Silk Road forums

Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: GoodShitExplorer on January 16, 2013, 11:26 pm

Title: Junk
Post by: GoodShitExplorer on January 16, 2013, 11:26 pm
Junk
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: missunshine143 on January 16, 2013, 11:52 pm
Time does not exist. It's a man-made invention to make us feel better about our lives. if you said "I spent 3 hours studying yesterday", you'd feel accomplished. however, time itself does not exist. yes. the sun goes up and down but we have no idea how long it takes, how many days in a year, or how long a year really is.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: Strickland Cocaine on January 16, 2013, 11:59 pm
It really is illusory.

How does "time pass," if it is always right now? Weird....
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: Knomo on January 17, 2013, 12:02 am
Time does not exist. It's a man-made invention to make us feel better about our lives. if you said "I spent 3 hours studying yesterday", you'd feel accomplished. however, time itself does not exist. yes. the sun goes up and down but we have no idea how long it takes, how many days in a year, or how long a year really is.

I feel almost the same, but time has not only been 'invented' to make us feel better. It's been designed to structure a day so it is possible to meet with someone at an appointed hour.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: wretched on January 17, 2013, 12:11 am
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff

or so I've been told :)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: awhiteknight on January 17, 2013, 12:29 am
It's the direction through the universe in which entropy increases. If you take a place in space and time, anywhere in the universe and go forwards along the time axis, shit generally gets messier (less ordered) and it therefore takes more information to describe what you see (more entropy). Whether it's water evaporating into the atmosphere or heat from the sun stretching out across the solar system, entropy is increasing in the positive time direction.

There's no good reason for the universe to give a fuck about "before" and "after", that has more to do with our direction of travel, it would make more sense for the universe to just be there filled with all sorts of befores and afters and nows as a 4-dimensional probability cloud which we are sliding through along the time axis. This suggests that being conscious has something to do with there being more choices in the future than there are in the past, it would be much easier to predict the future if time was going the other way. So maybe we feel like we're travelling "forwards" through time because that's the way that we can predict and bring order to (thereby changing) the chaos.

For a less deep answer, time can also be described as "one damned thing after another"
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: kmfkewm on January 17, 2013, 12:46 am
The technical definition of time is the measurement of change
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: kmfkewm on January 17, 2013, 12:48 am
and it is quite precisely measured by observing the decay of radioactive matter
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: ch0sen on January 17, 2013, 12:52 am
Time is the 4th dimension.  But, if time is money, then can money be the 5th dimension?
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: redalloverthelandguyhere on January 17, 2013, 12:53 am
It is what is called in a pub or bar!

Time ladies and gentlemen please

Time is not to be wasted - we should be wasted and are wasting time thinking about it!

 ;D
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: wavelength on January 17, 2013, 12:56 am
time is literally defined by the earths gravitional pull/how fast it is spinning im pretty sure.
so time, is in itself irrelevant to anything that didnt create it.
other planets would have different time, days would last different amounts of "time", years and days wouldnt meet up the same way they do for us.
but in essence, time is just a measurement system.
a manmade measurement system based on how many times the sun shows itself to us (loosely), and how many times we revolve around the sun.
but i think the sun it self is spinning around something else, so im sure that is contributing to our gravity/time as well.
time is an interesting concept no doubt but its limiting in a way.
now one thing that does come to mind when we talk about time is what i think is called circadian rythms.
your body trains itself to get tired at a certain time, wake up at a certain time, do your routines, etc.
its based on the rising and falling of the sun and thats  proven.
your brain releases melatonin when your eyes are cut off from light for periods of time.(unless you are high on something of course)
and man made lights havent been around for forever, so back in time people relied on daylight to do things.

im pretty high and just rambling but i think these are all good points to be considered.
society has us so alienated from the Gaian mind...
lets keep talking about this =)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: BarryBarron on January 17, 2013, 01:09 am
It's the direction through the universe in which entropy increases. If you take a place in space and time, anywhere in the universe and go forwards along the time axis, shit generally gets messier (less ordered) and it therefore takes more information to describe what you see (more entropy). Whether it's water evaporating into the atmosphere or heat from the sun stretching out across the solar system, entropy is increasing in the positive time direction.

