Through the Wormhole: Does Time Exist?
For preview only. Get it at  #ad.

Through the Wormhole: Does Time Exist?

2011, Science  -   264 Comments
Ratings: 8.41/10 from 80 users.

Through the Wormhole: Does Time Exist?When you're having fun, time flies. Waiting in a traffic jam, not so much. Your birthday was last month, and your mortgage payment is due in a few days. The fact that we perceive time is certainly no illusion. But is it really there, or is it something we invented?

Early on in human history, we decided to start measuring the days and weeks, and eventually hours, minutes and seconds. Time was useful in organizing society, planting crops and getting ready for dates. Things worked extremely well until scientists started muddling it all up.

In the 17th century, English scientist Isaac Newton was pretty sure time existed as a universal constant. But in 1908, Hermann Minkowski, expanding on one of Einstein's ideas on the relationship between space and time, suggested a space-time continuum. This theory held that space and time were inextricably mixed, with all events occurring along the same timeline. Einstein presented his theory of general relativity not long after this and proposed that time is but an illusion.

Around the same time (if you believe in time, that is), the field of quantum mechanics grew out of an effort to explain the relationship between matter and energy. This presented a little problem for scientists trying to create a single, unified theory to account for the universe and its component parts. Quantum mechanics requires the existence of time to work. General relativity does not. List of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole.

More great documentaries

264 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I learned how time travel is possible during my near death experience while in a coma.
    I myself have traveled time during my coma. Human Beings have the knowledge already, but haven't thought it in the expansion for time travel, and that Knowledge is knowing how a song and movie is recorded on tape.The Earth we live on is in a magnetic bubble, the core of earth has magnetic activity and covers all up to the magnetic sphere all around earth,For better understanding my Analogy is: The earth is as a VCR Tape Cartridge, the magnetic activity from the core of earth to the magnetic sphere all around earth is as the magnetics on the tape in a VCR tape cartridge, life on earth is as the movie on the Tape in three dimentions without the Atom made Tape, Rotation and Revolution of Earth is as the VCR.
    Einstein figured time travel out in a very complicated way in theory from his intelligence, I figured it out by memory from my near death experience, like playing a song by ear and never learning it by written music. This is the truth

  2. My previous comment was about the more recent documentary can time flow backwards both of these are similar.

  3. I watched this documentary and I will say it's a bit beyond my comprehension however I understand the core of what they were talking about well sorta... I don't really think that a theory or examination of particles can conclude that biological events are occurring at all times. Furthermore they went on to say that there is a casualty loop occurring as we speak and events that we will do in the future have already happened in such a way that they effect the past permanently because they are and always will be connected because they are happening at all times in unison forever. This conclusion seems to violate what would seem to be cause and effect such as taking a glass bottle and throwing off a building. The inevitable result will be the destruction of the bottle from the cause of gravity and throwing the bottle by you. The bottle will be destroyed in 35 seconds from a present action to a future result. This doc concluded moments are essentially popping it no existence every nano second and our perception isn't reality. Regardless how can moments from void to reality have a reverse action from action to inaction explain this?

    1. If you want more info on time, I suggest you google Julian Barbour the end of time.

  4. We need to adjust clocks in our satellites to make sure they stay synchronized with earth, so....
    I think that time exist and time is relative.

  5. time is man-made. we use it as a reference. everything in the universe is recycled. everything that the universe uses already exists. then is brought together to make energy, matter, planets, people....etc....

    no god, no beginning. no end. no time.

  6. If time is an illusion how are you a mature human being when you were once a baby? How will you become old when you are now in your prime?

    1. Someone further down the page made this comment: Time is nothing more than the observation of change.

      Basically things began changing before the idea of 'time' was ever invented. Time doesn't exist BECAUSE things change, it just serves as a way of explaining it. It's actually kind of counterintuitive to the question you are asking-- time doesn't explain the nature of changing or why it changes, it simply serves as a measure to explain, if anything, why we react to these changes, as human beings, rather than why they occurred to begin with.

      We measure time as a line-- but I believe it is a circle. A never-ending, sometimes constant, sometimes outward spiraling, and sometimes inward spiraling, circle.

  7. I just read a few comments about religion and science. Well apparently not only time travel but also sound bombs, gravity, bigbang and galaxies have been told in the Holy book of Islam, the 'Quran' some 1400 years ago. Humanity just is proving by fact what has already been told by religion.

  8. I believe not just time and space are real but also dimensions.

    Since the big bang theory there must be a place in space that is

    still not affected / occupied by the big bang. That space or

    particular empty area is where the laws of physics or time are alien.

    And since all matter, time and space are moving in a 3D, all

    vacant vacuum beyond the diameter of bigbang is where all matter

    and space could be molded since the time beyond that is in control.

    Here the space or infact all spaces are present in the single

    constant as time. From here time slows down or in control. It is

    not how human mind or body could reach there by light travel but

    time travel. If matter is transported back in time by time

    travel it wont reach the point before the big bang, but time

    itself will. By having control over two points in time, one past

    the radius of space and the other before bigbang, time can be

    increased or decreased. Time is the dimension beyond/containing

    space. And from that point onwards time is not constant.

  9. All you guys who think time is real are nuts.

    1. Time is as real as the alphabet.

  10. Have to call out the incorrect math in this one.
    SQRT of 2 = 1.41 and not 1.14 as he said.
    SQRT of 6 = 2.45 and not 2.44 as he said. How does a big budget show like this mess up such easy math. This is at roughly 11 minutes.

  11. Perhaps you all can help me with this simple question: how is time not the same as movement? Isn't idea of "time" just an abstract construction of our own inability to understand that we are all in motion and there is no matter? Hence, presumably matter is nothing but relationships of frequencies(again movement) held together by their resonance of attraction and repulsion? And all part of a big collection of frequencies in resonance with one another?

  12. so if time is greatly affected by gravity is there any point in space where time does not exist?
    also, most of our basic math and physics depend on time, if (or when) time is proven to not exist do we rewrite these equations? instead of t for time do we put gravity+distance from sea level x universal frame, or something like this? or do we keep our current understanding of time to avoid rewriting all of math?

  13. To specify this.. we must ask if time is there.. so what is time ?
    According to me, time cannot be mathematically cleared and cannot be proved so.. but we can say that it is just like a video clip with lots of still pictures moving continuously.. ex.. if I slapped my friend then each and every moment of my hand moving towards him is stored in a different picture. but now the question arises that how these actions are made ? are we controlling it ? or is there any supreme controller ? I clearify it by saying that nature uses hit and try method for the life.. just like a book writer who uses all actions he can for a character .. but now the question arises who is the book writer? According to me we are all just like machines..all say that we have feelings and machines do not have them so i wanna say that machines can have brains but the matter is that they do only what we program inside them, we are such kind of machines who also does the same but we can ourself program it and the matter of feelings is also coming form our mind.. EX.. - I can give up my life for my love.. it is not so because I love her but it is so because I know that if I did so , then I'll be a good example of love.
    Humans love because the boy and the girl both have something common and they can understand each other.. no one can say that true love is only once. it can be anywhere with anybody because it is simply a thought inside the mind that this person will be my support.
    The same reason is there for God. People need a background support that is why they worship god as it gives them a relief that they will be helped by god in bad times.

  14. OMG, can I get one more commercial with this documentary?!! Why would they put a foolish video game commercial add with a documentary that applies physics, duh? Oh and please dont forget the pop-ups...

