes movement.

Time in and of its self has no force .

Let's take that as a given...does that prevent it from being measurable?

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

north wrote:

Time expands nothing , it is the movement(s) between objects , the interaction between objects and their self motion which causes movement.

Time in and of its self has no force .

Let's take that as a given...does that prevent it from being measurable?

No

But what does it matter whether time is measurable ?

0 Replies

A question of temporal expansion (philosophy)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know