QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Mar 14 2007, 07:48 AM)
ArchAngel, you are consistently making replies to comments you clearly do not properly understand, using theories and terminology which you clearly do not understand either.
Time Dilation is a prediction of the theories of relativity. Fact. Granted, it was found to be truth, but not before Einstein's theories were also accepted as truth.
Time Dilation HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PERCEPTION, for the -third- time.
Let's see if you can wrap your head around this one, shall we?
You say that energy has always existed, some of it has always been kinetic.
Assuming we accept that as true, you then go on to use it as proof of the non-creation of time.
Your reasoning for this is that because kinetic energy has always existed, and kinetic energy relies on time to exist, therefore time has also always existed.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Before time began, there was a nothingness so absolute your mind is incapable of comprehending it. Before time began, there was no absence of energy, there was simply nothing. There was not a single thing, nor was there the absence of a single thing. There was complete and utter nothing. Thus, as soon as time began, it had always been there, because before it was there, there was nothing.
Are you getting it yet?
The beginning of time was something we have no word for. It was an event where absolute nothing went to absolute everything in an instant. But as soon as it happened, it had always been there. Creation is insufficient. It was... genesis, perhaps a better word, but still inadequate.
To summarise, time has always been around. Consider ten seconds after the big bang. Those ten seconds are "always".
Because before the big bang there was nothing.
Time dilation has everything to do with the perception of time.
If time is inconsistent to everything in and of itself, then it itself is an inconsistent continuum. The space-time continuum accurately represents the flux in the time dimension according to gravitational dilation, but dilation of speed is totally different creating even more inconsistencies.
Think of it this way... If you are living in a machine that rockets through space at near the speed of light, ignoring the consequences of that besides time dilation, time is a totally different aspect of life than it would be if you were living a life down here. Time dilation can be applied to our lives.
Now... let's get this through your head. It must be sore after banging it against this brick wall called the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
Law of the Conservation of Energy.
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
http://www.britannic...n-law#5519.hookThat is absolute. Therefore energy always existed. The Big Bang created the existence of energy in the form of matter. -Before- the Big Bang, there was no matter. Therefore, by the process of elimination, there had to be kinetic energy.
Kinetic.
Motion.
The motion of nothing.
But energy existed.
Therefore, time must have been there to compliment it.
Ink, I have no problem with your ideas except for your assumption that at one point the energy wasn't there. Therefore, it must have been created, but it can't be. Back to the law of the conservation of energy up there...
I agree with the rest of your logic tho. Tis perfectly sensible. I especially enjoyed the program analogy.
-edit
Also, I hate the word sulfur..
They're fuckin stupid for doing that.
I learned it the english way first. xD
Edited by ArchAngel., 14 March 2007 - 05:26 PM.