New theory to revolutionize quantum physics.

[Aldurin]

Time is an illusion. Our brains only rationalize the passage of time as the alternative was incomprehensible back when spears with stone tips were at the top of technology. There was no beginning and no real end, there was never a time when god/allah/big-bang came before.

Clocks and other objects don't disprove this theory, as we designed them to "work" to our rationalized view of "time". There is no way to detect this true functioning of the universe yet as our machines are designed to work on our terms of "time" and even if they weren't then we still could not comprehend it on our terms of "time".

The closest anyone is to getting toward this theory is with the concepts of god/allah having "a billion years in one day" or "one day is actually a year, and one year is actually a day". This is likely a result of the best possible description on our terms of "time" of what appears to be the true functioning of the universe.

To disprove the concept of time, take a look at black holes, or any gravity well. If time is simply the progression of events and is always a constant, then it should not be slowed and constrained by even the most intense gravity fields in the universe. Yet, we have managed to find extremely small differences in the speed of time at different altitudes above the earth. So our concept of time is in fact not a mechanism the universe runs on, but a byproduct of humans having to recognize something else as "time" and adjust their perception so that it was as good as true.

EDIT: Fuck it, time is real enough as far as my life is concerned and evidence for the previous theory is as strong as moldy noodles.

[Geminex]

You have got to be kidding me.

Buddy, before you go revolutionizing a field, take some time to study it. And while you're at it, take a look at relativity as well. I reckon you're in for a bit of a surprise.

Edit:
Philosophically, your discussion would be... valid. But scientifically? Not so much.

[Rejected Again]

I'm going to enjoy watching SMB rip this to shreds.

[Grimpond]

I'm going to enjoy watching SMB rip this to shreds.
Oh my lord. It will be a sight to behold.

[Aldurin]

I'm going to enjoy watching SMB rip this to shreds.

Bring it.

[Flarecobra]

I'd like to see SithDarth's reaction personally.

[Geminex]

Bring it.

Y'know, I didn't think they were going to bother (I certainly wasn't). Your idea, it isn't just wrong, it completely and utterly misses the point.

But if you challenge them? Perhaps they'll make the effort.

[Aldurin]

Your idea, it isn't just wrong, it completely and utterly misses the point.

Why? Because it appears that way to us? Same way it used to appear that everything revolved around the earth, or that the earth itself was flat? I'm going to lead a new front in physics, all of those open-minded enough to consider the possibility may follow.

[Azisien]

Why? Because it appears that way to us? Same way it used to appear that everything revolved around the earth, or that the earth itself was flat? I'm going to lead a new front in physics, all of those open-minded enough to consider the possibility may follow.

I'm in! What time should we meet up?

Errr...

[Geminex]

Sigh.
There are many things you can do with a "doubt-everything" mentality. Maybe time is an illusion. Maybe we're just dreams of some higher being, living in a constantly-shifting dream world. Maybe there's some sort of method to this world we live in, but our concept of "logic" of cause-and-effect is completely unsuited to the task, and all we're doing is convincing ourselves that we're capable of seeing order in the chaos.

But see, such a mentality, while sometimes very empowering, really has no other purpose. We can sit in the corner doubting everything we know about the world. Or we can define a couple of axioms, make those our base, and then use that base to understand this world we live in.

What you're doing is questioning one of the axioms. Relativity states that time isn't a constant, Einstein came up with that one about a century ago. But to say that time doesn't exist at all? That's not only useless as a theory, it's also lazy, because you're substituting blind doubt for reason or deep thought.

Maybe you're a revolutionary thinker. Maybe I'm just close-minded, clinging to the old axioms because I cannot comprehend the extend of your genius. But I really, really, really doubt it. So yeah, see my first comment. Take a look at quantum physics and relativity. Try to understand those. Then you can talk.

[McTahr]

Hokay. Here goes:
This is an ill-intentioned hypothesis at best.
At worst, it's a philosophical thought experiment.

You have no foundation to the theory. You don't include anything more than a conceptual overview. Physical phenomena aren't even touched upon, let alone considered. You describe phenomena that have been explained countless times by other theories that have actual experimental backing to them, yet don't relate them in any way to a conceptual framework. You're also dismissing general and special relativity's approach to time, as well as anything relating to quantum mechanics, despite it being a theory to "Revolutionize" it.