There's no good reason for the universe to give a fuck about "before" and "after", that has more to do with our direction of travel, it would make more sense for the universe to just be there filled with all sorts of befores and afters and nows as a 4-dimensional probability cloud which we are sliding through along the time axis. This suggests that being conscious has something to do with there being more choices in the future than there are in the past, it would be much easier to predict the future if time was going the other way. So maybe we feel like we're travelling "forwards" through time because that's the way that we can predict and bring order to (thereby changing) the chaos.

For a less deep answer, time can also be described as "one damned thing after another"

It's a really intriguing concept.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: wavelength on January 17, 2013, 03:10 am
time is literally defined by the earths gravitional pull/how fast it is spinning im pretty sure.
so time, is in itself irrelevant to anything that didnt create it.
other planets would have different time, days would last different amounts of "time", years and days wouldnt meet up the same way they do for us.
but in essence, time is just a measurement system.
a manmade measurement system based on how many times the sun shows itself to us (loosely), and how many times we revolve around the sun.
but i think the sun it self is spinning around something else, so im sure that is contributing to our gravity/time as well.
time is an interesting concept no doubt but its limiting in a way.
now one thing that does come to mind when we talk about time is what i think is called circadian rythms.
your body trains itself to get tired at a certain time, wake up at a certain time, do your routines, etc.
its based on the rising and falling of the sun and thats  proven.
your brain releases melatonin when your eyes are cut off from light for periods of time.(unless you are high on something of course)
and man made lights havent been around for forever, so back in time people relied on daylight to do things.

im pretty high and just rambling but i think these are all good points to be considered.
society has us so alienated from the Gaian mind...
lets keep talking about this =)

I think so many ideas are whirling around in your mind right now. But nothing is clear. They are all jumbled up :)

Let's talk when you are not high :)
lol i re-read and a lot of it makes sense if you know what im referring to.

here are very interesting things related to time
circadian rythm : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm

Gravitational time dialation.:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
 (^  how different planets would have a completely different version of time)

sundials:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial
(^relevant to what i said about how all time is based on the sun, loosely)

and here ill just take another quote from wiki
"A year (from Old English gēar) is the orbital period of the Earth moving around the Sun. For an observer on the Earth, this corresponds to the period it takes the Sun to complete one course throughout the zodiac along the ecliptic."

the links should give you plenty of information to ponder on, and its a LOT more organized than my paragraph up there =P

Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: wavelength on January 17, 2013, 03:36 am
time is literally defined by the earths gravitional pull/how fast it is spinning im pretty sure.
so time, is in itself irrelevant to anything that didnt create it.
other planets would have different time, days would last different amounts of "time", years and days wouldnt meet up the same way they do for us.
but in essence, time is just a measurement system.
a manmade measurement system based on how many times the sun shows itself to us (loosely), and how many times we revolve around the sun.
but i think the sun it self is spinning around something else, so im sure that is contributing to our gravity/time as well.
time is an interesting concept no doubt but its limiting in a way.
now one thing that does come to mind when we talk about time is what i think is called circadian rythms.
your body trains itself to get tired at a certain time, wake up at a certain time, do your routines, etc.
its based on the rising and falling of the sun and thats  proven.
your brain releases melatonin when your eyes are cut off from light for periods of time.(unless you are high on something of course)
and man made lights havent been around for forever, so back in time people relied on daylight to do things.

im pretty high and just rambling but i think these are all good points to be considered.
society has us so alienated from the Gaian mind...
lets keep talking about this =)

I think so many ideas are whirling around in your mind right now. But nothing is clear. They are all jumbled up :)

Let's talk when you are not high :)
lol i re-read and a lot of it makes sense if you know what im referring to.

here are very interesting things related to time
circadian rythm : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm

Gravitational time dialation.:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
 (^  how different planets would have a completely different version of time)

sundials:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial
(^relevant to what i said about how all time is based on the sun, loosely)

and here ill just take another quote from wiki
"A year (from Old English gēar) is the orbital period of the Earth moving around the Sun. For an observer on the Earth, this corresponds to the period it takes the Sun to complete one course throughout the zodiac along the ecliptic."

the links should give you plenty of information to ponder on, and its a LOT more organized than my paragraph up there =P



Thanks for those links.

