Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 In order to make time run forward (or whatever it does) it has to be continous. What makes you say that? Time is continuous according to established physics, but I don't see why it has to be - can't you imagine the universe working like e.g. a cellular automaton, such as Conway's GoL? Nevertheless our universe has not been continous, it started at some point. Unless you're using the word in a non-standard way, "continuous" doesn't mean "without start or end"; according to standard Big Bang cosmology time both is continuous and started at some point. Though the problem here is that I can't figure out how the fuck we came to be at all if we could go infinitely back in time. It would thusly take an infinite amount time for the universe to come into existence. Which is impossible because we are here... no? Again, established physics says that the universe did come into existence, but a priori the fact that we are here doesn't mean the universe had to have come into existence - why couldn't it just have been here forever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 1) Time progresses(?) 2) How can it be both? So time is also just a by-product of the big bang... does pre-time exist? 3) I can't grasp forever/infinite... it took an infinite time for me to be born!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I'm probably just misunderstanding the concept of time. And on top of that asking the wrong the questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I'm starting to feel depressingly stupid right now... hah! the ice-cream gif above sums me up nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 1) Time progresses(?) Sure (well kinda...), but why does it have to be continuous, rather than discrete, to progress? 2) How can it be both? Well, consider the real numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive. They're continuous, in that there are no "gaps" between numbers (to be more precise they're topologically connected), but they have a start and end. So time is also just a by-product of the big bang... does pre-time exist? I don't know what you mean by "pre-time"; note that if time started with the Big Bang then it's not really meaningful to talk about "before", since that suggests an earlier time. 3) I can't grasp forever/infinite... it took an infinite time for me to be born!? Why do you say that? It surely didn't. I'm probably just misunderstanding the concept of time. Well if it makes you feel any better, nobody completely understands time. We know what role it plays in our theories of physics, and those theories seem to work, but AFAIK there's no definite answer to the question of why we experience time the way we do, namely as something that progresses. This may turn out to be explained by the working of our brains or it may turn out that some fundamental component is missing from our understanding of physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 why would it not be meaningful to talk about the time (whatever!?) before big bang? our universe as it is now just started at random from absolutely nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radi6404 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Well? They are a page back in this thread. ouroboros, you know how much I know about the so called physical reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 hello radi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 They are a page back in this thread. But none of those is in portrait mode? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 why would it not be meaningful to talk about the time (whatever!?) before big bang? Because "before" usually means at an earlier time, but if time started with the Big Bang then there is no earlier time than the Big Bang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 what you are saying right now rotwang is quite literally the most humbling thing ever... for something to start does it not need time? time just becomes relevant when something starts? could you suggest me some literature in this subject? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergi Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 whatever "starts" is... that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radi6404 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 But none of those is in portrait mode? Well there is the problem, The pictures in portrait mode have vertical lines instead of horizontal lines, and I don`t have any vertical pictures from that time fo which I showed them first. Still I think you can see the difference in those photos, if you look clear enough at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 time just becomes relevant when something starts? No, I'm not saying that. The way it works, very roughly, is that General Relativity treats spacetime as a four-dimensional curved differentiable manifold. Time is just one of the dimesions. The manifold ends at the Big Bang, as far as we know. could you suggest me some literature in this subject? I'm afraid not, I learned about it from lectures as well as a few books, but I can't think of a single book that I'd really recommend as an introduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Well there is the problem, The pictures in portrait mode have vertical lines instead of horizontal lines Which is what I predicted in post #27 based on my guess that the lines were caused by a smear on the lens. So it sounds like the evidence suggests that the smeared lens theory is more likely than the psychic motherboard theory, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radi6404 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Which is what I predicted in post #27 based on my guess that the lines were caused by a smear on the lens. So it sounds like the evidence suggests that the smeared lens theory is more likely than the psychic motherboard theory, doesn't it? Not really, because