There is no science to this. It's merely "oh, it's this way" and honestly a bit of an affront to be purported as anything having to do with the science of Physics. The very core foundations of experimental physics are ignored. That is, that your theory, as described, is entirely untestable, regardless of technological advancements whatsoever, which quite literally borders on similar descriptions with "Magic."

We find differences in speeds of time at different positions due to explanations granted by general and special relativity, in that given as the speed of light is an absolute relative truth, the time-space dimensions will in essence warp to maintain this truth. This could be what's leading you to think otherwise, and head off on your trip to "Theoryville."

I strongly advise you read and re-read anything dealing with general and special relativity, as well as hyperspace theories and anything similar.

Edit: Oh, and to touch on theoretical Physics very briefly, if I may, as I potentially see this line of argument being taken as a reproach. Even superstring theories and their ilk, despite being in essence unverifiable as it stands today, have by their very nature as theories ways to ultimately be tested. Simply put though, the means to do so are not within our generation, or even perhaps tens or hundreds to come. The energies needed to prod into multi-dimensional theories is on the scale of entire star systems. LHC is a drop in the ocean. Your theory, as you put it, is from the outset entirely unverifiable in any way. To be a hypothesis, it must be testable. To be a theory, it must be a very tested hypothesis. Etc.

[BitVyper]

Give him a break; everyone with the mind to consider such things at all thinks they're the ones who really see how it is at some point.

[bluestarultor]

Well, yes, but it falls apart rather quickly when you factor in the idea of time as a dimension.

Aside from that, we've traced the universe back to an incredibly brief period after the big bang, which, essentially, is probably when physics formed, given that anything before that makes the math go wonky.

There's a lot we don't fully understand. Why does space break down at smaller than the Planck constant? What is dark matter? How many subatomic particles are there? Just because we don't have the answers yet doesn't mean they aren't out there.

[Aldurin]

It's a theory, it's not perfect. It's just a step in the general direction of something new that may or may not be an awesome discovery. If we could understand such a concept enough, the world would be changed. Travel delay would be nothing, time travel as natural as crossing the street and watch companies going out of business in a heartbeat.

Many astronomers/philosophers/thinkers throughout history made amazing leaps in science, but opposition would exile them, kill them or even call them idiots. And their work became a big step in understanding the universe.

I'm just seeing which staircase the next step is on.

[Kim]

It's a theory

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

No. It's not a theory.

[Aldurin]

Define well-substantiated. Do you want a full publication? Sources and not-so-random calculations? An idea that could go in a good direction?

[Jagos]

A thesis for one. Something you can prove also helps.

[Kim]

Define well-substantiated.

Facts and evidence that support your claims would be nice. It'd also be nice if you had a proper knowledge of the "facts" and "evidence" you've used.

[TDK]

I really hate it when I can't tell the difference between staunch sarcasm and stupidity.

[Geminex]

Or if you don't have facts or evidence, suggest a method through which they could be obtained.

And I'm actually not sure whether Earl is serious or not. I think he was serious to begin with, but is now just playing devil's advocate for the hell of it, but I could be wrong. Maybe he is just stupid.

[bluestarultor]

Dude, that's harsh. There are valid reasons to ask those questions. Just because they've been answered doesn't mean the questions are bad.

[Kim]

Calling him an idiot is out of line.

[Lumenskir]

Many astronomers/philosophers/thinkers throughout history made amazing leaps in science, but opposition would exile them, kill them or even call them idiots. And their work became a big step in understanding the universe.
I was going to point out how this is a gigantic logic hilarity, but Bill Watterson got to it like 20 years ago.

http://www.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1988/01/19880126.gif

[Geminex]

Ok, insults are out of line. My apologies.

And I have no problem at all with Earl questioning! Questions are vital.
But to ask the question, not bothering to find an answer (not that I think there is one, but that's besides the point), then parading that question out as some incredible achievement that should "revolutionise" physics?

