i know that a thread by this name exists but i couldn't be bothered exhuming it.

okay, i define time as movement. without time there is no movement, and without any movement there is no time. so, if _everything_ stops moving (includes organic things) then time will have effectivley stopped.

so, if you want to travel in time, insted of messing with all the physics and that involved, why not set everything like it was a certain time ago. if you want to go back to the 1800's, then just set everything like it was, even the people. it has to be easier to get 19th century people than to travel back in time. and how it got there isn't really an issue, because the past has already happned.

i hate it when something is clear in your head until you try and explain it.

ill probably clarify this when i figure it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAOVQ:
okay, i define time as movement. without time there is no movement, and without any movement there is no time. so, if _everything_ stops moving (includes organic things) then time will have effectivley stopped.

---

I fully understand where you are trying to go. I agree that all movement could stop. However, I do not agree, nor do I understand how no movement would mean that time would stop. I understand that there may be no frame of reference, but that doesn't mean time wouldn't continue.

Here comes a weird example of what I trying to say:

For this example my premise is multiple big bangs, each followed by a big crunch. Each cycle is followed by another, but how much time passes between each cycle. Yes, there is no frame of reference. So, the interval could be from nano seconds to pico milleniums. But in either case, there is an interval. We are unable to measure it.

Nox

i don't think that time would stop, it would just cease to exist. but, if everything stops moving, then it could never start up again, because there would be nothing to kick it off and start everything.

"However, I do not agree, nor do I understand how no movement would mean that time would stop."
im assuming that anti matter would help me out somewhere here, but i don't understand that enough to be sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAOVQ:

im assuming that anti matter would help me out somewhere here, but i don't understand that enough to be sure.

---

Now there's an interesting concept especially when coupled with Gravistar business I posted in the My God can beat... forum. Nox thinks about this.

Nox

You Must remeber that time is nothing more than a measurement system much like
an inch, foot or yard.
Time is just measuring in secounds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years, ect.
When people over look this it messes up most good time travel theories.

you must also remember that time does not just exist on earth....in order to go back in time, or stop time, it would have to effect the entire universe. A long time ago i tried to actually read some works by Dr. Hawking about this topic. of course i got bored rather quickly but i managed to pick up on a key idea. His main theory involves wormholes....these rips in the "universal fabric" may be able to transport something/someone to a moment that has already occured. Now i know someone prolly read the same thing and they are gonna correct me bout somethin...just whatever thats all i can remember for now

Later
Joe~

RAOVQ,

I hope this doesn't come out like mindless babble so here goes.

I'm having a hard time comprehending the concept that time ceases to exist.

Yes, time goes on everywhere, not just Earth, and that is why I cannot conceive the concept of it (time) ceasing to exist.

True, time is a measurement, but it does not require a point from which to measure it in relation to anything.

I can only conceive wormholes existing in a curved universe. Stargate is a good series, but I don't think wormholes as being linear.

Nox

" but it does not require a point from which to measure it in relation to anything."
id say that it is measured against movement.

it is like lets say the universe is only one room, and you were standing in the middle of it with a bookcase in the corner.

if you stop moving, then time is irrelevant. if you are not heading towards the bookcase, then the speed at which time is moving, or not moving is not important, because you are never going to go there, because you are not trying to. so if time is not important, then it would cease to exist, or

hang on

new thought-
time is a symptom of movement. if something is moving, then time has to be there ticking over, providing the other "dimension" for it to move through. so, the absence of all movent would mean the absence of all time.

ps) i have no authority on this, its just me thinking out loud

well lemme use the example you used... A person standing in that room... if that person stops moving, then you are saying time can not be measured...but in fact in order for a person not to move at all, they would have to be dead because you could hypothetically meaasure time by heart beat, blinks or other bodily functions

Later
Joe~

RAOVQ,

joe is alluding to what my thoughts are. I understand what you mean about inside the room- no movement. However, like joe, I am outside the room. There could be no movement in the room, but my master clock outside the room ticks on.

From a different angle- multiple Big Bangs.

We are now looking at the interval between the completion of one big crunch and the initiation of another big bang. I fully agree that in this interval, time would be irrelevant, however, it would still continue. It would make absolutely no difference if the interval were 1 nanosecond or a gazillion millennia, that time would exist. Yes, we could not measure it. We would have no frame of reference, other than the previous and subsequent event.