    Now onto the topic. Time is a method used for; constructing, organizing, retrieving and configuring motion and the items with in it. If energy does not die and only transforms, then all objects (matter) are just in the "protocol" of its force (energy forces ((more than one, of course)). To go from one state of being (matter) to another state of being, (possible matter, etc..). While most are looking at time as the situation in question, it is a pin needle thought to what is the driving forces behind the motion called time, space and direction. And, the purpose for that constant. Or, best to say, "The God Theory". But, it is hard to translate that consideration of thought since most scientist think they are god because they figured out how to add, then subtract, and so on. Time only exists if applied...

    1. But no one can ever get to know that from where this life comes ??? agree or not ??

  15. I love how mr Freeman makes it impossible to find anything he's talking about. How about giving a name for the brain tumor patient or pronouncing equation names a bit slower lol :p

  16. Time and Space exists in the present only together with the constancyof Nature and Memory. Without memory one would not have the ability to engage in the "past" or have the ability to measure any movement from point "A" to point "B" and beyond.These four elements are inextricably tied each to the other and thus give purpose to and form the foundation of and give purpose to life experiences.

  17. Time is nothing more than the observation of change. There is no use for time if something is permanent and unchangeable.

    1. "permanent and unchangeable"

      Such as?

    2. Ok. And now, what IS permenant and aunchangeable?? Is Universe infinate unchangeable???

  18. Mach quit the ‘Church of Physics’ (his words) because of his ‘heresy’ of not believing in ‘time’. Mach felt that physics should not build in dependence on what cannot be observed/experienced/sensed. he thus did not want physics to depend on the ‘metaphysics of absolute space and absolute time’, a metaphysics that underpins ‘things-in-themselves-that-change-in-time’. Instead of ‘things changing in time’, Mach saw dynamics in terms of a continually transforming relational spatial plenum. Same for Schroedinger, who compared this understanding of dynamics with the ancient Vedic belief which also saw ‘time’ as ‘Maya’, illusion.

  19. Had been reading the on earth did you people manage to enroll Christianity and any religion really into this? Here we have a documentary being all about science and math and people down here talk about religion! What does religion have to do with the Theory of Relativity, Quantum mechanics, Thermodynamics, String Theory and Mathematics??? I love science and religion being friends but come on! How did you manage to squeeze religion into this? In a topic even God doesn't fully understand to be more vivid! People never stop to amaze me honestly...perception is quite a powerful thing It seems. Clearly more powerful than scientific clues and precise mathematical equations.

    1. Because all observation and supposition is relative. It's impossible to convince a christian of the nature of the universe without using references he can understand. Could a christian describe god to you without using the word god?.

    2. It's one thing to enroll God in the conversation, to place judgment on complex scientific topics based on religious norms is an other thing though...

    3. It is permissible if only supose that God created all this. This is why He is too great for human mind..

  20. At the end Morgan speaks of unlocking time we can't perceive,but how can that be done, how can we unlock something that is not within our grasp, quantum causality maybe...i don't know i'm just puzzled.

  21. As species, we're not yet ready to unlock the knowledge of the universe and beyond. Until we have gotten rid of or have fully conquered our primitive weaknesses such as greed and lust, possessing such knowledge will only spell our doom. Just look at what these super-elites are doing to their fellowmen, this is just an example of how still primitive man is and how we can easily get corrupted with wealth and power.

    1. Maybe, but would it therefor be right for the designers of the constitution to have thrown it all out and gone with socialism to avoid the infringement of the pursuit of happiness from the few rich and powerful? A seed must be planted in order to grow and all we have is based on what came before. If we want to grow into social maturity and be capable of using high knowledge to our benefit we must accept the risk of destruction by the same fire. The only way to define a destination is by having a departure. It doesn't matter if time is real to the physical world. It matters that we think it is because that allows us to form observations and assumptions about everything and then make actions that define the world around us. If nothing else time is a self fulfilling prophecy.

  22. I'm not quite sure whether Time is just an illusion of the universe itself, a delusion of conscious perception or an actual part of reality. I haven't gathered enough data on the idea to hold to any one of those ideas over any other.

    I think Time is probably an illusion or at best, a hallucination and what's really primary in the universe is motion, rhythm. But then the whacky world of Quantum Mechanics comes into my thinking (since we are all made of atoms and thus, we're all just masses of quarks and other such sub-atomic diddly-bobs) and I can't quite figure how Time would work on those scales or if it really even exists on those scales at all.

    It would seem to me that Time could be better thought of as a social institution. If you do not measure time against something regular such as the motion of the sun, moon and stars or against the ticking of a clock, can Time be said to really exist?

    If the Universe as a whole has its own Time seperate from ours (Meta-Time I guess lol) what does its clock say?

    If you asked the Universe "what time is it?" would it answer with "13.7 billion years?"

    1. Kind of takes back to the old question: "What is a day in God's time?"

    2. Every time "God" is brought up and bickered over on a Through The Wormhole video which does not directly concern the supposedly divine, Morgan Freeman stubs his pinky toe on a cinder block. For the sake of the wonderful Mr. Freeman, let's stay on topic!

      Anyway, I meant the above in jest, now to get serious.

      I find it rather pointless to speculate about the possible perceptive experiences of a supernatural being which may or may not exist when I'm chiefly concerned with Time as viewed from my mortal point of reference.

      If you would like to have a discussion about the Human perception of Time (thus keeping us on topic) I'll gladly join in, otherwise let's leave that beleaguered old gentleman out of it. I'm certain there are other doc's where we may bicker over the so-called divine.

    3. I think the video best hit on the point by saying that time is what keeps everything from happening at once. If mass and gravity are what creates time to be perceived, then I think that the notion that electrons can exist everywhere at once until viewed, is simply like saying, "They are moving and therefor subject to time, but due to their size relative to gravitational forces, they are moving very very fast. Nothing can happen all at once but it can happen so fast as to be a moot point. Space is time, the rate of the expansion of space is the measure of time. I think time is also reality and the amount of time passed is simply a physical measurement of the distance and therefor the energy between matter. And yes, I just made all that up so I'm sure to be wrong.

    4. Great! But did Big Bang need time??? I thing just for starting any process or action it needs time, and, before Big Bang it should have been existed Time to start the Bang ...?? or not...))

  23. i'm not sure i believe in 5 dimentional space so i can't say i understand the booleen on that.

    how can all the information inside a box be represented on its surface area ?

    if you take 8 of these boxes and put them in a 4x sized box, then by definition it can only show 3 sides of each box inside it.

    i supoze i can beleive that if an object ios speeding near the speed of light, that the doppler shiift makes light radiated in the foreward direction seem to be slower to observers not on the object. but to observers on the object , it seems normal.. yet i can't see how..

    summary: whats the booleen proof of that?

  24. I thought it was absolutely fascinating that when relativity and quantum equations are combined, that TIME cancels out (my own paraphrase of what the program said.) As a Christian I find this to be validation of what the Bible has always said: God is eternal, we can also become eternal if we are connected to Him through His son Jesus Christ. What is eternity if not "timelessness"? We may be stuck in time in this age, but it's time is running out! It's so funny that high minded, God denying scientists (who really should be smart enough to know better), time and time again, are forced to agree with what God has been trying to tell us for a long time (and yes, the puns are intended). It's TIME to wake up people!

    1. If you where born in another tribe you would gladly have worshiped a painted coconut, Your belief in gods is a product of your social upbringing and a fragile mind that can not handle reality. In my book you are a disgrace to human kind and should have stayed up there in the coconut tree. (hes son jesus christ) yes and Santa Claus comes out every Christmas, Are you totally insane!!!, By the way you forgot about Methusalem he was some 969 years old in your comic book, If fantasy gods are your only contribution you should stay out of these forums, you and your kinds have made enough damage and back paddling for the humans. I could explain interesting new ideas about the time concept but people like you just make me realise that it will be in vain. So have fun with your insanity, after all you don't seek the truth, you fear it. like the coward you are.

