manuel Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 People are getting taller. You just have to look at houses a couple of hundred years ago to see that.People in bristol must be shrinking ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) I have a question. About our concept of Time. There have been some very intriguing posts on here questioning our human ability to comprehend 'time' and that we rely on our belief that our existence is based on a Timescale. What I mean by this, is the suggestion that there was never a beginning, there will never be an end. We just exist, "Now". I can sort of understand this principle, but as I type this post, I am living in the 'now', but I can also see my immediate past written before me. Therefore, in my basic conception of 'time', I live with my Wife and Son, I have past memories and photographic evidence of our 'being'. But do not have any from the 'future'?I can't really comprehend the fact that 'time' may not always be a constant progression.I am not posting this to critisise others, but more to gain an understanding of their views or beliefs. MAM.edit: for ugh! Edited June 12, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't really get what you're asking but suggest you have a quick google of Relativity, time, spacetime etc. Time is not a constant. If you had two identical watches at Heathrow, and while one stayed there and the other flew across the Atantic in a jet, the one which stayed in Heathrow would be a tiny bit ahead of the one across the pond. Time would have appeared to slow down for the travelling watch... So is the person wearing that watch a tiny bit younger than if he'd stayed at Heathrow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Nah, Dave. That's just the time difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Thanks, . But I was sort of searching for an opinion from a more metaphysical bearing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Nah, Dave. That's just the time difference Thanks, . But I was sort of searching for an opinion from a more metaphysical bearing though. Cool beans . I'll leave that to Ben!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't really get what you're asking but suggest you have a quick google of Relativity, time, spacetime etc. Time is not a constant. If you had two identical watches at Heathrow, and while one stayed there and the other flew across the Atantic in a jet, the one which stayed in Heathrow would be a tiny bit ahead of the one across the pond. Time would have appeared to slow down for the travelling watch... So is the person wearing that watch a tiny bit younger than when he left Heathrow?Does no one consider that making an object go 100's of miles an hour might have a physical affect on it? Such as interrupting its mechanical workings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 That's the logical way of looking at it but you walk round any town and see the 15 year old schemie mums with 3 ugly kids and no future who seem to be taking over our country like a virus... Then tell me the general population's going to get more intelligent? I propose mass sterilisation of retard chav families who will only ever grow up to be obnoxious louts who are more than likely to father a few more wastes of life before ending up in prison...That's the obvious counter-argument but I wonder if it's a bit simplistic. For one thing, you're talking about one small country, at one time. The increase in teenage pregnancies in the last decade might seem important, but on an evolutionary scale covering billions of years it doesn't even register as a blip. Secondly, within "chav" groups, are intelligent (or maybe I should say funny/witty/streetsmart) individuals actually more desirable? Thirdly I'm not sure if anyone's looked at IQ for different socioeconomic groups in the UK - maybe your assumption that chavs are unintelligent needs testing.I dunno, I just cooked up that hypothesis as I was typing the previous post, I certainly don't claim to have researched it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Many animals breed with members of their own family to guarantee large populations. The chavs are on this wavelength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikeriding Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I have a question. About our concept of Time. There have been some very intriguing posts on here questioning our human ability to comprehend 'time' and that we rely on our belief that our existence is based on a Timescale. What I mean by this, is the suggestion that there was never a beginning, there will never be an end. We just exist, "Now". I can sort of understand this principle, but as I type this post, I am living in the 'now', but I can also see my immediate past written before me. Therefore, in my basic conception of 'time', I live with my Wife and Son, I have past memories and photographic evidence of our 'being'. But do not have any from the 'future'?I can't really comprehend the fact that 'time' may not always be a constant progression.I am not posting this to critisise others, but more to gain an understanding of their views or beliefs. MAM.edit: for ugh!Time is a human concept created to measure change at a level that most applies to our lives. Hence why we have time zones.. As many people do believe i don't think time is directional as it is not a force acting upon something, it is a summation of events. It is not a cause it is a description of results of that cause.If you take time at that level it seems irrelevant for the universe to have a beginning a middle and an end.I don't really get what you're asking but suggest you have a quick google of Relativity, time, spacetime etc. Time is not a constant. If you had two identical watches at Heathrow, and while one stayed there and the other flew across the Atantic in a jet, the one which stayed in Heathrow would be a tiny bit ahead of the one across the pond. Time would have appeared to slow down for the travelling watch... So is the person wearing that watch a tiny bit younger than when he left Heathrow?lol if Christianity is a load a shit... time travel? Edited June 13, 2009 by ilikeriding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 lol if Christianity is a load a shit... time travel?No, relativity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 lol if Christianity is a load a shit... time travel?Huh? You're comparing Christianity with physics? Christianity is a load of shit, time travel is something made up in Sci-Fi which may or may not be theoretically possible. But then you're talking about relativity, the possibility of travelling faster than the speed of light, the bending of time by gravity etc.I'm pretty sure what I described (poorly) about the plane thing has been tested and proven using atomic clocks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Huh? You're comparing Christianity with physics? Christianity is a load of shit, time travel is something made up in Sci-Fi which may or may not be theoretically possible. But then you're talking about relativity, the possibility of travelling faster than the speed of light, the bending of time by gravity etc.I'm pretty sure what I described (poorly) about the plane thing has been tested and proven using atomic clocks...An atomic clock is a type of clock that uses an atomic resonance frequency standard as its timekeeping element. They are the most accurate time and frequency standards known, and are used as primary standards for international time distribution services, and to control the frequency of television broadcasts and GPS satellite signals.Could making this clock travel faster than the other one not have a physical effect on the frequency of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) No, maybe. who knows? Edited June 13, 2009 by ZeroMatt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Could making this clock travel faster than the other one not have a physical effect on the frequency of it?Yes, due to relativity . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikeriding Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) "Huh? You're comparing Christianity with physics? Christianity is a load of shit, time travel is something made up in Sci-Fi which may or may not be theoretically possible. But then you're talking about relativity, the possibility of travelling faster than the speed of light, the bending of time by gravity etc.I'm pretty sure what I described (poorly) about the plane thing has been tested and proven using atomic clocks..."bending of time? what do you define time as to come to that conclusion? I think some of this stuff is way overthought Edited June 13, 2009 by ilikeriding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 bending of time? what do you define time as to come to that conclusion? I think some of this stuff is way overthoughtrelative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 bending of time? what do you define time as to come to that conclusion?Some of the consequences of general relativity are:*Time goes more slowly in higher gravitational fields. This is called gravitational time dilation.*Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars). *Rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field. *Frame-dragging, in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time around it.Sorry, bending was probably the wrong term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTrialSpaz Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I've heard of the atomic clock experiment. Where two atomic clocks were synchronised and one was put in a bullet train and the other was left stationary and the one in the train returned slightly behind the stationary clock.I think people are misunderstanding time. Believing it to be something we have created in order to understand the world. But time is a functional dimension of the universe which has bearing and meaning and can be affected by things like gravity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 time is a functional dimension of the universe which has bearing and meaning and can be affected by things like gravity.Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Anyone see 'The Da Vinci Shroud' on C5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Shucksmith Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I didn't even realise this topic was still alive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Bowel Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I didn't even realise this topic was still alive...And you come in here calling your self a Christian with that display pic?That's a bit controversial imo.I would say your far from it sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Shucksmith Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 And you come in here calling your self a Christian with that display pic?That's a bit controversial imo.I would say your far from it sadly.Bloody hell, it's a pisstake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Bowel Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Bloody hell, it's a pisstake.That is also blasphemy, I don't think you understand 'being a Christian' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.