Is now for me the same as now for you?

[alvask8er]

i mean, everybody can be shown how long a mile is, or how much a gallon of water is, or feel how heavy 100 pounds is, but nobody can be shown a second, minute, or hour. we just measure time to keep order in society by setting appointments and making sure we dont do something for too long.

It seems to me you contradicted yourself...^^

If no one can be shown a second or a minute, then how can they be shown a gallon? Yes, you could fill a gallon jug of water, and there it is right? You can also use a stopwatch to show time. Man created the gallon. Its just measured to keep order in society by making sure how much there is. Same with every other measurement. Humans need to know basiclly everything around them to the extreme. That is why we made up all these measurements.

[The_Q]

Time isn't real in the first place. Time is just a measurement of duration. Duration, being the fourth dimension, is really an interesting thing to think about. Pictures of a boy as he ages is like a cross section of the boy's duration. See? I don't quite understand it myself, but time is an interesting thing to me. Another thought. Is there really a present? By the moment when the past start, the future is already in place. And the present has nowhere to go. It's always absent. Weird. No time. Excuse my ramblings.

Q

[jewpinthethird]

I dont know if this has anything to do with the thread. But sometimes when I say now (ex. Yes, I will clean my room now) I really mean: No, I will never clean my room, ever.

[SotN]

Time isn't real in the first place. Time is just a measurement of duration. Duration, being the fourth dimension, is really an interesting thing to think about. Pictures of a boy as he ages is like a cross section of the boy's duration.

Now, is time a measurement of duration, or is duration an expression of time?

</ChewOnThatForAwhile>

[themanwithsauce]

Here's a kinda wierd thought, the present can never exist because when you realize what just happened it is in the past. So even if you begin to get out describing what now is to someone, your description of the present then becomes what is in their present but it was once your present...Or something like that but the point is the present will never truly exist to the definition of present as "What is happening in this exact moment of time" (note that this is not a dictionary definition just something i threw together in 5 seconds)

[The_Q]

Number one...someone stole my post and reworded it. Damn you. Number two...someone quoted and countered me. Hell yes. Been waiting for that kind of recogintion for a long fuggin' time. Finally, about the time and duration definitions. Time: the measurement of duration. Of something durates for 6 years, the amount of TIME it existed was 6 years. Duration is simply the actual 4th dimension. All we need is a way to dut it and we get time travel! That's a big If Only, though.

Q

[IronMonk]

your logic is hardly acceptable. true time is the 4th dimention. but in order for time travle we have no frigging clue how to do it, but to presume that simply to cut it, [ i assume thats what you mean by dut] will allow time travle is just plain stupid.

and for there being a present. the only thing that could be considdered as present would be your thoughts. as all your preseptions require time [ie the objects you see are not as they are now. they are as they were when the light was relected off of them.]

you wanted recognition, here it is. you think too highly of yourself in the philisophical sence. there are always one or two people like you in a croud. you dont know much on the topic but feel the need to comment upon it regardless of your knowlage.

and to get back to the main topic, now would only be the same for you as someone else if they were in the same frame of referance, see: theory of realitivity.

[The_Q]

You are correct in the sense (note my proper spelling) that I know very little in the means of quantum physics...then again, the field is not technically an acknowledged field of serious study. I also said that all we would need to do us "cut" time. It was a metaphor to the first three dimensions that everyone else is very sure about. Length, Width, and Depth are what we all see and feel. Making an allusion to it was just to help the readers follow what I was saying. One more thing about your arguement against me that was even partially supported by facts or opinions was that thoughts are the only things that can take place in the present. Thoughts are caused by electricity running through cells. The fact that electicity is moving electrons tells us that thought also take a certain duration to be completed, even if the duration is very short. While I wrote this, I felt the need to clarify another thing. What I meant by time travel is instantaneous travel, not travel through duration, be it forward or backward.

I am sorry you feel this way about me. I wish I could turn around and say the same to you, but I don't like to put down other people on a forum that discusses important things. Before you try to destroy someone, please use good counter points and use them instead of trying to make the author look bad. Thank you.

To the rest of you, I apologize for thread hijacking, I guess I did get off topic.

[evilbutterfly]

time travel wouldnt work, and would be highly dangerous. i mean, u cant just get rid of a distance and move 3 miles at a time, so why would u be able to just remove a few years and go forward in time? that is, of course, assuming time is a real thing and not just something we made up. then again, we made up distance, too, so idunno. i'm getting confused again. this is why i dont post here (@.@)

[Jordy0823]

This kind of reminds me of a thought that i have about colors...
Say what I see as yellow... you may see as what i call green.. and call it yellow...
If you dont understand just re-read and think about it for a while..

[Chrissi]

This kind of reminds me of a thought that i have about colors...
Say what I see as yellow... you may see as what i call green.. and call it yellow...
If you dont understand just re-read and think about it for a while..

A really nice thought, but wrong. Different colours have different wavelengths of light. Ever seen a rainbow? It won't fit together any other way. All the colours ARE what they are...

Besides, blue plus yellow equals green. If somebody else sees yellow as a different colour, i.e. green, they're gonna mix green and blue and aren't gonna end up with green. That was a crap way to explain it, but maybe you see what I mean.

People who can't see the colours correctly are completely or partially colourblind. Other than that, the colours ARE the colours. There's nothing relative about them.

[evilbutterfly]

my only question is: if they dont see the colors, what do they see? i think i heard that people who are red-green colorblind see both colors as brown. but wouldnt that make them red-green-brown colorblind? and what the hell are they gonna do in christmas time?!

[The_Q]

The colors thing is gorgeous. It really does explain it very well. We all do see colors similarly, generally speaking, but those who don't may be slightly diffent physically. Also, evil, to clarify. I had said near the end of my points that I meant instantaneous travel. Travel in 3 dimensions that takes no time. Just pop and you're there. Time machine sort of things are impossible. That's another topic for another thread, though.

[evilbutterfly]

but u called it time travel...since when are teleporters called time travel devices?

[The_Q]

I'm sorry for the confusion. The fact that I named it incorrectly doesn't disprove it though. It's not necesarrily a teleporter either. It's just s vehicle, it could be a cardboard box for all we care, that can travel faster than light. Thus creating instantaneous travel. I meant to call it No Time Travel. Could you drop it now so we can stay on topic? I'd love to continue my ideas in another thread some other day.

Q