    2. "Don't seek the truth" you say? Some of Science's greatest minds were Christian, remember? Not only that, but Science's basic goal was founded off of Christian beliefs. To be exact, Scientists (including the ancient Philosophers of Greece and Rome) believed that there was an Unchanging God who created the universe. Therefore, since there was an Unchanging God, the Universe was governed by Unchanging Laws. Scientific minds sought to seek those laws.

      You see, Science's setbacks in history weren't brought about by the belief of a god, but the belief in fickle gods. The Greeks were held back by the belief in fickle gods, The Romans were held back by the belief in fickle gods, and even Christians were held back by the Roman Church's delusion of a fickle god. It was under the belief that there was an Unchanging God that kept Science going and allowed some of our greatest minds to make their achievements.

      So, Kim, your comment is actually quite ignorant. In the Bible, it says to seek Knowledge and The Truth. There are many Christian Scientists out there in the world and many Christians who, despite public favoritism towards Secularism, herald Science and its achievements.

    3. "Some of the greatest minds were christian"?? How many of them actually had a choice? Barbeque anyone?

    4. All of them had a choice. They could have very well denounced their faith and kept that denouncement a secret from the public, but they didn't. They kept their faith in God. None of them saw any reason to give that up.

      In fact, when Galileo was persecuted for his heliocentric theory, people tried to use the Bible to say that he was wrong, trying to use faith to overturn his science. But he said that his theory did not violate anything spoken of in the Bible.

      Even today, even though Darwin was scared that his theory of Evolution violated what the Bible said of Creation, we (more scientific) Christians know that it really doesn't.

      Simply put, Science is no reason to overturn one's faith. The Christian Scientists of the past knew that and, therefore, knew that any denouncement of faith on the basis of Science is nothing more than a betrayal of their belief in a Universe governed by Unchanging Laws.

    5. @Eric Dowe:

      Where did you hear that twaddell, are you saying even though the scientists, they were called philosophers then, were to keep their work secret, to lie about still keeping their faith.

      Giordano Bruno didn't and was burned at the stake, Galileo denounced his findings and was still kept at house arrest all his life, religion was and still is the scourge of technological advances then and now, they are still trying to push ID into schools. You are making claims that there is gods, creation, ID, and so on, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove it! So show the proof!

  25. I commented on the film as well. The comment on faith was a response to other comments posted below and you are asking for the very thing im talking about. Everyone wants to understand the higher power, define it, or to explain it, and this goes against the very nature of faith, when what we need to do is just realize that we all believe in a higher power with the exception of a true atheist and though your beliefs about what or who that higher power is or what that higher power has planned or not planned for us may or may not differ from mine, we can come together under what we have in common instead of religions that say if you don't share my beliefs your going to hell and im going to heaven this is why more people including jesus have been murdered for simply believing in something that differs from someone else. Faith means to believe in something that can not be understood or proven and all religions say they know the truth or their right and every one else is wrong this is why they do the same thing drug users do and that is to get as many people as possible to agree with them so that they feel better about what their doing or believing in. Well I hope this clearifies it for you better and if you don't mind take a minute and give some thault about my comments on time and the universe and tell me what you think these exchanges of thoughts is how we can learn from one another.

  26. To understand the way naturual life works is science but science can not and never will understand the spirit of life but neither can religion people with true faith understand this and present ourselves to the higher power our creator humbled and admitt that we dont know and can not yet comprehend it and therefore just have faith in the spirit of life itself in all its beautiful forms we should learn to celebrate life and worship a higher power and stop creating religions that divide us and create hate between peoples that at the end of the day believe the same thing but want to force their way of life on to others

    1. A few things, if you would be so kind to indulge me.

      1) What exactly do you mean by 'spirit of life'?
      2) What exactly do you mean by 'true faith'?
      3) What exactly do you mean by 'higher power'?
      4) What relevance do any of these have to this documentary?

      Please don't take this as an attack, you are entitled to your opinions, but I would like to hear an explanation as I do not understand these terms.
      Regards, Sam.

  27. I believe that time is an effect caused by motion, it is how we track motion itself. Further more i have a therory that there may be a mega verse of dense negitivily charged matter with many universes like bubbles in water and the bubbles are expanding due to stars exploding creating space compressing the negitive matter of the mega verse and with the matter in space in constant motion creating a positive charge and when the stars burn out the mega verse will compress the bubble until the point at which the positive matter in space comes in contact with the negitive matter in the mega verse creating a big bang and once again expanding space. If this therory is right then both sides of the argument are right and time is an illusion that is really happening inside an unchanging static mega verse.

  28. To me - Time is nothing more than motion. Without motion there is no time. Motion of course is relative.

  29. I'll let you know in 20 minutes.

  30. We should redefine the word God to mean the answer to what science has yet to explain, and in our wonderful scientifically enlightened society that keeps getting to be smaller and smaller of a subject area.. until science finally ends up explaining everything, and we won't have need for "God" any longer.

    1. New discoveries will always raise new questions and new theories therefore science will never explain everything and there will always be room for God because of that.

    2. In other words, there will always be room for the unenlightened to refuse reason or logic. The word god, or religion as a whole, is not some use-at-will filler for holes in science.

      We don't know = We don't know.

  31. Looked high and low for the exact metronome made by wittner maelzel
    shown in this show and could not find the black print copper face
    is it a special edition ?
    was it damaged?

  32. an interesting way to put it bogdan, very open.
    as for most people who still dwell on religion and science every so and so years there is a new "tool" thought by man to interprate what we see and feel. not long till science becomes a thing of the past.
    BUT ! dont get me wrong, i do thank all the effort people put into science that brough us the tv internet computer new music films ect.. im just saying.

  33. In fact. I believe most miracles may be our own making and what we see as guardian angels could be our own sub conscience acting out?

  34. I wonder if that' s why there is the *vanishing object phenomena* where objects you have an emotional attachment too tend to disappear in ways that cannot be logically explain and then appear in a weird spot you would never even consider putting it there.

    I bet what's happening is our bodies briefly become out of phase with the object and when we relax and no longer panic about looking for it the object seems to appear on it's own or a solution comes.

  35. Thinking that we live in the past (as time being a perception of different sensory signals being interpreted by our brains) is a huge finding. If we are actually experiencing events that happened in the past, then this means we are only observers of our individual movies.

  36. If there is another dimension of time for different alternatives of space an object can take, then could this be proof for pre-defined destiny?

  37. Do you think it's possible that when matter from our universe goes into a black hole it creates a new universe?

  38. time is money so..
    i went and bought a rolex!

  39. time is irrelevant said Edgar.

  40. It seems to me, that If we look at things carefully i think we can see that while things clearly exist and move - the idea that they do so 'over time' can be seen to be an unfounded assumption.

    while Einsteins relativity is correct in what it says about how things move and interact at unusual rates in different circumstances - he never proves the existence o f a pas, or a future or a flow of some thing between them (ie TIME).

    I think if we first ask not 'does time exist?' or 'what is time?' - but instead ask

    'what do we see in the world around us?' we see that [b]'things exist, move and interact'

    - and - if we think about this very carefully we can see that if things 'just' exist move and interact then this would explain everything we think 'suggests the existence of mysterious and undetectable TIME'.

    ( I have made a series of slide shows about this here - )

    Matt Welcome - London.

    love to hear any attempt to dis-prove it.

  41. as i walk through the day, everything falls into place, when i reach the bus stop ,my bus would be there or arriving within 1 min, as i walk towards the traffic light it will turn green for me to cross the road, the same would happen for the lift,etc. i would be able to tell which lift was coming first, sometimes there would be 6 lifts in the lobby(accuracy 8times right, 2 times wrong)
    everythings happends more smoothly when im in a positive mood, and when my mine is clear, and "The FLOW" will be very very smooth, its really cool to see trafficlights and lifts coming at the exact time and space as you are there, and all for you.

    there is a 'design" in all of this TIME & SPACE.