We know different entities (earth, mars, moon or other planetary objects outside our solar system) take different amount of time for completing a full revolution for different kinds of motion they experience (like earth has day, year and few more). Circadian Rythm is another such experience. But they don't tell us what "TIME" is.

Similarly one might experience time dilation under the influence of gravitational pull (like in black hole) or on psychedelics. But they don't tell us what "TIME" is.
its not real, you cant hold it.
its simply an idea.
but robert anton wilson talks about how the universe is made up of non-simultaneously apprehended events, that is obviously something that one cannot deny.
basically saying that everything is split up into "moments", at least in our memory's. nothing would be coherent if it all happened at once. =P

but yeah a lot of what i posted was just what roll time plays in our lives i guess... not what it literally is.

i just had a thought that i think i will stick with though, and that is that,"time is evolution."
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: A Riotous Defect on January 17, 2013, 04:03 am
Well I tend to adhere to the belief that time is less a line and more a tree; each and every event, even the smallest most insignificant events like the unexpected movement of a subatomic particle or something like that branches off into its own new line of time. Therefore, to me, time is not a linear event but a series of diverging and converging paths. I partly believe this because a certain part of me wants to believe that time travel is, in theory, possible, and this belief solves many temporal paradoxes people argue about when they talk about time travel.

I also believe in the multiverse theory where basically beyond the universe, in the 'void' , there are an indefinite amount of constantly shifting plains stacked on top of each other, waving and moving in ( mostly ) synchronous patterns, and universes are formed by the occasional point in which two of these plains connect with each other. For this I sort of believe in a more macro version of my time belief where there are different diverging paths where certain universes aren't even created, or are created differently, so and so and so, etc.

So if you were to go back in time and change something, you would only start a new branch on the tree as opposed to completely changing the future. Likewise, the future you might visit will invalidate itself basically since your presence upsets the natural divergences in time, so when you go back to your own time you can't really rely on the information you receive from the future.

Anyway, that's enough of my batshit theories... I'm just a big science fiction fan, is all. I have faith in science and feel like the capacity of mankind is far more than some people feel it to be.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: northsouth on January 17, 2013, 04:05 am
It's the direction through the universe in which entropy increases. If you take a place in space and time, anywhere in the universe and go forwards along the time axis, shit generally gets messier (less ordered) and it therefore takes more information to describe what you see (more entropy). Whether it's water evaporating into the atmosphere or heat from the sun stretching out across the solar system, entropy is increasing in the positive time direction.

There's no good reason for the universe to give a fuck about "before" and "after", that has more to do with our direction of travel, it would make more sense for the universe to just be there filled with all sorts of befores and afters and nows as a 4-dimensional probability cloud which we are sliding through along the time axis. This suggests that being conscious has something to do with there being more choices in the future than there are in the past, it would be much easier to predict the future if time was going the other way. So maybe we feel like we're travelling "forwards" through time because that's the way that we can predict and bring order to (thereby changing) the chaos.

For a less deep answer, time can also be described as "one damned thing after another"

I second this. What I think is really interesting though, is why we're apparently trapped in this ever-escaping, infinitely small fragment of time defined as 'now'. Consciousness and time have a very profound relationship...
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: DiamondSky on January 17, 2013, 04:09 am
So I wrote this a few weeks ago when I woke up... you know how sometimes you think you know everything at the crack of dawn?

The Universe Is a single atom whose perceived multiplication creates the perception of time.

I woke up this morning with a deep and profound understanding that space, time and mater were all abstract manifestations of a singular quantum structure. That there was no multiplicity to the existence of creation, no big bang, no separation or differential distinction between identified parts.

A total fundamental shift in my perception of the universe from that of infinitely diverse parts parts creating a whole, to that of a singular speck of nothing whose movement creates what we perceive as time and that through our perception of time we view this singularities evolution as separate incarnations of mass. Everything that we know, see and understand is nothing more than the cascading vibrations of this particle.

I fundamentally understood at the core of my being that I had actually unlocked a key to understanding the universe that could forever change how we evaluate the laws of physics. That if we started to evaluate the universe from the perception of a sustained singularity of which we are all composed, then the rules of our universe could shift from a study of what is out there to a study of what is in us.