If I understand your premise, you are equating movement with time. No movement, time is irrelevant. My feeling is that irrelevant does not mean nonexistant.

Nox

OK
You must ask your self how movement in that sence would effect time
because even if every thing stoped moving or just somehow froze therefore all motion ceases to exist this would not effect time at all.
certain questions pop up like
how long would everything freeze?

if everything stopped moving there is no way for it to start again. its a bit like the tree falling in the woods thing, except better. if time kept going, except no one or nothing is there to see it going, is it really going, or, does it matter if its going if nothing is moving.

is time a cause or an effect?
id call it an effect of movement.

well somethin i was just think was if everything did stop moving...you are sayin that time would not exist because nothing would be able to measure it. But if you think about it time does not need to be measured, it always exists. like....this may be a bad example but if you are standing in that room again and nothin and i mean nothin is moving, time would still exist but there is no way to measure it.
I do, however, agree with the statement that if everything stopped moving then it would never be able to start again...but then you would also have to define movement. Is movement the TIME it takes to travel a certain distance, or something traveling in perspective of something else...that is kinda confusing what i mean is if one person is standing in a spot and the angle at which something they are viewing is changed in any way, then is the movement the thing going in a certain direction from a person, or the person changing their own position

Later
Joe~

RAOVQ,

A universe in stasis, no time.

As I think about this, I don't know if I can buy it. O, I totally agree that time would be absolutely irrelevant....but non-existant?

I think back to my post about the interval between bang and crunch. That scenario really makes time irrelevant, but I'm not so sure about this one.

Now for a tangent questions/ideas.

A. What would make the universe go into stasis?

B. Would the same "whatever" be able to reverse the stasis and get things started again?

C. (Now the kicker) Now (assuming a restart) what about all of the time during that interregnum?

Nox

Since haveing everything coming to a stop or going into stasis is a little far fetched and hard to comprehend lets put this on a much smaller scale.
Lets for a secound say the science of cryogenicly freezing a person then thawing them out in perfect living condition is totally possible right now.
You are 22 years old
a horrible cancer is eating your body and you'll die in 2 months nothing can kill the cancer.
as a last resort you get cryogenicly frozen
therefore all motion in your body stops.
Now
225 years go buy and they have a quick and easy cure for cancer they thaw you out kill the cancer and you are good as new.
Now are you 22 years old or 247 years old?
just because time hasn't effected you has the process stoped or just become irrelevant to you for a small amount of time?

ok, first of all you would be 247 since age is the measurement of years (time) that have gone by since the day you were born. Next, what i think no one has touched on is the fact that we do not necisarily (bah can't spell) have to stop time, but instead reverse time on everything else (is what my theory is) while keeping "time's effects" from changing on you. To change the direction and "momentum" that something is moving does not require the stopping of that thing, but mearly a reaction that is more powerful in the opposite direction (don't mean to get all Newton Laws thing going)
Also, if we wanted to "reverse" time that does not mean that it is going in the complete opposite direction. Kinda hard to explain, here is an example. A batter in baseball is up to bat, the pitcher pitches the ball in a direction torwards the batter(obiously), when the batter makes contact with the ball, the ball does not always go straight back in the direction that it came, but instead, its direction was just altered or changed by an alternate "force"
So what i am basically saying is when trying to reverse something, it will not necissarily go in complete reverse but mabey it will take an alternate path (mabey alternate dimetions)
Last, answering or at least trying to answer Nox's question of what "whatever" could have a powerful enough effect as to bring the universe into stasis is actually right now a total mystery to me.
OK, don't mean to babble but i got more ideas just poppin into my head...
If we picture time as a wall...like a brick wall....to get through that wall, it does not take a huge force that will take down the entire wall, but sometimes just a force that is large enough to pass through just a small portion of it, that would result in passing through the wall, though only through a small portion of it...
Now i am to my last words...if you think about it time can only be measured in relation to something else. So if there is nothing, time can not be measured, but as long as something is still in progress time can be measured...if a person is frozen or dies, their body can still be given a certain age, because something else is still going...so i guess if someone was frozen, and no bodily functions or anything would work, and suddenly they were brought back to life, i would say that they traveled into the future
Well this is enough for me today, i got math work to do (busywork :-P)
Later
Joe~

joe,

I have a problem with time reversal. Here's why:

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe1627:
we do not necisarily (bah can't spell) have to stop time, but instead reverse time on everything else (is what my theory is) while keeping "time's effects" from changing on you. To change the direction and "momentum" that something is moving does not require the stopping of that thing, but mearly a reaction that is more powerful in the opposite direction (don't mean to get all Newton Laws thing going)
Also, if we wanted to "reverse" time that does not mean that it is going in the complete opposite direction. Kinda hard to explain, here is an example. A batter in baseball is up to bat, the pitcher pitches the ball in a direction torwards the batter(obiously), when the batter makes contact with the ball, the ball does not always go straight back in the direction that it came, but instead, its direction was just altered or changed by an alternate "force"
So what i am basically saying is when trying to reverse something, it will not necissarily go in complete reverse but mabey it will take an alternate path (mabey alternate dimetions)

---

I see your point when deflections are 90 degrees or less. However, at angles greater than 90 degrees the object stops (however small the increment of time) and then continues in the new direction. Now we revisit the concept of start and stop.

The issue of stop and restart now involves what I referred to as, however small the increment of time. Since we are relating this to the rest of the universe which is still plugging along, now the additional qualifier is added to small to become small or large. The statement is now, however small or large the increment of time.

The issue is problematic because now we could have a situation where we have two different time continuums in one physical universal plane.

It's gettin deep, balls' back in your court.

Nox

well i got somethin new, kinda makes sense, kinda doesn't
If lets say a ball enters a hemisphere, as it enters it only touches the inner edge of the sphere....u gonna have to think kinda like a half-pipe type thing...well anyway was the ball enters and contiues around this object, it gains speed as it reaches the center, but then slows down as it goes up the "opposite edge", this would send the ball in the direction in which it came, but it may not be at the same "speed" that it entered at...
Well i will think of stuff later, i got some art work to do

Later
Joe~

joe,

I like that curved concept much better than the ricochet theory. The way you described it you are making time vulnerable to the effects of friction (hence the slowing). I don't think that's what you meant (correct me if I'm wrong).

However, the sphere only accounts for a complete reversal (180 degrees). In your post you alluded to angles other than 180 degrees:

Also, if we wanted to "reverse" time that does not mean that it is going in the complete opposite direction. Kinda hard to explain, here is an example. A batter in baseball is up to bat, the pitcher pitches the ball in a direction torwards the batter(obiously), when the batter makes contact with the ball, the ball does not always go straight back in the direction that it came, but instead, its direction was just altered or changed by an alternate "force"

The "bat" (and I realize you were thinking off the cuff) gives a start/stop scenario.

I need a better theory on any time distortion that makes the passage of time anything other than linear. I understand Einsteins curves caused by gravity, and time slowing approaching the speed of light. My problem comes with the speed of light being an absolute and how that absolute has ramifications on a grand unified theory and the effects of time.

Nox

Ok
so are you talking about reversing time as a whole or on an individual basis?
Because if it is as a whole what would that change? as you describe time going in a differant direction it wouldn't be much of a change besides the rate of time and certain natural occurances i mean it would be experianced as a whole and no one would get younger or anything.

And if time is individualy reversed or changed it may be more trouble that it is worth for instance the everything that we know is in effect moving at the same rate in time chenging this for yourself would mean it is diffrant from everyone elses and therefore you may never see another person until you can cross back to you correct time.

Well i don't know something to think about i guess

Vato,

You have to run the concept of "individual time" by me again...I really don't get what you mean.

Nox

sorry
what i meant was are you talking about
changing time for one person
or for everyone on earth?
it doesn't really seem to defined.

there was a report on wired about some of this
heres the good bits
"According to fundamental laws of physics, time is just another coordinate -- hash marks along a line with scarcely a preferred direction or flow.

Yet the mind perceives time as an irreversible stream, moving from past to future, experienced in the present.

For instance, Metod Saniga of the Slovak Academy of Sciences combines mathematical models and pathology reports of schizophrenic, drug-induced and other abnormal perceptions of time.

His current work also encompasses studies of near-death experiences. He found that most of those who've crossed over to the other side and back tell similar tales. For that brief moment of near-death, time loses its meaning.

"A great fraction describes their feelings as beyond any concept of time and space," he said.""

actaully its not that good, but it might be worht a read http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52703,00.html

RAOVQ,

I read it, your synopsis is good.

I don't think that I know what to think about that. Since I have a low opinion of shrinks in general, I am even at a greater loss to understand.

What do you think of it?

Nox