    Maybe i will one day write all of my experiences,
    " The design of Time & Space", true experiences, non-scitific non-fiction.

  42. if anyone out there can explain, why im able to meet people that i wanted to meet only in my thoughts, but finally meet them in a day or two and out of the blue.

    if anyone out there can explain, why am i able to bet a specific number on a roulette table, on my first bet after a specific no. appeares, i do this once a year and it has happen 3years in a row.and all the time the no. opens.

    if anyone out there can explain, why im able to tell people i dont know, except when we meet for the first time, how long they have been in a relationship or out of one, their age , discription their pets, family etc.
    and it all turns out to be true.

    what are the chances, possibilites or probabilities of it all.
    we truely dont know everything there is to know, and thats why we are all searching for the truth, and explination of it all.
    anyone knows?

    "have you used your MIND lately, i have and it always appears as i think it".

  43. I am not a scientist nor a math major. I am mearly but a skilled trade worker. It seems plain as the nose on my face that time has to be something we created. If you take it away what really changes but our schedules?

    1. Mearly? Don't be so hard on yourself lol, I also do skilled trade work, leaving university for trade school was one of the best decisions of my life, no debt and hundreds of thousands of dollars later I get to travel the world while doing the same work and take as much time as I want off :) Not to mention great benefits a pension and retirement plan.

      What we do is just as important as any theoretical physicist, especially those who have been working in the last half-century, it's been in a static state since Einstien.

    2. @avd420 i agree with the college thing!, that's one of the biggest rip offs. Not to say education isn't wonderful but these so called "educators"! There are so few that really count as Teachers. I know this is a mean statement i love knowledge. It's a double edge sword.

    3. Static state since Einstein? Surely you don't mean physics hasn't had major breakthroughs since him, almost everything discussed in the episodes leading up to this one have been discovered since him.

    4. The true clock of time as we interpret it, is light. If the big bang was indeed real, then it was the birth of light in an otherwise pitch dark space, a space of nothing except a singularity, sound familiar ? Was there time before the big bang ? There had to be, yet we measure time from the birth of light. Light gave birth to what we call time, we measure time in light in our universe, therefore light is time, a known constant, in an otherwise chaotic universe.
      But here is the question, Does a black hole have light ? apparently not, therefore it has no time, our universe almost certainly was born from a black hole of immense size, giving birth to our space, light, and our perception of time as a consequence of light providing a yard stick if you like, with which we can make our meagre calculations.

      Science is not so far away, unfortunately it is travelling in an almost supernatural direction, it has lost sight of the truth.

    5. What do all those chaotic run-on sentences mean?

    6. If time is what allows things to change, then time was the first thing to exist, not light. And black holes have light (radiation), that's what is spat out of the poles.

    7. Without time, you wouldn't of had time to write that comment. We only created the word that describes the phenomenon that lets things change.

  44. Good Doc.

    As with the rest of the series very thought provoking. It was nice to see Parminides get a mention as this question goes back as far as civilization itself. I would have liked the doc to have been a bit more definitive but hey this a tricky one.

    "Time is neither a thing nor an event and thus cannot be measured"
    Immanuel Kant

  45. science has and will do a lot for us good and bad as usual. The problem, ie., coldron sphere, (too lazy to look up spelling now), will post all kinds of finds?, i would guess; funding to keep the investment alive is too much of a temptation? I mean think about it, if they found a cure for Aid's or Cancer can you imagine the people that would put out of work!! What i am saying is not carved in stone or may not even be true but i have to believe there is reason for concern?

    1. It is better to sit at home and look a fool than to write nonsense on a documentary forum and remove any doubt whatsoever.

      "coldron sphere" Get Outta Here!

    2. "ATHEIST13", sorry for the upset, i made a lazy comment without any real thought. What's it called "The Coldron Tunnel"?, I am not really sure i think so. So i used the word sphere, forgive me. First of all i did say that "nothing i said was carved in stone and may not even be true", did i not? It was a lazy comment with out much thought given to it. Random thoughts popped into my head and i wanted feed back more than anything else. There is no battle or challenge here in my statement or to you, in any case none was meant.

      Son i understand the subatomic world because, I EMANATE FROM THERE; you may or may not understand this? I understand other dimensions/frequencies, (i use the word dimensions only to infuse proper connotation to the word frequencies; Your scientist refer to this as, "parallel universes"), because i have cognetic documentation (not theory), of said same "parallel universes". (dimension/frequency is a better choice of words because it does not imply segregation of that witch is one).

      "UNDERSTANDING", is omnipotent, in reference to the above; without it all is lost and a waste of every ones time and money. "Parminides" and going back to etc. you had better stop trying to impress us with your, "i have done my home work and see how smart i am now, i've memorized the text book information."


    3. Give it up. Atheists are always looking for a *challenge* because they do not really *care* about the truth.

      There hearts are harden for whatever reason and just want to argue for the sakes of arguing and even if you are right it's not going to get thru their thick skulls.

      I now understand the bible passage when it says those who do not seek God cannot see as they will *pretend* to seek the truth but once you engage in a discussion you can tell what fruits they bear.

    4. is it possible that you are wrong and perhaps atheists are right?

    5. A "challenge"? Hah. Evidence points away from a god. All those religions out there, each different, each claiming to be "THE" way. What's your excuse for why yours is right? Never mind, I don't buy it.

    6. look you god lover,you should be on the god squad forum and keep your bible bashing comments to those who are brainwashed enough to take you serious.

    7. shut up you ****, atheists can lend on science to easily dispell your nonsensical r*tarded god.
      there isnt one single bit of evidence for your god, apart from the buybull, which isnt evidence, its just a badly written fairytale about an egotistical, jealous and proud of it skymonster. if the christian god is the most powerful and smartest thing in the universe...... we stay in a r*tarded universe.

    8. Religion is an ideology. Science is a methodology. Evil individuals within a religion have the support of scripture and an ideology which promotes? the absolute moral righteousness of their actions - christians burning witches, for example, is perfectly permissible when one examines scripture. Indeed, this practice is promoted. Religion motivates action. Science, however, is a tool, not a command. It is as morally neutral as a telescope or a hammer.
      For anyone to have the audacity to say they know what an invisible being says, does, and will do to us or our human condition in the, past, present or future, without even being able to prove the invisible being isn’t imaginary? is patently illogical and delusional.
      Why is your god angry if he has total control over everything? It's like someone setting up a simcity and getting angry 'cos he screwed it up, but blaming the city rather than his own ineptitude in programming. If god created sin and? the possibility of people turning against him then everything is the way he wants it and so therefore he has no right to blame us for his mistakes.
      The universe created itself in the big bang. No need for a grand designer.
      The laws of nature dont leave a place for a grand designer.You cant get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang.Its something that doesnt require a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in.
      There is no possibility for a creator.
      The big bang couldnt have been caused or created by anyone or anything.
      the concept of a god existing doesnt make sense,its like asking for directions to the edge of the earth.Its a futile load of nonsense.

    9. Wasn't that the name of a really bad album by the Doors after they lost any artistic sense whatever?

    10. True we don't "care' about anything. We care. Religion relieves you of seeking the truth. Fortunately those of us who believe in science have all the medicine, technology and understanding of the workings of the world (an understanding that is always growing because we don't assume fantasies are true and stop looking and asking. ) that even god-seekers avail themselves of when their prayers don't yield the desired results which seems to be often the case.
      And it's THEIR hearts. I guess you consider spelling a scientific endeavor. Only a religionist could be arrogant enough to claim to read others' hearts.