In my mind, at that moment, the tiniest speck of dust on this planet could finally be understood as being the totality of everything.

Not sure that it helps in the conversation but thought I would toss it out there.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 17, 2013, 09:30 am
I have been looking for a definition of TIME everywhere. But could not find any that makes sense. So, thought of asking you all here and see what if there is any better idea.

Thanks,
GSE

The current scientific definition of time relates to the spin of atomic particles. The smaller the particle, the faster it spins(meaning the shorter the interval), so for instance an electron would spin faster than a proton. Our seconds are currently modeled on observations of these fundamental particles. Time does actually exist, which is why we can calculate it

This is also why the most accurate clocks in the world are atomic clocks. Feel free to look them up on wikipedia or something, that would give you a much better understanding of how scientists define time
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 17, 2013, 09:47 pm
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 17, 2013, 11:23 pm
I have been looking for a definition of TIME everywhere. But could not find any that makes sense. So, thought of asking you all here and see what if there is any better idea.

Thanks,
GSE

The current scientific definition of time relates to the spin of atomic particles. The smaller the particle, the faster it spins(meaning the shorter the interval), so for instance an electron would spin faster than a proton. Our seconds are currently modeled on observations of these fundamental particles. Time does actually exist, which is why we can calculate it

This is also why the most accurate clocks in the world are atomic clocks. Feel free to look them up on wikipedia or something, that would give you a much better understanding of how scientists define time

Knowing the time taken per revolution of some entity (atom, planetary or galactic objects, etc) does not give any idea about the time itself. Scientists can calculate the time but they don't know what it is.

That is a non-statement if a I ever heard one. A second is "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" according to wikipedia. I also read somewhere that the second is also somewhat defined by the minimum amount of time passing that a person can perceive. Hence why certain frequencies are invisible to the human eye, they simply move faster than we can see.

Time can seem like an illusion because it is being viewed subjectively, and our emotions skew our view of time as well as our mental state. However, time can be viewed objectively, as indicated by the atomic clocks. Depends on how YOU want to define time, science already has
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 17, 2013, 11:26 pm
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 17, 2013, 11:29 pm
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: chil on January 17, 2013, 11:43 pm
It's a bit strange to defend the idea that time does not exist. How does one account for change ? How can one explain change if time does not exist ?
I know the timelessness of psychedelics, and the strong feeling / knowledge that time does not exist. Yet the above questions need to be answered.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 17, 2013, 11:46 pm
It's a bit strange to defend the idea that time does not exist. How does one account for change ? How can one explain change if time does not exist ?
I know the timelessness of psychedelics, and the strong feeling / knowledge that time does not exist. Yet the above questions need to be answered.

I actually did a few posts back. Human's experience of time is subjective, it is influenced by emotion, mental state, and substances ingested. Our inherent sense of time is chemical based, hence why certain chemicals can make it seem to pass immeasurably slowly, or insanely quickly. However, time can be objectively measured, thereby negating human error and perception. This is what science strives to do, which is why we base our measurements on fundamental constants of the universe that do not change(at least as far as we know)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 17, 2013, 11:47 pm
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 17, 2013, 11:52 pm
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 17, 2013, 11:53 pm
I have been looking for a definition of TIME everywhere. But could not find any that makes sense. So, thought of asking you all here and see what if there is any better idea.

Thanks,
GSE

The current scientific definition of time relates to the spin of atomic particles. The smaller the particle, the faster it spins(meaning the shorter the interval), so for instance an electron would spin faster than a proton. Our seconds are currently modeled on observations of these fundamental particles. Time does actually exist, which is why we can calculate it

This is also why the most accurate clocks in the world are atomic clocks. Feel free to look them up on wikipedia or something, that would give you a much better understanding of how scientists define time

Knowing the time taken per revolution of some entity (atom, planetary or galactic objects, etc) does not give any idea about the time itself. Scientists can calculate the time but they don't know what it is.

That is a non-statement if a I ever heard one. A second is "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" according to wikipedia. I also read somewhere that the second is also somewhat defined by the minimum amount of time passing that a person can perceive. Hence why certain frequencies are invisible to the human eye, they simply move faster than we can see.