And what's worse, when he gets called out on it, he doesn't attempt to defend his theory, instead preferring to compare himself to the great minds of history, and call his critics close-minded?

I mean goddammit, let's treat our peers with respect, but there has to be a limit.

[bluestarultor]

Ok, insults are out of line. My apologies.

And I have no problem at all with Earl questioning! Questions are vital.
But to ask the question, not bothering to find an answer (not that I think there is one, but that's besides the point), then parading that question out as some incredible achievement that should "revolutionise" physics?

And what's worse, when he gets called out on it, he doesn't attempt to defend his theory, instead preferring to compare himself to the great minds of history, and call his critics close-minded?

I mean goddammit, let's treat our peers with respect, but there has to be a limit.

No, you're right in that regard, but there were gentler ways to say it.


At any rate, time is a complex topic that's difficult to understand, and our units ARE arbitrary. On the other hand, so are the meter, the gram, and everything else. We've built our math around them, but the math itself is solid. You could easily replace it all with different units and scale it into the same ratios and it would come out fine.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Don't post crazy shits while I'm on holiday. Before I get back here is some class reading:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

[Satan's Onion]

Time is an illusion. ...
.
"Ford," said Arthur, "would you please tell me what the hell is going on?"

"Drink up," said Ford, "you've got three pints to get through."

"Three pints?" said Arthur. "At lunchtime?"

The man next to Ford grinned and nodded happily. Ford ignored him. He said, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

"Very deep," said Arthur, "you should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you."

[Geminex]

Naaaah. Evilearl's a Vogon at best. I dunno, though. Let's find out. Hey, Earl, d'you write poetry?

[Ryanderman]

Did the first post actually mention anything remotely related to quantum physics? This is bothering me.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

No, it did not. It basically said "Time is not real, because I don't understand it!", and left it at that. Though I could be mistaken, because I stopped reading when he said that time was a constant, when we all know damn well that it isn't.

That statement alone lead me to beleive he has no idea what he's talking about.

[Aldurin]

Fine, it's not a theory. It's a theoretical concept.

Sorry about not putting out evidence. I'm just throwing myself headfirst into a new direction of thought. I still think it is possible to discover new things beyond what our biological design allows us to perceive. I don't have much to start with except an idea, the proverbial apple that hits my head.

Kinda cool that Scientific American did a small article on this idea before. So it won't revolutionize quantum physics at any foreseeable point in the future.

Hey, Earl, d'you write poetry?

No, I would never get bored enough to do that.

I guess why I'm thinking miles outside of the box is my habit with watching the Stargate series. Small leaps in quantum physics seem so normal to me that something as incomprehensible as this theory is essentially a challenge to myself.

I'll start thinking out some logic (and maybe evidence) about this. And I'll rename the thread to something not as unintentionally arrogant.

[Seil]

No, I would never get bored enough to do that.

Poetry is boring? Boring? Boy, you and I need to have words.

I guess why I'm thinking miles outside of the box is my habit with watching the Stargate series. Small leaps in quantum physics seem so normal to me that something as incomprehensible as this theory is essentially a challenge to myself.

Maybe you should make a second account, because just one doesn't really seem like it can contain both you and your ego.

[McTahr]

My issue wasn't with the concept itself. Time's a big thing getting hammered out in the Physics world, in various ways, and new presentations of an aspect of our world we consider old hat aren't automatically bad. It's when they're presented in a manner that doesn't involve science or scientific rigor in the least that it becomes irksome.

I mean, there are teams that even found a distant possibility in their experiments that future events can influence the present/past. Of course, this was through a series of studies, and I never followed up to see if other teams confirmed or denied their results, but it still says a lot about the open-mindedness regarding time when things are specifically handled in a scientific manner.

It's to be said, quite fairly, that humans know jack about time for certain. Even these physicists recently debating these topics, and during the relativity era those considering the thought-children that would become superstring/etc. are met with disdain if they can't at least reasonably present explanations of phenomena, repeatable data, etc.

[Magic_Marker]

I guess why I'm thinking miles outside of the box is my habit with watching the Stargate series. Small leaps in quantum physics seem so normal to me that something as incomprehensible as this theory is essentially a challenge to myself.