  46. Not only is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result the definition of insanity... it's also the opposite of the scientific method ;)

  47. I said I dont believe in science today, not that I have never believed in science. I live in a world in which Physics has lost its way, and now hopes to convince the world of invisable particles, if you are to convince us of this, then you must also prove or disprove the existence of ghosts, what is the difference ? I live in a world in which drugs are being marketed not because they have a good therapeutic value, but because they make vast amounts of money for company share holders. I live in a world in which scientists believe in and support global warming, just because it has billions of dollars of investment, not because it is a real phenomenon. I live in a world in which genetically modified plants exist in the food chain, because of science and money, not because it is safe and better. I live in a world in which i am told this is good for me and the same thing is bad for me, so I dont know what to believe. I live in a world in which I could find a thousand more examples why I have lost faith in science, but then if you are a scientist you already know those reasons dont you. You scientists are not just harmless looking hippies, or nerd looking white coats anymore, you are probably the most dangerous people on the planet, the comical mad scientist is much more of a truth today. As for computers, they have destroyed a large part of what made people human, and what it meant to be human.. The internet is awash with commercialisation, whatever value it once had in the early days is long gone. I also question if the computer is a slave to humanity, or humanity is the slave to computers. Also, do not try to belittle me, I have more intelligence in a square cm of brain neurons than your entire university education delivered to your own meager intellect. If science mends its ways, which is highly unlikely in the money driven environment of today, I will let you know, as it is, the vast majority of you do not deserve any respect.

    1. These particles you claim to be "invisible" have been proven to exist by technology in the form of LHC and consorts, just as the "invisible" sound waves have been proven to exist by technology used by radios and consorts.

      You've proven again you fail to see the logical pattern emerging differentiating fact from fiction.

      You've proven the fictional world to be your home,
      please go back now and leave the rest of us alone.

      You are the one going to a movie shouting "that's not real". We're the ones saying "Duuh".

    2. Sound waves are not invisible, they can be detected, heard, controlled etc. I'm afraid your logic and argument (if it can be called such) is very poor.

    3. I've heard people say the same about heat too, but some people think snakes use senses from their tongues and combine it with their vision to see in infra red. Besides, even if snakes can't actually SEE it, we can FEEL it and we have equipment to show that it is actually there...

    4. If all else fails, reply with ad hominem attacks, Eh?

    5. I think maybe if you read your own posts you will find it is you who is resorting to ad hominem.

    6. Science isn't like religion, it's not there for you to believe or not believe in. It is merely offering the best theory to understand everything in our universe. Gravity's there, whether or not you believe in it.

    7. True, large objects have gravitational mass and influence other large and small objects. But to say there is something missing, which is invisible, and which makes up most of the universe, and holds everything together, is a bold statement indeed. It is easier to assume that science has miscalculated, it is logical to assume science is wrong, that our milky way galaxy does not fly apart because of its own inherent gravitational mass, and not because of some pseudo invisible and mass-less particles. The very fact the galaxies in the universe are flying away at faster and faster speeds, and indeed those at the farthest visible end apparently traveling at close to light speed, suggests the gravitational force holding them was always very weak, what is holding these galaxies together, is there own inherent gravity, of which no accurate calculation can ever be made due to the sheer size of such a galaxy.

      CONCLUSION : Science is wrong

    8. Science is knowledge. What the hell are you talking about?

    9. Great post! I only have one thing to add. Science is the supernatural.
      These people, for a lack of a better understanding try to impose their reality upon everyone. I don't believe in god, but to say that everything science offers is reality, that's pure nonsense. Science is just a tool for discovering the truth, not the truth itself. It is however, the most popular as we're just managing to break away from religions that don't serve as anymore. But to some people it's like a cult. What about intuition and imagination? Where does that fit into the scientific model? Even scientists, like the ones on this series have started to have an open mind. But the followers still beat around the same bush. It's kind of sad.

    10. Bogdan, in reponse to some of your comments;

      "science is the supernatural"

      science could be defined as systematic knowledge of the physical/material world gained through observation/experimentation. but definitely not supernatural which would be to attribute things to gods, ghosts or goblins

      "these people... try to impose their reality upon everyone"

      hmmm... ive never been lambasted by a theoretical physicist on how I lead my life... but even an id**t can see that each & every religion imposes its own individual reality on whichever society lies within its domain

  48. I think you will find science has stopped light in its tracks and can stop and start it at will. I dont believe in science today, particle accelerators in which your detecting theoretical particles supposedly indirectly, there is no proof. My ideas may not have proof, but neither does yours. I will feel no more convinced of the higgs boson because the LHC detected what you think is a signature pattern, than if i photographed a high speed car crash, and claimed debris being ejected from such a collison was some new and exotic matter which has somehow been created from the known matter.

    1. Brake it down on them Craigzz! These so called scientist need to speak from the heart not the text books compounded theory. Unfortunatly they don't have a clue there programed idiots.

    2. Don't you notice the irony that without the scientific mumbojumbo you don't even care to instigate to a level you can actually comprehend it, we wouldn't have people like Turing making it possible for you to declare your utter lack of respect for people who devote a lot of time in finding out how to use the scientific knowledge to improve even the comfort of those who don't even bother to try to grasp the truth at it's most fundamental level? Let alone disrespecting them to a point even a child with no notion of sarcasm would see you imply them to be delusional is going a step too far my friend.

      When you can't see the sense of science don't bother making any judgment about it. You will always lose. If you can't see the improvements, well then you're not really looking.

      All I really got from your post was you trying to justify your own ignorance by saying: "If I can't know, you can't know!"

      Even a blind man knows other men can see. Don't confuse being stubborn with being right.

    3. @ Craigzz
      "I dont believe in science today,..."

      Then throw your computer out the window!

      The physics that makes it possible for you to sit at a keyboard integrated into a microprocessor with over two billion transistors functioning at speeds exceeding 3 GHz, optically responsive to your LED screen is dependant upon physics in which you do not believe.

      Nice that you can use something in which you do not believe to communicate to me at light speed that you do not believe that you can communicate to me at light speed that you do not believe in that physics which makes it possible for you to tell me at light speed that you do not believe you can do what it is that you are doing. :-)

      That's okay.

      You can luxuriate in the products of a physics in which you do not believe. Physicists are nice guys, most of them.

      They'll let you slide!



    4. All your input is great. You're obviously a scholar. Those who don't have the will to put the work into truly understanding science and the universe will never have a genuine appreciation for all those that came before us who made it their life's work to pursue the truths behind how our universe continues to exist.
      Like people that don't trust western medicine, most of them have probably never even taken a basic course in physiology. Without even that basic amount of knowledge, it's easy to blow off all the years and all the people and all of the research that has gone into improving the lives of billions of people through medicine.
      If it weren't for science, we never would have figured out that it's healthy to be sanitary. We would still think that diseases were caused by noxious odors instead of microscopic pathogenic organisms.

    5. You don't believe in science today? Science is all we have, even to the clothes on your back, if you do not believe that your clothes were made by scientific advances, than discard them and find some fig leaves.

      Go live in the bush with out any modern day implements, no one to phone Eh? see how long you will last before you come crawling back into the enveloping arms of science! Whether you can see it or not.

  49. Consider yourself floating in space, then God turns off the lights. You would have no spatial awareness of any dimensions, this proves light is the fourth dimension.

    1. @ Craigzz

      I started to tear apart your first 'long' comment seen below but exhausted myself. Every line contained(or was) a howler. Suffice it to say, you know squat about squat!

