Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If time stood still, would we know it?

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:47:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

it seem that if you knew how time stops, one might know. to be honest, I didn't know it was moving. It would seem considering the lives lived in the earth that one runs out of the use of time. but time continues to be.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:41:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
How does time itself move? Other things can move through time, but how does time move through time?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 4:37:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm not sure that I quitecget what time stopping means, but I'm imagining it as all change ceaseing like freeze frame in movie. In that case you wouldn't know it because brain function depends on electrochemical changes happening between neurones.

I'll add that when time 'slows down' due to relativistic effects the effect is only visible to a distant observer. If you are travelling at near light speed i will see your clock run slow but you won't because your brain slows down too.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 5:11:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.
Name one thing that there is a casual nexus between it and time, then I'll answer your question.
Historically speaking time is the invention of ancient Eqyptians who noticed a shadow is cast by an upright standing object in a fix place. The shadow was merely tracked in essentially a circle during the day and it was assumed the "circular motion" moved consistently throughout the night. Then an actual circle was drawn to map the path of the shadow and later increments were used to define differing positions of the shadow. Sundials are an obvious reduction from the original obelisks, then later clocks with circular faces, duh, took the place of sundials. So if you define time as its actually defined, the tracking of the Earth rotating on its axis and around the sun, then yes people would notice if the Earth stopped spinning on its axis. If you define time some other way then it doesn't exist.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 5:20:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:37:44 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I'm not sure that I quitecget what time stopping means, but I'm imagining it as all change ceaseing like freeze frame in movie. In that case you wouldn't know it because brain function depends on electrochemical changes happening between neurones.

I'll add that when time 'slows down' due to relativistic effects the effect is only visible to a distant observer. If you are travelling at near light speed i will see your clock run slow but you won't because your brain slows down too.
Do you have any scientific bases for this mumbo jumbo?
Can you prove a person could even see anything if they were traveling near light speed?
Can you prove humans could even build a device that can propel a human near light speeds?
Can you prove a human could even survive traveling at this speed?
It sounds like you've bought into the confusing cause and effect fallacy of clocks move because time moves them. Mine moves because of a wound up spring. I have another that moves because of shifting counter weights. And yet another that moves because of the electricity coming out of an electrical plug. Where can I get one of your magical clocks that move via time moving it?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 7:00:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I have never in my life measured the speed of light to verify the accepted value, and never, ever seen time dilation happen.

But I believe (in the sense one tiny,tiny step down from know) that moving clocks run slow because many years ago (about 40 when I think about it) I spent a pleasant afternoon reading about sr, taking my time (!) To makr sure I got it, drawing my own diagrams and what have you. For about a week I felt extremely superior to the plebs who'd only heard of relativity but didn't really know what it meant.

That sense of superiority lasted about a week when I tried to understand gr, which to this day I have only a sketchy idea of!

The point is have bought into it, because I've checked the argument for it. The argument for sr is so compelling it overcame the problem of being contrary to my experience and intuition. I can't make a better argument for sr than the ones easily found on the net which you have presumably already considered and rejected so i won't try to change you mind about sr. I am only interested in changing you mind that I am some sort of gullible fool to believe it is true.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 7:12:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 5:20:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Can you prove humans could even build a device that can propel a human near light speeds?
Can you prove a human could even survive traveling at this speed?

SR doesn't say a human can travel at the speed of light. That's funny. I thought SR said it would take an infinite amount of energy to propel a massive particle to the speed of light. But I guess that doesn't mean it's impossible, and there might be things like particles with "imaginary" mass instead of "positive".
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 7:20:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
And it would take an extremely large amount of energy to propel a human to "near" (how near? lol) the speed of light.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 9:48:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
But it doesn't take vast amount of energy to accelerate a radioactive nucleus such as tritium to 99.999% of light speed. When such experiments are done the nuclei take longer to decay.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 9:52:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Yeah but that doesn't really help you get a human to that speed. That's great if I could shrink myself to the mass. I guess it's possible, if there are enough layers of subatomic particles. lol
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 9:57:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

http://www.memebucket.com...
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:06:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

There was a young lady called White,
Who could travel much faster than light.
She set off one day,
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:40:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:37:44 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I'm not sure that I quitecget what time stopping means, but I'm imagining it as all change ceaseing like freeze frame in movie. In that case you wouldn't know it because brain function depends on electrochemical changes happening between neurones.

I'll add that when time 'slows down' due to relativistic effects the effect is only visible to a distant observer. If you are travelling at near light speed i will see your clock run slow but you won't because your brain slows down too.

Thanks. At least one person gets the question.
Correct on both counts. If time stops or slows down our perception of time passing would keep pace, therefore we would not know it.

How do you measure speed in a universe where everything is moving? The Earth moves around the Sun, which moves around the Galaxy, which moves through the universe. Stars at the edge of the known universe are moving away from us, faster and faster, or we could say, we are moving away from them. One day we will be moving away from them faster than the speed of light and require no energy on my part.