Time can seem like an illusion because it is being viewed subjectively, and our emotions skew our view of time as well as our mental state. However, time can be viewed objectively, as indicated by the atomic clocks. Depends on how YOU want to define time, science already has

Time measurement units are invented to measure time taken for an event to complete a full cycle or revolution. The unit you choose depends on what event you want to describe meaningfully. In the quantum world a second or year is meaningless and similarly in the human world a femtosecond or a light year is equally meaningless. Nonetheless the units themselves don't give any clue about the time itself! Science does not know what time is. It would be helpful if you can point to any such scientific paper or literature on that.


Sure no problem.

(CLEARNET)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: chil on January 17, 2013, 11:59 pm
It's a bit strange to defend the idea that time does not exist. How does one account for change ? How can one explain change if time does not exist ?
I know the timelessness of psychedelics, and the strong feeling / knowledge that time does not exist. Yet the above questions need to be answered.

I actually did a few posts back. Human's experience of time is subjective, it is influenced by emotion, mental state, and substances ingested. Our inherent sense of time is chemical based, hence why certain chemicals can make it seem to pass immeasurably slowly, or insanely quickly. However, time can be objectively measured, thereby negating human error and perception. This is what science strives to do, which is why we base our measurements on fundamental constants of the universe that do not change(at least as far as we know)

I was actually talking about change, as in , how can you explain that things change, meaning there was a "before" and now an "after", that is, time. I had no beard before and now I have one. Go ahead and try to explain this.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: MR.X on January 17, 2013, 11:59 pm
Time is not Real only here and now :)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 12:03 am
It's a bit strange to defend the idea that time does not exist. How does one account for change ? How can one explain change if time does not exist ?
I know the timelessness of psychedelics, and the strong feeling / knowledge that time does not exist. Yet the above questions need to be answered.

I actually did a few posts back. Human's experience of time is subjective, it is influenced by emotion, mental state, and substances ingested. Our inherent sense of time is chemical based, hence why certain chemicals can make it seem to pass immeasurably slowly, or insanely quickly. However, time can be objectively measured, thereby negating human error and perception. This is what science strives to do, which is why we base our measurements on fundamental constants of the universe that do not change(at least as far as we know)

I was actually talking about change, as in , how can you explain that things change, meaning there was a "before" and now an "after", that is, time. I had no beard before and now I have one. Go ahead and try to explain this.

This is what my last post was about, but i put the link into an edit. I'll link again, cause it's very important. In science this theory is known as entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 18, 2013, 12:08 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 12:10 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 12:17 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement?
i said time was illusory... that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. :)

The definition of an illusion according to a dictionary:
Noun, A false idea or belief: "he had no illusions about her".
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 18, 2013, 12:58 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 01:35 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.

My intention never was to talk down to you, and if it was perceived as such i do profusely apologize. However to me the concept of saying time is imaginary is fairly silly, and i am merely expressing my sincere disbelief that someone could believe that notion. If that was/is perceived as rude i am sorry, just very surprising to me
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 18, 2013, 01:49 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.

My intention never was to talk down to you, and if it was perceived as such i do profusely apologize. However to me the concept of saying time is imaginary is fairly silly, and i am merely expressing my sincere disbelief that someone could believe that notion. If that was/is perceived as rude i am sorry, just very surprising to me
oh, i didn't mean to say time is nonexistent! i meant illusory as in deceptive, not unreal. sorry, i guess i should have clarified.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 01:58 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.

My intention never was to talk down to you, and if it was perceived as such i do profusely apologize. However to me the concept of saying time is imaginary is fairly silly, and i am merely expressing my sincere disbelief that someone could believe that notion. If that was/is perceived as rude i am sorry, just very surprising to me
oh, i didn't mean to say time is nonexistent! i meant illusory as in deceptive, not unreal. sorry, i guess i should have clarified.

That would have made much more sense in context. The way it was just made you sound like you were babbling(no offense). Now that i understand what you mean, yes i am in complete agreement. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Time is both subjective and objective. Objective in that we can measure it with physical instruments and everyone can be on a universal clock/schedule, but subjective in the way we each perceive the passage of time, due to our own body chemistry and the substances we take that influence it. Both points of view are correct, but they are most definitely not mutually exclusive
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: moonflower on January 18, 2013, 02:49 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.