      One example:

      For many years now we have been able to slow a single photon down from 186 thousand miles per second to the speed of a bicycle and back again without loss of information via cleaver use of Bose-Einstein condensates. A single solitary photon! Not wave packets(no phase shifts, either!).
      A single solitary photon! From 186 Thousand to bicycle speed and back. WITHOUT loss of information!

      Doubtless you haven't a clue as to the significance of this breakthrough.

      And then just listen to this:

      "Consider yourself floating in space, then God turns off the lights. You would have no spatial awareness of any dimensions, this proves light is the fourth dimension."

      conveniently neglecting to indicate which of the 28,000 gods(at last count) you refer to.

      And then the outrageous claim that you have somehow proved light to be the fourth dimension.

      I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

      You are quite obviously scientifically illiterate, or scientifically indifferent, or both.

      The supernatural is your home. Go there. Stay there. Stay out of the way.

      And don't go squealing after modern medicine which exists only because scientists ignore babble such as yours.

      Be true to your beliefs. Nothing(but the soul) is of any real meaning.
      So leave a hospital bed vacant for someone who appreciates the fruits
      of ignoring idiots like you.


    2. As for your comment The supernatural is my home, i think you will find it is todays scientists who are ALL chasing ghost particles.

    3. It's not the fourth dimension it's the only dimension, the rest of it is past tense and comes after the fact.

  50. We give a time of 24 hours for the Earth to revolve once on its axis. If we had no measure of time, the Earth would still revolve on its axis. Time is a unit of measure, it is no different than length, height, weight. If I look through a telescope at a star at the edge of the visible universe, I am looking at something which no longer exists, there is no difference to this and my looking at a picture of my great grandad who no longer exists, therefore time, is irrelevant, it has no discernable meaning, it is not even particularly useful as a measure, we can not accurately date the universe, our sun, our planet, or any of the stars we see, and what does it achieve ? Humans are the only species to place any significance on time, time is the sun, and our journey around it, the light from nuclear fusion of stars is what we interpret as time. It is highly improbable, we will ever be able to manipulate the speed of light, therefore, time only has some meaning to humans in there self orientation of the world around them. Humanity manufactured time, to manipulate the world around us, starting with agriculture. space/time, is not relevant to space. We will be extinct long long before anything ever changes in the universe, and time will also die with us.
    From an early age we are forced to conform to a clock, be back by this time, its time to go, look at the time your going to be late, it is little wonder we are obsessed by it. Consider how often in one day you look or get told the time, if you actually think about it you may consider yourself to be neurotic about time. Time is in effect what makes us act in a conformist way.
    Dates/calendars, have no meaning, January 1st would at least have some celestial meaning if it lined up with a planet. Einstein only got an interest in time when he himself became the product of time, his famous equation does not mention time, but it does mention the speed of light, because the speed of light is what we call time. light is the fourth dimension, of which we are quite ignorant of, and all that mystifies us, often appears in the form of light.

  51. Perhaps your right in this case, who knows? But at least it's from you and not a quote!, that's not to say that someone hasn't thought or spoke about the same thing somewhere. And further more who cares there is nothing we can do about this AT THIS TIME. You said what i tried to say in one little short paragraph Craigzz!! Bravo!!

  52. Nothing in this programme is convincing. I personally question whether time is relevant or just a product of our own existence. A dog for instance, does not appear to be conciously aware when it existed, or when it will die, a dog is only aware of the hear and now, and always aware of when it is time for a walk. This suggests these theorists are just stroking there own overinflated ego's.

    1. I don't think the program is supposed to be "convincing" imho. The show asks a question, in this case "does time exist" and then provides theories for both sides. It leaves that actual convincing, or decision up to the viewer - which I personally enjoy.

      "A dog for instance, does not appear to be conciously aware when it existed, or when it will die, a dog is only aware of the hear and now, and always aware of when it is time for a walk. This suggests these theorists are just stroking there own overinflated ego's."

      Just because an animal isn't aware of time doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, a mouse is not even aware of it's own existence (as far as I know), does that mean that it doesn't exist? An ant isn't aware of me when I walk by, does that mean I don't exist?

      Our lives are a subjective voyage, but just because we aren't aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't existence. I suppose this would also help your point aha.

      Still for some reason after reading your comment a few more times I think I may be misunderstanding... Aha.

  53. Whenever We gaze at sky and look at stars,whic infact we are looking at past,we do not know for sure that in current time the start exist or it has burned out .Any future event which is certain to happen and no matter what happens the certainity of event remains unaltered(Like all the stars we know for sure will eventually burnout )gives us a clue that the future,present and past exist together.


  54. Well, the comments on this particular doc seems to have gone down a tortuous, confused, and intolerant path where science and ignorance of scientific principles are espoused with a degree of vitriol not seen here without the involvement of religion. While I do not claim a great depth of knowledge in physics, I know enough to know what I don't know. I hope this prevents me from making it up as I go and throwing it out there as some are wont.

    @SONNYCORBI Your analogy involving a movie projector, waldO, and Achems is quite flawed. When approaching the speed of light time does not reverse its flow; it slows relative to the observer left on earth. Therefore no one is "getting younger". Even more confused is the thinking (so far as I understand you to mean) that on the return trip at the same speed, time would "fast forward" and waldO would arrive home the same age as Achems.

    You then write that you tire of being tolerant and go into a confused rant calling those who spend years of study in a particular field "dumb MF's who control the textbooks and hold the rest of us back". You claim to have "designed your own math equations to fit the problem at hand", then once again lapse into name calling.

    None of this is helpful. It reveals little about the fascinating subject at hand and much about yourself.

    @Cool E Beans One of us is a very confused man.

    @ Art Vignette I see you're back with a shiny new avatar and slightly changed name to transmit more ideas which embarrass your fellow canucks and defame our school system. I can't say I've missed you, but.....welcome back.

    1. I am not in the mood at this moment to respond to this but it does deserve a response, i'll give you one small hint it was a mockery, sort of like the string theory that's been around for eons with out one shred of scientific evidence; that is shoved down the throats of the accadaminamazoid wanta be's by accadaminamazoids.

  55. Alright here we go, (sometimes it takes a night for the subconscious to culminate into transferable logic), "Mean while back at the ranch", okay just to recap and move forward, yesterday i spoke of Waldo being the twin that was traveling at almost the speed of light and Achems'Razor staying here on earth; Waldo would be on rewind heading out towards the projector, the Sun, he would be going back in time so he would be getting younger and Achems-Razor here on earth would be continuing to get older and then when Waldo returned to earth at almost the speed of light he would again start aging however the time it took Waldo to arrive back on earth he would have lost the amount time aging equal to the amount of time it took him to rewind and come back, (fast forward). But no matter the time relative to the some total would still be a constant the only difference would be Waldo"s time clock! I am tired of being tolerant, when ignorance shows it's true colors in doesn't deserve tolerance!

    Think about this, Anyone who spends many many years to learn a lot about one subject, (A phd, considering it a double edge sword), isn't very smart and especially when they control the textbook data and force feed their limited compounded knowledge down the throat of another individual to prompt their, in essence, ego is at best, ONE DUMB MF, and at worst holding us all back. Oh you may build a few tinker toy trinkets with your limited boxed in knowledge. I have always studied my own curriculum and designed my own math equations to fit the problem at hand. Now if one needs to study structural engineering for the safety of us all that's one thing but to proclaim any semblance of intelligence based on the study of such intangible ambiguous BS and claim it to be anything but just that is the highest point of arrogant ignorance. At least the clergyman admit that his beliefs are based on faith.

    I saw this on a bumper sticker, "GIVE ME AMBIGUITY! or give me something else".