I'll start thinking out some logic (and maybe evidence) about this. And I'll rename the thread to something not as unintentionally arrogant.

Bwah? You attribute your genius to watching Stargate? Look I like the show but this:

http://blog.makezine.com/sg03.jpg

Isn't real. Or at least it doesn't work. The show is really, really bad science. If that is where you are being informed on how the universe works then...

Well you were lied to.

[Osterbaum]

Yeah Stargate is Sci-fi fantasy with a lot of soft science and several miracle exceptions. On another note, a lego Stargate? I wantttttttt!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

To be honest, the time depedent Schrodinger is a piece of shit, time indepedence allthe way.
And guys I got relevant degrees and constantly make small leaps in quantum physics and this shit beyodn my head but I don't think we should be mean cause like this:
Time is merely a depedent rotor for pushing dynamic systems between their various harmonies so that the inherent imbalances in forces are minimised. But this rotary process could concievably be realised because of the interplaced dimensions that register multiple forces thus leaving us to percieve a "time" merely as a sanctimonious resting place of our mind, a dialectic of sorts between opposing forces. This however raises hte work of Lacan and Derrida and whether these dialetical constructs really exist once we envisage them, placing worth in them through our actions and critically through the universe actions. Sort of like the "Big Other" debate and that of the God post ascencion and reified through the holy spirit- their effective existence is as equivalent as the "nothingness" of matter as properly explained by Zizek using the words of Lacan.
QED

[krogothwolf]

http://blog.makezine.com/sg03.jpg

Isn't real. Or at least it doesn't work.


Well obviously that's not real and doesn't work, it's only the lego prototype the aliens were building. The real ones lost in the Arctic, or something.

[Seil]

humans know jack about time for certain.

All I know is that time is linear, it always goes forward. Time is a constant, it's always there. It's relative, because depending on what we're doing, it seems to move more quickly than it does. And if your sand meter is empty, you've got to be careful because one rotating spike and your screwed.

EDIT Tahr, just shorten that to "Seil doesn't know anything about time."

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

All I know is that time is linear, it always goes forward. Time is a constant, it's always there. It's relative, because depending on what we're doing, it seems to move more quickly than it does. And if your sand meter is empty, you've got to be careful because one rotating spike and your screwed.

EDIT Tahr, just shorten that to "Seil doesn't know anything about time."

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5821/1276518551154.jpg

[Geminex]

I guess why I'm thinking miles outside of the box is my habit with watching the Stargate series. Small leaps in quantum physics seem so normal to me that something as incomprehensible as this theory is essentially a challenge to myself.

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

[Aldurin]

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

No, but I'll settle with crazy or mentally unstable.

[Bard The 5th LW]

He appears to apply his 'theory' to Geometry to, just check his location.

There's no way he's not joking at this point. Maybe he was serious at first, but he's just milking it for what its worth. No one would claim to be a genius at Physics because they watch Star Gate. He'd clearly messing with us.

[Rejected Again]

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

You have MY permission.

[bluestarultor]

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

Chill, or I'll post your avatar again. :P

[Geminex]

...
You wouldn't dare.

[bluestarultor]

...
You wouldn't dare.

CGA black, NES red, or color cycling? >)

[Fenris]

Ok, now can I call him an idiot? Please? Please? Anyone?

No, and if you do it I'll ban you.

[Nikose Tyris]

Time is an illusion. Our brains only rationalize the passage of time as the alternative was incomprehensible back when spears with stone tips were at the top of technology. There was no beginning and no real end, there was never a time when god/allah/big-bang came before.
****************************************

Nope. Time is technically a dimension. Just like we can move up/down, left/right, forward/back, we can move forward/back through time. Theoretically back. Forward is the only one we know. Time technically follows all the rules for being a 'dimension'. So, that part of the theory is flawed.

