|
Post by drredpill on Apr 30, 2006 12:01:12 GMT 10
My question is very troubling (to me anyway), and somewhat deep. It has to do with space/time; Yes Einsteins space time. If a light year is the distence light travels in a year and the closest star is 4.something light years away, is it not reasonable to conclude that we are moveing backward in time? Think about it. The light bounceing off my wall has to TRAVEL to reach my eye. This takes TIME (albeit a very small amount of time) much the same way starlight comming from AlfaProxima takes 4 point something years right? So IF Einstein is/was/will be right we must be moving backward through time!!! Am I wrong here? Does it not take time for all of the light reaching my eye to get there? Please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by drredpill on May 1, 2006 8:00:36 GMT 10
I should add, I suspect that we (the human race) are shrinking. Just look at all the arguements for the expansion of the universe, and ask: Are we shrinking, or is the universe expanding?
|
|
|
Post by TRINITY on May 1, 2006 13:08:17 GMT 10
My honest opinion is that we are constantly evolving, the entire universe, parts of it " Shrinking" and others growing or expanding, is how I see it. It could be possible if you take both expansion and growth at the same time into the theory.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingwolf on May 2, 2006 14:04:30 GMT 10
The issue I find with time is that it is relative. If you ask me, it operates in two different ways (Maybe more?) in a general sense (ie. 24 hours in a day) and a personal/perceptual sense. So what in a general sense may be an hour to you in a perceptual sense may be a matter of seconds. Think about when you sleep, what is your perception of time then? So in that sense, Alfa Proxima has an instant in time, and that time relative to you is four years in the future. So both youself and the instant at Alfa Proxima are moving forwards parallel in time only juxtaposed by four years. Another issue is momentum in time (forwards/backwards) and analytical descriptions of time are labels to further understanding of time. So moving 'forwards' in time is just a label to understand the phenomena. I guess its called forwards due to the linear graphing on a cartesian co-ordinate system. As it is shown as moving positively, its considered forwards, as opposed to negative movement. Another example i could use is aging, from this moment to the next I have aged (x) amount of time and is considered a forwards movement from the concept of aging. As for the light bouncing of the wall to reach your eye the way I see it, I would like to describe it as 'perceptual decay' as the further you move away from the zero point (yourself) the longer it takes to reach you. So the further in space something is the longer it takes to reach you, with yourself as the central perceptual point. Which is why time is relative as this 'perceptual decay' happens to everyone and a central point in space is perceived differently relative to everyone else. I hope I didn't complicate things... (plus the other thing to note is this only matters if the established laws of physics are accurate). Plus, this is also only in 3d space, outside of that, I have no idea how time operates if at all...
|
|
|
Post by TRINITY on May 2, 2006 18:40:52 GMT 10
How about how time operates through dimensions. now even scientifically 11 dimensions have been proven...Just recently lol, people have been talking about these dimensions for years in general. For us to say move forward 100 years, would take 100 years, but what about through another dimension, we would infact be seeing the same planet in an altered state, even though we are right here, right now........ Then also there is travel through portholes...should they exist, I believe they do. Portholes alter time travel too. It's believed that this is how Et life travel great distances in a short amoount of time..... they infact cheat time. Although at time it may be hard to believe....We only have to take a look at the cosmos at night to realise that there are infinite possibilities to how time, light, space functions. What we know may not be the only answers, well, they surely are not. I think that science can be limiting..if this doesnt fit that then it's not possible! is how it goes right? But that's incorrect, ans science has infact proven that to itself with one discovery after another...there still is more to come, we must think outside the square at all time as I see things. Well...just a little of my opinion there...everyone is entitled to my opinion ROFL
|
|