  56. I actually took the time to read each and every word of that whole who's on first scenario between Waldo and Achems-Razor. Lets say that the Sun is a movie projector, (a big one, relative of course), and we and everything else in the sun's domain is a hologram, (digital or analog depending on the viewers perception, a little quantum here), and lets say Waldo is the twin that is traveling and Achems-Razor is the twin that is staying at home; is it possible that Waldo and Achems-Razor were manifest from their own beam of light and Waldo was on Rewind so Waldo in effect was going back in time and the fact that he actually went back in time, hence etc etc etc.

    The Irony of the above is that my hypothesis is as good as i gets at this point in "TIME"

  57. For all of you "theoretical" physicist out there if you haven't checked the news on google news under science they claim that that caldron sphere has revealed several or more? New sub atomic elements, they still haven't answered my question.

  58. This show is absolutely addicting! I work for DISH and have recently made the transition to HD programming; it makes such a difference and all the outer-space shots/simulations are amazing. I am loving all the conversation that is being generated by this show! It is very intriguing and a rare find. It is bringing up many questions that are fun to throw around the mind. I hope it is very successful and continues on for many years.

  59. update: data from the FERMI telescope described in part 4 has yet to detect a difference in the speed of gamma rays vs photons in the early universe. this supports the theory that time is an illusion, and narrows the chances of time being real.. just so you know

    1. Yes, time would not exist in the, (for lake of a better term),the sub atomic state of being, the reality state of being, there would be no need. It would only exist in the state of matter and the distance between matter. ie, how long, how far, how fast and so on. No argument here, i just don't pull my information or theory's from text books or other peoples theory's. To me gamma rays, photons the early universe is all well and good and has it's place i am sure, HOW EVER I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE WE CAME FROM AND WHY WE ARE HERE, PERIOD, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING! NOT SPIRITUALLY SPEAKING, NOT THE HOLLY GRAIL SPEAKING BUT TECHNICALLY SPEAKING! AND ALL OF THIS OTHER INPUT IS IRRELEVANT ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS, (YOU LIKE THE WORD ELEMENTS BETTER) GAMMA RAYS, PHOTONS AN THE UNIVERSE IN IT'S EARLY STAGE, (WHICH IMPLIES TIME), IS ALL WELL AND GOOD BUT IT DOES NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION, can you tj?

    2. I hope you are ready for this.

      Point #1. I do not believe in GOD - however, I also know that GOD exists. It is similar to electricity in that I no longer believe that which I know. Find and watch Nassim Haramein's Rogue Valley Metaphisical Library parts 1 and 2 (link available if you ask) to learn the true identity of GOD described in the Bible (you probably won't believe it until you read it in the introduction of the New American Version).

      Point #2. There is an absolute fastest speed of the passing of time which would occur if you were standing (or sitting) absolutly motionless in space. We are currently on a planet which is spinning. It is also orbiting around a Star. That star is orbiting around the center of a galaxy and that galaxy is also moving through space relative to the universe as a whole. Even if the center of the galaxy were stationary, there is still quite a lot of speed of movement in just the orbiting of the star and planet.

      Have you ever noticed, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, that the Winter seems to drag along and that Summer seems to fly by and on their own, Spring and Fall last about an equal amount of time? According to Einstein, the faster you travel the slower time passes and this has been measured but not applied. When the Earth is moving in the same direction as the Sun in its' path around the galaxy, our orbital speed is added to the Suns speed causing the progression of time to slow down. This is the Northern Hemispheres' Winter and when we round the Sun and are headed opposite to the direction of travel of the Sun, our orbital speed is subtracted from the overall speed of movement thereby increasing the speed of the passage of time. This would be during the Summer. During the Spring and Fall, we are moving perpendicular to the direction of the Sun which would neither add nor subtract our orbital speed from the Suns' speed providing a stable timeframe for those seasons.

      Realize also that during the Suns' path around the galaxy, it is also either traveling in the same direction as, in the opposite direction of, or perpendicular to the direction of the galaxy. Apply this variance in speed to the relative passage of time and see what you come to believe about how old things are or how long they lived.

      The fact that the Sun is moving on its own accounts for the eliptical orbits of the planets. If the Sun were stationary, we would have circular orbits. The Suns path is also on an arc-shaped course around the galaxy so that on the completion of each orbit we are playing a game of catch-up with where the Sun is in its' orbit and where it would have been if it were travelling in a streight line.

      Point #3. The supposition that micro and macro evolution are similar is incorrect. With the understanding of the causes of micro-evolution, it should be clear that macro-evolution is a whole other ball game.

      What causes you to be you is genetics and the food supply.

      Genetics. You are the product of your father and your grandmother. While the sperm that is half of your genetics came from your father within a few days or weeks of your conception, the egg was created by your grandmother while she was pregnant with your mother. This is why some genetic anomolies seem to skip a generation. Your mother was born with all of the eggs she will ever have.

      Food supply. You are what you eat is more than just a saying. All you really are is the product of a combination of DNA which although similar to every other human on the planet, it is also complex enough to be unique to you. And what do you eat? Plants ie. fruits and vegatables and meat ie. animals and fish. And plants and animals are no more or less than another combination of the same DNA which you are already made up of. Your body doesn't just get vitamins and minerals from what you eat, it also injests the DNA using the new materials to recreate a new you every 7 years or so. And while eating different amounts of different foods won't make you taller(I don't think), it does make you thinner or fatter and healthier or sicker.

      This adjustment in the types of food eaten by two mating individuals can, in just two generations, cause a micro-evolutionary change in their offspring which, if the new food continues to be eaten, could become a different variation in the species from that point on. When Darwin found finches in the Galapagos Archipelago with stronger beaks eating nuts with harder shells it should be obvious what caused it - the genetics of the nut transferred to the finches who ate that nut manifesting in a stronger beak not because it was necessary to have a stronger beak to break open the harder shell but the genetics which cause the nut to have a harder shell translated to the genetics of the beaks of the finches giving them a similar hardness. If the genetics hadn't transferred or had done so not to the same advantage as it did (such as stronger tallons) those finches wouldn't have survived on that food supply.

      This is an example of micro-evolution and it has been happening ever since life began and is still happening. It is a slow process in humans as two generations have to adopt the adjusted food supply (remember your dad and your grandma) and this new supply must also be different enough to cause a shift in the DNA makeup. See the recent documentary regarding the cooking of our food for an example.

      For an example of macro-evolution you would have to talk to the folks at Monsanto. It is the deliberate and direct manipulation of a species DNA either mixing with another source as Monsanto has done or knowing which parts of the DNA you want to change and making that change directly and field testing the results. You could do it with breeding as has been shown with wolf to dog, but the dog was always there, it was just the recessive genes which in nature are held in check by breeding agressives with agressives. Only by breeding tame with tame do the recesseive genes have the ability to cause wolves to become dogs.

      And now to step into the realm of belief. If you get Point #1, that isn't the whole story. Man didn't evolove from ape, at least not on his own. The genetics of apes were manipulated over thousands of years in steps which archeologists have found in cataloging the differences in pre-man to present man. It is like making a single change, such as the sphenoid bone in the doc 'Homo Futurus' and letting micro-evolution work for a while to see if the change was enough to get a thinking creature. We only have some of the evidence of what took place here in the past with much of the documentation either having been destroyed or held out of our reach or adjusted for our continued viewing pleasure (how many 'versions' of the Bible are there anyway?).

      I believe our soul is separate from our body and that WE as souls asked another race of sentient beings to create bodies for us to inhabit.

    3. @Cool E Beans:

      Your point #1. makes no sense. Either you believe or you don't believe that your god exists. Nassim Haramein's theories was found to be incorrect by peer reviews. True identity of god? from a book? give me a break.

      The fastest speed of time is one Planck length of space equal to the speed of light, anything else would be static.

      Not sure what you mean about your time and seasons scenario.