****************************************
Clocks and other objects don't disprove this theory, as we designed them to "work" to our rationalized view of "time". There is no way to detect this true functioning of the universe yet as our machines are designed to work on our terms of "time" and even if they weren't then we still could not comprehend it on our terms of "time".
****************************


Except that clocks/radios/televisions are only designed to work through an individual moment and not through the acutal concept of time applying to them at all. If we did create something that worked via time, it would probably be some kind of weird magnet clock that was powered by the spinning of the earth to determine the time, which is all kinds of hocus pocus, or we'd have carbon dating that would determine the age of something, and since age can only be applied to something through the process of time passing over it and causing it wear and grief- well, that's clearly hocus pocus too. Who'd name something stupid like 'carbon dating'?



*********************
The closest anyone is to getting toward this theory is with the concepts of god/allah having "a billion years in one day" or "one day is actually a year, and one year is actually a day". This is likely a result of the best possible description on our terms of "time" of what appears to be the true functioning of the universe.
*********************

Religous conversation isn't allowed on NPF. However, in light of the circumstances-
That was to reference dimension and scope again. "God" would merely be a being that existed in more dimensions then we are able to comprehend. His statement on time reflects the 'time is a dimension' theory- he merely has access to said dimension.


*********************
To disprove the concept of time, take a look at black holes, or any gravity well. If time is simply the progression of events and is always a constant, then it should not be slowed and constrained by even the most intense gravity fields in the universe. Yet, we have managed to find extremely small differences in the speed of time at different altitudes above the earth. So our concept of time is in fact not a mechanism the universe runs on, but a byproduct of humans having to recognize something else as "time" and adjust their perception so that it was as good as true.
**********************

I'm not even going to respond to this one. You're on your own.










((I'm responding to his theory with an equally preposterous one. Feel free to rip this apart too, but remember I'm trying for satire. D: ))

[Sithdarth]

First, to have any hope of tearing down established science you must first know established science. Otherwise you're bound to stumble into known mistakes. You can't revolutionize the way cars are fixed without knowing how cars are currently fixed. Same thing goes for science.

Beyond that thermodynamics would like a word with you and whoever wrote that scientific american article. Thermodynamically speaking there is both a past and a future. Combine that with Einstein's treatment of time as a dimension that is inextricably linked to space and it is clear that in someway the thing we call time must exist. It might not work how we think it works and clearly our units are arbitrary but our perception of time is definitely a manifestation of something physical and real about the universe.

The real interesting thing is that time might not be so much a single straight line as we envision. If you subscribe to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics then the past you remember is only one of many possible pasts that could have lead to your present and the future you imagine is truly on of many possible futures you can find yourself in. There are an infinite number of possible presents as well. Some subset of these (which is still probably infinite) are simultaneously explored by various versions of you. Of course that is only on interpretation. There are others but they all need some version of time. The real key is that in all of them the past you remember is more or less fixed for you because you remember it and that combined with thermodynamics and relativity makes time real.

Of course the other side of this is kinematics. Bodies couldn't move without some sort of physical "thing" (for lack of a better word) that could be called time. Without moving bodies we don't have kinetic energy, temperature, magnetism, atoms, and a bunch of other things. These things don't require the existence of say seconds or minutes or a single constant linear path through time but something inherently physical that we would perceive as time.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The Sci American article did acknowledge that some fields do have required time and just getting rid of it doesn't work, though they did kind of ignore it in focusing on timeless theories. Theories that get rid of time sell more magazines than "Hey here's a theory with time in it".
The timeless theories do address this, they don't just ignore the things we use that have time- they reformulate them. You can argue that they don't address this very well but you can't just say they are wrong because certain things rely on time, the point of the theories was that our conceptions of things that rely on time are wrong.
Personally I don't agree with the timeless theories but they are put together a little more robustly than you make out.

Also time is totally a super rotor. What drives the rotor? Is it an infinite motion machine? I think it is.

[Aldurin]

Religous conversation isn't allowed on NPF.

I did not know that, and I'll keep from stepping in that turd-bomb from now on.


First, to have any hope of tearing down established science you must first know established science. Otherwise you're bound to stumble into known mistakes. You can't revolutionize the way cars are fixed without knowing how cars are currently fixed. Same thing goes for science.

Beyond that thermodynamics would like a word with you and whoever wrote that scientific american article. Thermodynamically speaking there is both a past and a future. Combine that with Einstein's treatment of time as a dimension that is inextricably linked to space and it is clear that in someway the thing we call time must exist. It might not work how we think it works and clearly our units are arbitrary but our perception of time is definitely a manifestation of something physical and real about the universe.