My intention never was to talk down to you, and if it was perceived as such i do profusely apologize. However to me the concept of saying time is imaginary is fairly silly, and i am merely expressing my sincere disbelief that someone could believe that notion. If that was/is perceived as rude i am sorry, just very surprising to me
oh, i didn't mean to say time is nonexistent! i meant illusory as in deceptive, not unreal. sorry, i guess i should have clarified.

That would have made much more sense in context. The way it was just made you sound like you were babbling(no offense). Now that i understand what you mean, yes i am in complete agreement. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Time is both subjective and objective. Objective in that we can measure it with physical instruments and everyone can be on a universal clock/schedule, but subjective in the way we each perceive the passage of time, due to our own body chemistry and the substances we take that influence it. Both points of view are correct, but they are most definitely not mutually exclusive
no offense taken. i understand why it sounded that way to you. i think it's pretty funny that we agree after this big miscommunication. i've got nothing but love, didn't mean to butt heads with you! :)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 02:55 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.

My intention never was to talk down to you, and if it was perceived as such i do profusely apologize. However to me the concept of saying time is imaginary is fairly silly, and i am merely expressing my sincere disbelief that someone could believe that notion. If that was/is perceived as rude i am sorry, just very surprising to me
oh, i didn't mean to say time is nonexistent! i meant illusory as in deceptive, not unreal. sorry, i guess i should have clarified.

That would have made much more sense in context. The way it was just made you sound like you were babbling(no offense). Now that i understand what you mean, yes i am in complete agreement. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Time is both subjective and objective. Objective in that we can measure it with physical instruments and everyone can be on a universal clock/schedule, but subjective in the way we each perceive the passage of time, due to our own body chemistry and the substances we take that influence it. Both points of view are correct, but they are most definitely not mutually exclusive
no offense taken. i understand why it sounded that way to you. i think it's pretty funny that we agree after this big miscommunication. i've got nothing but love, didn't mean to butt heads with you! :)

Oh totally. It's funny I've had similar reactions like once or twice in a videogame(of all places) where the guy apologized for being an asshole and we became friends(i was the more dickish one here). I generally have no long lasting hate for people as long as we come to a mutual understanding and neither of us were wrong in the first place  ;)
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: valakki on January 18, 2013, 03:22 am
 Feels like time is created inside the human clockwork.
would time still flow if there was no one to perceive it?
like water dripping from the bottle. is there a well of time at the end of the tunnel?
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: nitpi950 on January 18, 2013, 03:38 am
time is illusory, like any other form of perceived reality. ;)

Do you think illusion is a property of time or time itself is an illusion?
i meant the latter.. but i think both are true. time is real because we've made it real. we do create our own reality, after all.

It's a little bit anthropic principle logic there. It exists because we observe it. If we did not have any means to measure the passage of time, then it would not exist. That's like saying magnetism doesn't exist because you can't sense it with your body. It is observable, therefore it is real
existence and illusion are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think you have a better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community, who keep striving to find methods to more accurately measure time. Every device you use works because of the concept of time. GPS is the best example. If we could not calculate time, we would not accurately be able to sync up the position of GPS satellites with the earth, and we would not be able to obtain geosynchronous orbit. There are physical methods used to define these properties, because as we know humans are completely unreliable
that's completely irrelevant to what i said. i never claimed to have a "better grasp on the scientific definition of time than the entire scientific community." you respond to my comments as if you have no idea what i'm saying, and talking that way isn't going to help you understand any better. thanks anyway for the know-it-all attitude!

I possibly don't understand what you mean because you made a one sentence statement? If you made that into a question, I might not have to assume to know what you mean. But your right, I'm totally an asshole for reading a statement and making an assumption ::)
i never said you were an asshole, but you do have quite an attitude. there's no reason to talk down to someone like that during a civil discussion just because we don't share the same views. i have no desire to prolong an argument about the existence of time, so carry on.

My intention never was to talk down to you, and if it was perceived as such i do profusely apologize. However to me the concept of saying time is imaginary is fairly silly, and i am merely expressing my sincere disbelief that someone could believe that notion. If that was/is perceived as rude i am sorry, just very surprising to me
oh, i didn't mean to say time is nonexistent! i meant illusory as in deceptive, not unreal. sorry, i guess i should have clarified.