there will always be some smear on the lens, just as we see it on the eyes, do you think I am arguing with that? But at the pictures of that day you can see that the smear is different. The horizontal lines are siginificantly thinner and longer to the right side than on the pics of yesterday, don`t you think? Ofcourse the camera will record smear, but when the light is bended, the smear will be different as obvious on those pictures. We can search for further evidence about those pictures and see, whether other pictures from that time show the same thin lines. If not, reality could be different for anyone or your theory can be true, I don`t know. But if I were you, I would carefully look at the differences on the pictures and ask myself, why the smear is so different on the pictures on that day compared to the pictures of yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 But at the pictures of that day you can see that the smear is different. The horizontal lines are siginificantly thinner and longer to the right side than on the pics of yesterday, don`t you think? Ofcourse the camera will record smear, but when the light is bended, the smear will be different as obvious on those pictures. We can search for further evidence about those pictures and see, whether other pictures from that time show the same thin lines. If not, reality could be different for anyone or your theory can be true, I don`t know. But if I were you, I would carefully look at the differences on the pictures and ask myself, why the smear is so different on the pictures on that day compared to the pictures of yesterday. Perhaps because the lens has been touched in the time between when the two sets of photos were taken? Anyway, I thought your point was that the light being bent towards you from the region where lines appear either side of the lamps was a real phenomenon, rather than just the result of lens flare, wasn't it? But if that were the case then why would the lines become vertical when you photographed them in portrait mode? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouroboros Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 They are a page back in this thread. ouroboros, you know how much I know about the so called physical reality? i only know what i read here radi, but using the phrase "so called physical reality", speaks volumes on its own. the lens flare has now been explained to you by several people, you have been shown other examples of it, the experiment of taking pictures in portrait mode showed exactly what it should have if the dirty/scratched lens hypothesis was right, not to mention the utter ridiculousness of your original claim. everything points to a simple lens flare and not a magic piece of old computer hardware...and still you refuse to hear anything. im not a psychiatrist, but radi you are showing classic signs of a delusional psychiatric disorder. i said it before and ill say it again: go see a doctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radi6404 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don`t understand exactly what you mean, but you should not disregard the fact that the pictures where taken with the same camera, the same settings and within the same lighting conditions, yet they are different. Support for my theory is, that all pictures taken last year have that long stroke to the right, but all pictures from yesterday have a thicker line that is almost centric, having almost the same lengh in both directions. m not a psychiatrist, but radi you are showing classic signs of a delusional psychiatric disorder. i said it before and ill say it again: go see a doctor My mind is perfectly clear, I am just not as closeminded and try to explain everything with ordinary explanations, based on today´s science. I know what I experienced and I am just looking for an answer. Your suggestion that my mind is not clear, is not just wrong, but very insultive aswell. You use harsh words, altough I don`recall doing that to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don`t understand exactly what you mean, but you should not disregard the fact that the pictures where taken with the same camera, the same settings and within the same lighting conditions, yet they are different. Support for my theory is, that all pictures taken last year have that long stroke to the right, but all pictures from yesterday have a thicker line that is almost centric, having almost the same lengh in both directions. If the lens has been wiped since last year then it will have different surface ridges which will give rise to differently-shaped halos around lights. You can test this - find a cloth that's designed for cleaning glasses or lenses (don't use a regular cloth or tissue, you could damage the lens) and give it a wipe, then take some more photos. You'll probably find that the stroke of light will have changed shape again. I predict that if you wipe the lens from side to side rather than up and down then the stroke will end up vertical (though it may not if e.g. there are vertical ridges in the lens due to the manufacturing process or something). My mind is perfectly clear, I am just not as closeminded and try to explain everything with ordinary explanations, based on today´s science. But you reject perfectly adequate explanations based on today's science. That's not open-mindedness, it's just a different kind of closed-mindedness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radi6404 Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Rotwang, I understand what you mean, but the lens hasn´t been wiped since last year and it is clean anyway. I took so many photos with the lens and there are no signs of blur when the lightning conditions are good, and even if the lens is not clean, I have not cleaned it since last year on April. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 So then do the experiment and post the results. 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.