Is it that time?

supersoul · Post by **supersoul** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:00 pm

From an email I got through the mail:

CERN, Geneva
Speed of light slowing as time speeds up?
Scientists are at loggerheads about details leaked from an unpublished paper which suggests that time is speeding up.

The leaked paper is causing a stir even before it becomes officially available. Apparently the theory has been suggested by another non-celebrity in the scientific world, much like Peter Lynds, whose paper on the nature of time upset scientists and physicists alike. Only this time it is an Autralian who is apparently at the centre of the dispute.

According to a source, the contention of the theory apparently is that a shrinking time dimension explains the so-called redshifting aspect much more satisfactory, which cosmologists have been wholly attributing to relative speeds between diverging parts of the universe.

The mathematics have not been verified, but it is enough to note that none of the big names in the scientific community is willing to comment at this stage.

Sources say the implication of the theory is being looked at by scientist sceptically because it would mean that the speed of light is slowing at a discernable rate. It has been suggested that the speed of light decreased shortly after the Big Bang by previous theories, but mainly because the conditions of the embrionic universe some nanoseconds after the Big Bang were so extreme that dimensions were unsettled.

CERN PRESS RELEASES

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:02 am

It would make sense that photons of light would slow down over time like any other particle, but time is fixed. By the way, Einstein was wrong about his theory that time passes at a different rate when moving faster. That is ridiculous and every experiment done to "prove" his theory has been flawed by one missed concept - the forces on a body in motion increase (even at atomic and sub-atomic levels) as the speed increases. Just because atoms move more slowly (slowing clocks and even the aging process) does not mean that time moves more slowly. That's like saying that time stops when the battery in your watch goes dead.

As for the speed of light itself slowing down, I believe the speed of light is not really a constant. It should take longer to get through more resistance. Pardon the pun, but does that mean the universe is getting more dense?

BTW, your link is missing - only the text overlay remained with unused HTML

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:42 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:That's like saying that time stops when the battery in your watch goes dead.

You're assuming here that outside the watch there are always many other ways to measure time. But in Einstein's thinking, such mechanism is not postulated for the sub-atomic realm. Time is the measurement, and therefore relative.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:59 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:It would make sense that photons of light would slow down over time like any other particle, but time is fixed.

Photons are massless particles, how could they slow down?

Just because atoms move more slowly (slowing clocks and even the aging process) does not mean that time moves more slowly. That's like saying that time stops when the battery in your watch goes dead.

Ah, but when the battery in your head goes dead [at death]...

The Universe is the mind; time is consciousness; consciousness is thought; thought is the interplay of sub-atomic particles.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:08 am

Steven Coyle wrote:Photons are massless particles

Just because you can't measure the mass of a photon today does not mean that it's massless.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:10 am

Steven Coyle wrote:Ah, but when the battery in your head goes dead...

(Not your head, per se)

The Universe is the mind; time is consciousness; consciousness is thought; thought is the interplay of sub-atomic particles.

What if time overlays the universe?
.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:17 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Steven Coyle wrote:Photons are massless particles
Just because you can't measure the mass of a photon today does not mean that it's massless.

A photon's zero mass would explain the speed of light though - as a constant.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:19 am

Time is of the whole universe, but science attempts to operate from the physical universe, which has limitations. There are things from the whole universe that are indirectly measureable and observable from the physical universe, such as time, math, and life - but we mustn't limit ourselves to the physical plane of reality when looking for ultimate truth. We must, however, recognize our limitations imposed on us by the physical plane of reality or we won't recognize the distortions the physical plane makes on ultimate truth.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:21 am

Steven Coyle wrote:A photon's zero mass would explain the speed of light though - as a constant.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I believe the speed of light is not really a constant.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:28 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Steven Coyle wrote:Ah, but when the battery in your head goes dead...

(Not your head, per se)

The Universe is the mind; time is consciousness; consciousness is thought; thought is the interplay of sub-atomic particles.
What if time overlays the universe?
.

But, without a mind, there is no time.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:17 am

Steven Coyle wrote:But, without a mind, there is no time.

Would there be no time or merely nothing to perceive it? Kind of a revisit of the tree falling in a forest and no one there to hear it, does it make a sound question.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:25 am

Even if we define the universe as everything there is, we can still ask what could still exist as it does without any other part of the universe. Time can exist independant of everything else, there would merely be no way to measure it. Just because something is immesurable does not mean that it does not exist; it indicates a lack of the appropriate measurment device, or a lack of ability (meaning intelligence or level of discovery) to measure it.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:39 am

But, without a mind, there is no time.

Let me rephrase that -

Without a perceiving mind, time can not exist.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:04 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Time can exist independant of everything else, there would merely be no way to measure it. Just because something is immesurable does not mean that it does not exist; it indicates a lack of the appropriate measurment device, or a lack of ability (meaning intelligence or level of discovery) to measure it.

There are so many things that cannot be measured, in any empirical sense. But one can logically reason out a lot, like the unmovable fact that anything that is independent of everything else cannot exist, ever, by its very own definition as well the definition of existing. Try to reason this out, I can assure you it can be done and is rather enlightening.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:16 am

Elizabeth wrote:

...but time is fixed.

Yeah. Fixed to your position in space-time...

.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:17 am

Steven Coyle wrote: Without a perceiving mind, time can not exist.

We disagree.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:24 am

Leyla Shen wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

...but time is fixed.
Yeah. Fixed to your position in space-time...

.

lol

(sorry, that was funny...)

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:26 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Steven Coyle wrote: Without a perceiving mind, time can not exist.
We disagree.

True.

:)

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:30 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:like the unmovable fact that anything that is independent of everything else cannot exist, ever, by its very own definition as well the definition of existing.

By that definition, the totality can not exist because there is nothing outside of everything.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:19 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:like the unmovable fact that anything that is independent of everything else cannot exist, ever, by its very own definition as well the definition of existing.
By that definition, the totality can not exist because there is nothing outside of everything.

"Nothing" does not exist when you place it outside everything. "Totality" is a non-dual concept, while "nothing" is dualistic. The first is boundless, the second one is limited.