The real interesting thing is that time might not be so much a single straight line as we envision. If you subscribe to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics then the past you remember is only one of many possible pasts that could have lead to your present and the future you imagine is truly on of many possible futures you can find yourself in. There are an infinite number of possible presents as well. Some subset of these (which is still probably infinite) are simultaneously explored by various versions of you. Of course that is only on interpretation. There are others but they all need some version of time. The real key is that in all of them the past you remember is more or less fixed for you because you remember it and that combined with thermodynamics and relativity makes time real.

Of course the other side of this is kinematics. Bodies couldn't move without some sort of physical "thing" (for lack of a better word) that could be called time. Without moving bodies we don't have kinetic energy, temperature, magnetism, atoms, and a bunch of other things. These things don't require the existence of say seconds or minutes or a single constant linear path through time but something inherently physical that we would perceive as time.

You know, that got me thinking to how everything in the universe comes down to the movement of atoms, molecules, electrons, various particles and energy forms. With that in effect, the moving object in question could not go backwards, sideways, crossways or even stopping on its own. It would keep moving forward until a separate force interferes. As this is the true progression of events for any given thing, time must be in a definite direction. Forces like gravity can only affect the speed of time, not the direction. Time must exist, only as a dimension of constant direction and varying intensity.

Damn, you guys got me to finally out-think my own moment of illogicalness. And there isn't any brain parts on my monitor at all. Tear this revelation apart and then I might finally have to give in and let my head explode.

[Sithdarth]

The Sci American article did acknowledge that some fields do have required time and just getting rid of it doesn't work, though they did kind of ignore it in focusing on timeless theories. Theories that get rid of time sell more magazines than "Hey here's a theory with time in it".
The timeless theories do address this, they don't just ignore the things we use that have time- they reformulate them. You can argue that they don't address this very well but you can't just say they are wrong because certain things rely on time, the point of the theories was that our conceptions of things that rely on time are wrong.
Personally I don't agree with the timeless theories but they are put together a little more robustly than you make out.

Also time is totally a super rotor. What drives the rotor? Is it an infinite motion machine? I think it is.

You'll notice I very carefully left out any specific notion of what physical thing is called time. Even the so called "timeless" theories must have a physical manifestation that people would otherwise call time. They have to explain our perception of time and thereby they introduce some physical thing (or perhaps process) which usurps our intuitive grasp of time (or perhaps just explains it). They don't so much get rid of time as introduce a very foreign concept of the nature of time. Call it what you will but if it gives rise to our natural concept of time then it is time. Just scary weird not how we imagined it time.

You know, that got me thinking to how everything in the universe comes down to the movement of atoms, molecules, electrons, various particles and energy forms. With that in effect, the moving object in question could not go backwards, sideways, crossways or even stopping on its own. It would keep moving forward until a separate force interferes. As this is the true progression of events for any given thing, time must be in a definite direction. Forces like gravity can only affect the speed of time, not the direction. Time must exist, only as a dimension of constant direction and varying intensity.

Nope sorry. General Relativity includes geometries of spacetime (that is the name we give to the ideal that everything happens on this grand stage where the things we call space and time are not separate) that fold back in on themselves allowing you to travel backwards in time while you still think you are moving forward in time. Rather you can bend spacetime so much that in certain places time flows in the direction opposite of most other places in the Universe. There is also the little hiccup of how in some quantum systems events in the future can effect the results of an experiment being conducted in the present.

[Aldurin]

Nope sorry. General Relativity includes geometries of spacetime (that is the name we give to the ideal that everything happens on this grand stage where the things we call space and time are not separate) that fold back in on themselves allowing you to travel backwards in time while you still think you are moving forward in time. Rather you can bend spacetime so much that in certain places time flows in the direction opposite of most other places in the Universe. There is also the little hiccup of how in some quantum systems events in the future can effect the results of an experiment being conducted in the present.

Quit making my brain hurt.

[Kim]

Quit claiming to revolutionize fields you know absolutely nothing about. Being ignorant of them does not make you privilege some fantastic viewpoint that nobody has considered before.