That would have made much more sense in context. The way it was just made you sound like you were babbling(no offense). Now that i understand what you mean, yes i am in complete agreement. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Time is both subjective and objective. Objective in that we can measure it with physical instruments and everyone can be on a universal clock/schedule, but subjective in the way we each perceive the passage of time, due to our own body chemistry and the substances we take that influence it. Both points of view are correct, but they are most definitely not mutually exclusive
no offense taken. i understand why it sounded that way to you. i think it's pretty funny that we agree after this big miscommunication. i've got nothing but love, didn't mean to butt heads with you! :)

Oh totally. It's funny I've had similar reactions like once or twice in a videogame(of all places) where the guy apologized for being an asshole and we became friends(i was the more dickish one here). I generally have no long lasting hate for people as long as we come to a mutual understanding and neither of us were wrong in the first place  ;)
got to be the most massive quote pyramid I've yet seen on this site
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 04:28 am
Feels like time is created inside the human clockwork.
would time still flow if there was no one to perceive it?
like water dripping from the bottle. is there a well of time at the end of the tunnel?

Time existed before human evolved on this planet.

It's just the perception and experienced of time by various entities are mysterious. You, I and John all experience time differently. Even the same individual experiences time differently at different time and mental state.

Time is observable but the experience is relative!

Precisely. To that end it can actually be proved scientifically as well through observation. Case in point, With relativity we know that light is the maximum speed at which anything can travel. We also know that since that is true, there is no instantaneous transmission of classical matter. Remember how they say the light we are seeing from the sun is actually 8 minutes old? That is because light takes a finite amount of time to travel. With large space telescopes we can view galaxies very far from us thousands of lightyears(the distance light actually travels in 1 year on earth) away. We can observe changes in these celestial objects that are so many billions of miles away and see the light they have produced millions of years in the past. There is no instantaneous travel, time must pass for this light to reach us. This is a key factor in determining the distance of these objects. Without time, math would have to be completely rewritten. It is a fundamental constant of our universe that has yet to be defined, as we can only observe its effects, a la magnetism.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: valakki on January 18, 2013, 03:04 pm
Feels like time is created inside the human clockwork.
would time still flow if there was no one to perceive it?
like water dripping from the bottle. is there a well of time at the end of the tunnel?

Time existed before human evolved on this planet.

It's just the perception and experienced of time by various entities are mysterious. You, I and John all experience time differently. Even the same individual experiences time differently at different time and mental state.

Time is observable but the experience is relative!

Precisely. To that end it can actually be proved scientifically as well through observation. Case in point, With relativity we know that light is the maximum speed at which anything can travel. We also know that since that is true, there is no instantaneous transmission of classical matter. Remember how they say the light we are seeing from the sun is actually 8 minutes old? That is because light takes a finite amount of time to travel. With large space telescopes we can view galaxies very far from us thousands of lightyears(the distance light actually travels in 1 year on earth) away. We can observe changes in these celestial objects that are so many billions of miles away and see the light they have produced millions of years in the past. There is no instantaneous travel, time must pass for this light to reach us. This is a key factor in determining the distance of these objects. Without time, math would have to be completely rewritten. It is a fundamental constant of our universe that has yet to be defined, as we can only observe its effects, a la magnetism.

I think the observer himself changes the outcome by observing and processing the information. What i say is that the experience of time that we have is the product  of the human mind. i do not say that time does not exist outside of the mind, but the way we feel time, the quality and definition of time is created inside us.
 
i think really understanding time  is impossible. Our mind is finite. Time is not.

also something interesting : i read somewhere is that time actually slows down and changes when you travel at light speed.
 it sparks the thought:
 that if time is like a river then we are not traveling and going with its flow but actually against it.  and by increasing the movement of speed we can actually go against the stream and come to a halt. (in the eyes of the outside observer) so maybe if we want to travel back in time we will need to reach faster than light speed. Maybe that is the reason we cant find things faster than light. Because everything that is faster goes backwards in time and this we can not measure with our senses or equipment in any ways.   
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: murungu on January 18, 2013, 06:26 pm
Time is something you do
when the drugs that you do
caused for you
to come undone
when you get done
for doing them.