To those who don't know what time moving means, I started typing this at 4:35pm and its now 4:39pm. 4 minutes has passed. If time had stopped at 4:35pm I would still be sitting with my finger raised above the keyboard.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 7:35:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

I too think it is an obvious no. But, on a different thread, concerning a different subject, the topic of time has come up. It is clear, some people don't understand what time is. When you understand what time is, the answer is an easy no.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 11:02:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 7:12:25 AM, user13579 wrote:
At 4/26/2016 5:20:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Can you prove humans could even build a device that can propel a human near light speeds?
Can you prove a human could even survive traveling at this speed?

SR doesn't say a human can travel at the speed of light. That's funny
Nah, what's funny is someone saying that a human observing a clock while traveling near the speed of light somehow reflects the movement of time.
. I thought SR said it would take an infinite amount of energy to propel a massive particle to the speed of light. But I guess that doesn't mean it's impossible, and there might be things like particles with "imaginary" mass instead of "positive".
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 11:06:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 7:35:20 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

I too think it is an obvious no. But, on a different thread, concerning a different subject, the topic of time has come up. It is clear, some people don't understand what time is. When you understand what time is, the answer is an easy no.
Time can't stand still. Time doesn't stand. The easy answer is the question is nonsensical.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:26:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 11:06:00 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/26/2016 7:35:20 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

I too think it is an obvious no. But, on a different thread, concerning a different subject, the topic of time has come up. It is clear, some people don't understand what time is. When you understand what time is, the answer is an easy no.
Time can't stand still. Time doesn't stand. The easy answer is the question is nonsensical.

If.....time stood still. It's a hypothetical question. If this is beyond your comprehension this is a reflection of your mental ability and not a reflection of the sensibility of the question. I posed the question to hear from those who believe we would be aware of it, if it happened. Not to debate the probability of it happening or why it can't happen. Anyone wishing to debate the latter, please start your own thread.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:40:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 9:26:28 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 4/26/2016 11:06:00 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/26/2016 7:35:20 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

I too think it is an obvious no. But, on a different thread, concerning a different subject, the topic of time has come up. It is clear, some people don't understand what time is. When you understand what time is, the answer is an easy no.
Time can't stand still. Time doesn't stand. The easy answer is the question is nonsensical.

If.....time stood still. It's a hypothetical question. If this is beyond your comprehension this is a reflection of your mental ability and not a reflection of the sensibility of the question. I posed the question to hear from those who believe we would be aware of it, if it happened. Not to debate the probability of it happening or why it can't happen. Anyone wishing to debate the latter, please start your own thread.
It's apparently beyond your comprehension why it's nonsensical.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? This is analogous to your question. Do you honestly believe it's philosophical? It's an imponderable. Just thought you should be aware of the difference between philosophy and fantasy. You've always had compelling insights and this honestly seemed like tongue and cheek to me. Didn't mean to piss on the parade.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:57:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
The reason I mentioned time dilation in my answer is that 'time standing still' could be considered the limiting case. A clock moving at light speed would appear to stand still (to a distant observer) and meone traveling with the clock would appear to be in complete suspended animation.
Of course the clocks companion wouldn't know the clock has stopped because from his perspective it hasnt slowed down or stopped but keeps perfect time of one second per second!
As usual relativity makes my brain hurt so I'm going to think about some real science like xsurface tension, or pin hole cameras.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:41:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 9:57:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
The reason I mentioned time dilation in my answer is that 'time standing still' could be considered the limiting case. A clock moving at light speed would appear to stand still (to a distant observer) and meone traveling with the clock would appear to be in complete suspended animation.
Of course the clocks companion wouldn't know the clock has stopped because from his perspective it hasnt slowed down or stopped but keeps perfect time of one second per second!
O And taking the battery out of a clock stops it completely and all someone has to do is walk at 1 mph up to the clock to pull the Duracell.. Ain't science fun?
"Of course the clocks companion" yeah, of course. And you have proof of this via what scientific experiment? Hint, scientific experiment with time entails time actually being observed and experimented on etc....not an experiment where time is in the title but not actually in the experiment. Hint, atomic clocks are, well clocks, they don't constitute time. Seriously you people who worship your time god are entertaining.
As usual relativity makes my brain hurt so I'm going to think about some real science like xsurface tension, or pin hole cameras.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 1:16:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I nearly posted something identical to what I said before. Instead I will only say that if you are right I will pay for a tee shirt with ' I told you so' across the chest on big gold letters for you to wear.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:58:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 1:16:45 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I nearly posted something identical to what I said before. Instead I will only say that if you are right I will pay for a tee shirt with ' I told you so' across the chest on big gold letters for you to wear.