[Bard The 5th LW]

StOp MeAsUrInG tHe MaRiGoLdS aNd RuInInG mY mIrAcLeS. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeasuringTheMarigolds)

[Geminex]

Rather you can bend spacetime so much that in certain places time flows in the direction opposite of most other places in the Universe.
Ok, wait, what? What sort of "places" would this be? Cause I was under the firm impression that even within the very centre of a black hole's event horizon, time is just bent to the degree that it stops flowing relative to an observer outside this event horizon.

[Grimpond]

There is also the little hiccup of how in some quantum systems events in the future can effect the results of an experiment being conducted in the present.

Isn't that what the hubbub about the large hardon collider was about?

[Sithdarth]

Kerr Metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric)
Tipler Cylinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipler_cylinder)
Time travel in general and a little bit about using Cosmic Strings (http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~anatoly/ast203/Lectures/Lecture_20.html)

And what I mean by opposite is that even though you see your clock moving forward in time you can come back to either the exact moment and place you left or to some moment before that. Essentially you see time as moving forward while people outside this space "see" (ok I don't know if you could actually see a backwards time traveler or what it would look like) you traveling back in time. Well at the very least they see you showing up somewhere you shouldn't be showing up and your clocks really don't match up.

Isn't that what the hubbub about the large hardon collider was about?

Kind of taken to logically absurd extreme.

[Geminex]

I don't think so. The experiments Sithdarth is referring to are simpler...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

Here we go. I'd explain it, but I'm sure Sith is itching to. In Layman's terms, information seems to be travelling backwards in time.

Edit:
And thanks, Sith. I'll go through those links... another time. When I'm feeling more mentally acute. They look intesting, though. Might PM you.

[Sithdarth]

The quantum eraser was pretty much the thing used to extrapolate that whole weirdness about Quantum Waves from a future LHC disaster sabotaging its operation. Of course it basically ignores that quantum effects of that kind rarely manifest in large complex systems. You can see hints of them through odd behavior (like the resolution of the ultraviolet catastrophe) but they don't show up directly.

[Grimpond]

The quantum eraser was pretty much the thing used to extrapolate that whole weirdness about Quantum Waves from a future LHC disaster sabotaging its operation. Of course it basically ignores that quantum effects of that kind rarely manifest in large complex systems. You can see hints of them through odd behavior (like the resolution of the ultraviolet catastrophe) but they don't show up directly.

And his brain grew three sizes this day.

[Meister]

Religous conversation isn't allowed on NPF.
Really only when it's stuff like "my religion is better than your religion" or criticism for believing or not believing. Like say you can have a lengthy conversation about the crusades and be totally fine but someone who comes in and goes WE SHOULD GO ON CRUSADES AGAIN AGAINST ALL HEATHENS is probably getting in trouble. I don't think we had to actually apply that rule in years though.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

This is also relevant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw).

[Bob The Mercenary]

Still reading through the thread, but have the A and B theories of time been discussed yet? Because I'd really like to hear everyone's opinions on those. I consider myself an 'A' person, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

[Funka Genocide]

You should probably read this (http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Special-General-Albert-Einstein/dp/0517884410) book. It's a good read, even for the layman.

But yeah, there's not much merit in randomly releasing rudimentary revelatory rhetoric on the rinternet.

(I crack myself up sometimes)

[Hanuman]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100522.gif

[Fenris]

Yo Lev I know you're trying to become the new butt of all of NPF's jokes but emulating old-school Seil really isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also that has nothing to do with this thread.

[Archbio]

Also that has nothing to do with this thread.

I think the thread relates in some way to the notion that first year philosophy students are unbearable because of a supposed impossibility of "proving anything true objectively*," and it's also a nice segue (if unsubstantive) from the thing about religious discussion.

*Which is incorrect. All philosophy students are unbearable, irrespective of how long they've been at it.

[Krylo]

*Which is incorrect. All philosophy students are unbearable, irrespective of how long they've been at it.

Didn't Smarty say he used to/does hang out with philosophy students quite often?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yus, now you know where I get it from.