I could go on about time
if you got the time
but I don't.
Title: Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
Post by: dbz4u on January 18, 2013, 10:59 pm
Feels like time is created inside the human clockwork.
would time still flow if there was no one to perceive it?
like water dripping from the bottle. is there a well of time at the end of the tunnel?

Time existed before human evolved on this planet.

It's just the perception and experienced of time by various entities are mysterious. You, I and John all experience time differently. Even the same individual experiences time differently at different time and mental state.

Time is observable but the experience is relative!

Precisely. To that end it can actually be proved scientifically as well through observation. Case in point, With relativity we know that light is the maximum speed at which anything can travel. We also know that since that is true, there is no instantaneous transmission of classical matter. Remember how they say the light we are seeing from the sun is actually 8 minutes old? That is because light takes a finite amount of time to travel. With large space telescopes we can view galaxies very far from us thousands of lightyears(the distance light actually travels in 1 year on earth) away. We can observe changes in these celestial objects that are so many billions of miles away and see the light they have produced millions of years in the past. There is no instantaneous travel, time must pass for this light to reach us. This is a key factor in determining the distance of these objects. Without time, math would have to be completely rewritten. It is a fundamental constant of our universe that has yet to be defined, as we can only observe its effects, a la magnetism.

I think the observer himself changes the outcome by observing and processing the information. What i say is that the experience of time that we have is the product  of the human mind. i do not say that time does not exist outside of the mind, but the way we feel time, the quality and definition of time is created inside us.
 
i think really understanding time  is impossible. Our mind is finite. Time is not.

also something interesting : i read somewhere is that time actually slows down and changes when you travel at light speed.
 it sparks the thought:
 that if time is like a river then we are not traveling and going with its flow but actually against it.  and by increasing the movement of speed we can actually go against the stream and come to a halt. (in the eyes of the outside observer) so maybe if we want to travel back in time we will need to reach faster than light speed. Maybe that is the reason we cant find things faster than light. Because everything that is faster goes backwards in time and this we can not measure with our senses or equipment in any ways.

What you are mentioning is a part of the theory of relativity. Relativity states that the closer a mass moves to C(light speed i.e. E=MC^2) the more time dilation that object experiences. There was a great and famous thought experiment called the twin theory. It went something like if you have two identical twins, one staying on earth for a year and the other moving away from earth at light speed for half a year, and then back to earth the other half year, would they be the same age? The answer strangely is no. Speed would effect the way we experience time. But it doesn't because the relative velocity to experience any sort of time dilation is massive and would physically rip you to shreds. No matter can be accelerated to a velocity of C, it is a cosmic speed limit that no matter may pass, as light is not a particle with a mass.

As to things "traveling backwards in time", you would merely experience it that way. The reason for this being that you would actually have passed the light from that time period. If you and the sun came into existence at the same time, and the light emitted from the sun was the same speed, and you moved at the same velocity as light. You would see absolutely nothing in front of you, because the light is not fast enough to reach in front of your eyes(facing forward).  So you turn around, but nothing is changing. Time is "frozen" as you see it. Why? Because the light hasn't move relative to you! While you may both be going at the insanely fast speed of C, to each other you aren't moving. You are exactly the same speed, therefore you experience no progress visually. This also applies to all other sensations, because none of your other senses or impulses are able to move anywhere near even 1% of C( again the speed of light). So essentially you are "frozen in time" until you slow down to a speed where all other physical properties of the universe can be processed.

Now lets say you are going 2X C. Suddenly you are beating the light. If you could say stay conscious and actually see this, you would see the light receding. This is what we see when we look into the old universe. This is what scientists and astronomers use as proof of the big bang. When you away from an object you experience what is known as a "redshift" of light, meaning it shifts towards the red side of the spectrum. We see such a large redshift when we look into the deep deep cosmos, that we can calculate our speed from the origin point of the universe. They have calculated that we are moving faster than the speed of light away from the big bang. This means that through classical means of transportation, using all the science we know now, we will never be able to get there. EVER. This is again because C is the cosmic speed limit.  As far as we know, nothing can pass it. There have been mathematical models that show we could perhaps pass this speed limit, but it is all theoretical, much more complicated than even what Einstein's theory's have told us