Lol. If I'm right, we will never know it. But thanks anyway.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:20:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 11:06:00 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/26/2016 7:35:20 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

I too think it is an obvious no. But, on a different thread, concerning a different subject, the topic of time has come up. It is clear, some people don't understand what time is. When you understand what time is, the answer is an easy no.
Time can't stand still. Time doesn't stand. The easy answer is the question is nonsensical.
Time is the organizing of moments, the repletion of events, entropy. In order for you to experience anything, these events must take place. When time stops (aka these events stop) your experience stops. If time where to stop, you stop.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:24:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 12:20:58 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/26/2016 11:06:00 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/26/2016 7:35:20 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:31:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
I thought the answer would be pretty obvious but apparently there are some people who say yes.

I would love to hear your reasoning if you are one of them.

I too think it is an obvious no. But, on a different thread, concerning a different subject, the topic of time has come up. It is clear, some people don't understand what time is. When you understand what time is, the answer is an easy no.
Time can't stand still. Time doesn't stand. The easy answer is the question is nonsensical.
Time is the organizing of moments, the repletion of events, entropy. In order for you to experience anything, these events must take place. When time stops (aka these events stop) your experience stops. If time where to stop, you stop.
Nice argumentum ad nauseam as usual. The organizing of moments and depletion of events is circular logic. People recognize events as happening and document them with arbitrary "definitions" of moments known as dates. The difference between Aug, 14th 2016 and Aug 15th, 2017 is that the Earth has completed one revolution of its path around the sun. That is an explanation and has explanatory value that isn't circular reasoning. Saying what you say has no explanatory value, it simply is illogical.
Entropy is explained scientifically and no "time" has ever been witnessed or proven as the cause, you do know what causal nexus is correct? Your argument here is confusing cause and effect.
Nice try but your attempt at an explanation isn't logical.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:10:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think there is actually a definite answer to this.

Absolute Zero is the temperature where everything freezes. There is literally no motion going on.

Now, observing absolute zero is impossible, because for something to reach that temperature, the simple act of observing it would raise the temperature! It would literally be in violation of causality for something to be at absolute zero, because it would have to be disconnected from the rest of the universe. Scientists have been trying to reach absolute zero for a while now, and I believe it to be impossible for this reason.

Now if you were to actually freeze time, that would by definition mean that the temperature of everything would be frozen at absolute zero. If this was the case, it wouldn't be possible for consciousness to exist, because for consciousness to exist there has to be some type of interaction. If everything is at absolute zero, there is no interaction. If there is an interaction going on, the temperature would be above absolute zero, and time wouldn't truly be frozen still.

I believe this is probably the most scientific answer.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 8:15:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Another analogy is to imagine we are in a simulated reality being observed by a super-powerful alien. If the alien hits the pause button so he can have a cup of rigellian coffee we wouldn't know it. We'd just pick up where we left off as if nothong had happened when the program restarts.

I don't think we are in a simulation. The above is a thought experiment to give a(possibly)useful way to understand what time stopping or freezing time means.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 8:43:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:10:59 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I think there is actually a definite answer to this.

Absolute Zero is the temperature where everything freezes. There is literally no motion going on.

Now, observing absolute zero is impossible, because for something to reach that temperature, the simple act of observing it would raise the temperature! It would literally be in violation of causality for something to be at absolute zero, because it would have to be disconnected from the rest of the universe. Scientists have been trying to reach absolute zero for a while now, and I believe it to be impossible for this reason.

Now if you were to actually freeze time, that would by definition mean that the temperature of everything would be frozen at absolute zero. If this was the case, it wouldn't be possible for consciousness to exist, because for consciousness to exist there has to be some type of interaction. If everything is at absolute zero, there is no interaction. If there is an interaction going on, the temperature would be above absolute zero, and time wouldn't truly be frozen still.
this is circular reasoning. you simply are saying time moves so if we were to stop time from moving nothing could exist to observe time not moving so we cant stop time from moving and prove it. You start with the baseless assertion "time moves" or time is responsible for movement.
I believe this is probably the most scientific answer.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 9:45:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I would know time stood still through my eternal soul. My soul exists outside time and so cannot be affected by its standing still. What God created ,(the soul) is not touched and corrupted by time as are the makings of nature(the body).

So if time stood still (as it did for Joshua so he could slay the enemies of the lord), I would surely know it, and praise God for holding back its flow with his mighty hand. I would ptaise with all my heart, as he has a nasty habit if turning people onto salt if they don't.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 10:25:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 9:45:03 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I would know time stood still through my eternal soul. My soul exists outside time and so cannot be affected by its standing still. What God created ,(the soul) is not touched and corrupted by time as are the makings of nature(the body).

So if time stood still (as it did for Joshua so he could slay the enemies of the lord), I would surely know it, and praise God for holding back its flow with his mighty hand. I would ptaise with all my heart, as he has a nasty habit if turning people onto salt if they don't.

How would the soul know that time is standing still, if the soul is not affected by time? Just knowing that time is standing still is an effect of time standing still!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."