[Hanuman]

Yo Lev I know you're trying to become the new butt of all of NPF's jokes but emulating old-school Seil really isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also that has nothing to do with this thread.
Trolling ineffective, please try again.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Trolling ineffective, please try again.

Well it was ineffective, then you replied.

Good job.

[Tev]

Just as long as I don't end up the butt of his joke.

Edit: Wait...that...you know what screw it.

[Seil]

Yo Lev I know you're trying to become the new butt of all of NPF's jokes but emulating old-school Seil really isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also that has nothing to do with this thread.

I... uh... I'm sitting here thinking I should have something to say or show in response to this, but I got nothin'.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I... uh... I'm sitting here thinking I should have something to say or show in response to this, but I got nothin'.

You could shift the status of your pants, see if that changes anything.

[Bells]

I'm pretty sure nobody posted this yet so... here comes George Carlin to save the day again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M5eG-aywZQ

[Hanuman]

Well it was ineffective, then you replied.

Good job.
If I stop by to read the thread anyway I might as well respond, if trolling brings out 0% of my emotion it gets a 0/10 for win, thus fail.

[Fenris]

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Also, it wasn't trolling, it was me (a mod) telling you (a user) to stay on topic and to contribute more to conversations than irrelevant webcomics. If you feel that is such a lofty request that the mere implication that you do the above offends you to the point where you call it trolling, I'm just gonna have to suggest you either find a new community to spend your time with, or redefine your definition of trolling so that it doesn't include "moderator telling me to follow the rules."

[Aldurin]

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Also, it wasn't trolling, it was me (a mod) telling you (a user) to stay on topic and to contribute more to conversations than irrelevant webcomics.

But when I realized how stupid my theory was, I wanted the thread to get off topic in hopes that it would die a quiet death.

[Fenris]

It's not your decision to make, though. There's no such thing as "This is my thread, we do it MY WAY" here.

[Aldurin]

That's why I indirectly influence the conversation to my will.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

That's why I indirectly influence the conversation to my will.

And he's telling you that you're not supposed to try and do that.

Therefore we shall return to the topic at hand with this;

If time is an illusion, does that mean I can walk through the front door of the Subway I work at when its time for my shift, walk straight through to the back door and claim I worked a full shift?

[POS Industries]

That's why I indirectly influence the conversation to my will.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o159/posindustries/facepalm/watson.gif

[Odjn]

This thread is...special.

[Hanuman]

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Also, it wasn't trolling, it was me (a mod) telling you (a user) to stay on topic and to contribute more to conversations than irrelevant webcomics. If you feel that is such a lofty request that the mere implication that you do the above offends you to the point where you call it trolling, I'm just gonna have to suggest you either find a new community to spend your time with, or redefine your definition of trolling so that it doesn't include "moderator telling me to follow the rules."
That's better, using obtuse language and mod status to wall up, while lacing it with vague ill intent and condescension, intrinsically using your mod status as loaded gun counter to get the final say in any response that may arise.

Of course, the fact that you didn't simply PM me speaks for itself.

[Fenris]

You asked for an explanation you shouldn't need, I gave it to you. I don't use PMs for moderatorial action. I never have. Personally, I prefer people to be publically told what not to do so that others can see their mistakes and try not to repeat them.

You do realize that this was all explained to the last guy (http://www.nuklearforums.com/member.php?u=7302) to fuss about being told publically that he screwed up, don't you?

[Meister]

Guys, guys.

Lev yeah we don't do moderating by PM here and you've been around long enough to have caught on to that. And neither, come to think of it, do we do calling anyone a troll; well, we the mods do when we warn people for it but otherwise, no. Even if it hadn't been a mod post that would hardly have qualified as trolling.

(That said it's probably a good idea on our side not to mix snarky oneliners with official mod business.)

Another thing we don't do is trying to veer threads off topic because you don't like them anymore so I'd like to thank EvilEarl for announcing that this is something he's prone to doing so we know what to keep an eye on.

Closing now because this thread started out terrible and got worse.

[POS Industries]

(That said it's probably a good idea on our side not to mix snarky oneliners with official mod business.)
A good idea, yes.

As fun? Naaaawwwwww.