      Doesn't matter if sun is stationary, planets would still have concentric orbits, always falling in to the sun by gravity, and escaping suns gravity by their velocity's.

      Also not sure what you mean by the DNA from food source causing genetic changes. Is that why Giraffes have long necks because of the DNA from the trees, Hmmm?

      No, man did not evolve from apes, "we are apes" of the mammilia species.

      By you saying that we as souls asked another race of sentient beings to create our bodies, blows everything you say out of the water, you weren't doing to bad until you came up with that remark!

    4. Vlatko that response from Achems Razor was not for me but for cool e beans,
      how ever i can understand his dilemma at the end of someones response TDF
      does not give the responce E a place to reply back to the person who
      responded to the original comment? it just has the word like and no reply is
      posted? So the only thing one can do to respond is post their statement on
      the original statement above, does that make seance?

      maybe i am missing something here? At the end of cool e beans original comment it just says , Like there is no word Reply?


    5. Then what happens is you notify the wrong person like i was just notified
      that Razor reply to me and the person he wanted the message or reply to go
      to never gets. Unless he happens to go back to the doc and scrolls down?

      this message is out of context i don't understand it why not just take it off the air?

    6. sorry for using those capital letters DJ i lost it there for a moment. I missed my bus and had to walk eight miles in this heat today.

  60. one could say time is just an illusion created from the other laws of physics, how particles interact etc, or one could say that time is a law of physics and affects particles/energy/distance. that experiment they were talking about thats going on now would answer it

  61. anyone know the results of that incoming data on if physics was the same in the very early universe? thats the only way so far to settle de22lano's argument

  62. Its invented duuhh, if we didnt invent time then their wouldnt be any, and to explain why and how we grow 'older' is just because our organs and all the other stuff in the body just isnt healty and strong enough for 'living' a period of time, and this works with alot of things almost everything, and everything can be created and can be destroyd over time.., and i can go on and on. sorry for my bad english.

    1. time is not invented. our measurement of time using seconds and minutes and hours and such is invented though. the second law if thermodynamics says that entropy is increasing for all natural processes in the universe. that can be used as a natural measurement for time. since entropy increases, a naturally occurring process, such as the shape of a star, or the orientation of a galaxy, is always changing, which means that it was different, and will be different, thereby having a past, present, and future. thus: time exists. measuring time is just a way to measure rate of the change, and without entropy increasing, you cannot have change.
      as for your other statements, the human body and organs dieing is because entropy is increasing for the human body, and when you said "everything can be created and can be destroyed over time" i cringed when i read that. matter cannot be created nor destroyed. that's the first law of thermodynamics. when the body dies, it doesn't just disappear. it gets decomposed by bacteria who use it as food...
      science: you should learn some before you post a comment.

    2. The 2nd law of thermodynamic doesn't apply to open systems, only closed systems. The human body is an open system, meaning we add to it all the time. The universe is a closed system, nothing new has been introduced since it was created. This is why some medical authorities say we may eventually live forever, because the human body is an open system and we can intervene and reverse the effects of natural entropy by adding resources. We just do not know how to do it yet, for certain organs that is. I am not saying you said anything wrong in your post, technically you were exactly right. I just thought it was a little misleading though to think of the 2nd law of thermodynamics applying to the human body as a separate system. Entropy effects all systems, but it does not always increase from one moment to the other in open systems.

      The problem is that any resources we add to those open systems to keep them going comes out of the larger system called the universe, and one day there will be nothing left to add because the universe is a closed system and as entropy increases those resources disappear. That's why it is crucial for us to stop using inefficient processes that consume huge resources and yield low amounts of usable energies. The universe is huge but we only have access to those resources that we can interact with directly, if we speed the process of entropy within that limited volume of space we are able to access until we have no other viable resources to keep open systems functioning- check mate!!

  63. great docu, like every episode in this serie. i love all the speculation, but i dont think that anyone today has a spot on theory of why and how reality exists, but i really like watching these cause i think many are getting the right direction and has bits and pieces that are right, but nobody is spot on.

    and for the 1 dimension thing, i dont believe in that at all, to me its just a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too simple answer, and i believe that no matter what the explanation of everything will be very long and very complicated, cause although we have no evidence, everything supports that the deeper we dig the more complicated it becomes and reality is at the very bottom level (i think and hope so)

  64. ones perception of time has nothing to do with time, one second is one second relative to the some total. True ones perception may effect our thinking and cause us to act according to how we perceive time but time relative to the some total is a constant

  65. The statements made in this program and physicists with regards to the universe being more disorganized over time are completely and totally incorrect with the observable facts. In fact just the opposite is true.

    The Law of Thermodynamics to which the physicists are referring to only applies on a small and limited scale. I was taught the Law of Thermodynamics both in high school and in my engineering courses at the University of Ottawa.

    The Law of Thermodynamics states that matter will become more and more disorganized over time. The Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.

    Why would I make such a statement?

    Because all the observable information in the universe tells me it is wrong.

    There is one fundamental law of the universe. Pure energy will be transformed into more and more complex states of matter over time, both inorganic and organic, until that matter becomes self aware to the point that it wills itself to discover its place in the universe.

    How do I know the above statement to be true?

    If you are a human being reading this statement on a computer then the above statement is true.

    Human beings are one of the most complicated organic creatures created by nature living on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy.

    Computers are the most advanced inorganic tools to be created on the planet earth to date.

    Therefore there is one fundamental law of the universe. Pure energy will be transformed into more and more complex states of matter over time, both inorganic and organic, until that matter becomes self aware to the point that it wills itself to discover its place in the universe.

    Pure energy is transformed into hydrogen atoms.

    Hydrogen atoms condense in hydrogen clouds.

    Hydrogen clouds condense under gravity and electromagnetism to form stars.

    Stars through nuclear fusion and electromagnetism transform hydrogen atoms into all of the other elements in the periodic table.

    When stars explode these elements then recombine to form new hydrogen gas clouds, new stars, new planets, and new solar systems.

    The elements on a planet begin to form simple forms of chemical chains.

    These chemical chains then begin to form simple forms of life.

    These simple forms of life then begin to manipulate inorganic matter into more complex forms.

    Both organic life and inorganic matter evolve step by step to become more complex states of matter.

    Organic life evolves to the point where it become self aware to try and explain its place in its immediate community, its place on the planet, its place in its solar system and its place in the universe.

    I know this fact to be true because I represent one of the most advanced forms of life on this planet using one of the most advanced tools on the planet. I am a human being with a biological quantum computer for a brain that interfaces with the "Spiritual Dimension" of the universe and I am using a state of the art computer for 2011 to type this.

    The Law of Thermodynamics is true only on a very small and limited scale.

    There is one fundamental law of the universe. Pure energy will be transformed into more and more complex states of matter over time, both inorganic and organic, until that matter becomes self aware to the point that it wills itself to discover its place in the universe.

    The above law of the universe is based on all of the observations that I see around me in nature.

    1. Everything you went through added complexity and proved the Law of Thermodynamics. Assuming the world started a pure energy and transformed to pure hydrogen atoms. You just added complexity. You need quarks to make the proton and electron that orbits the proton. Those quarks are made of either energy or strings depending on the theory you believe. So you've gone from one constituent to essentially at least 6 constituents, that is an increase in chaos. You are also misunderstanding the law. Entropy does not decrease or increase, it simply spreads out. The more complex a system becomes the more chaotic it becomes. On a macroscopic scale it seems organized, but as you watch each piece of the machine work you will see the true chaos underneath (chaos theory). Clearly U of Ottawwa needs to step up their engineering program.
      Sincerely, BME student at Rutgers.

    2. Actually entropy is not the disorganization of matter over time exactly. It is the measure of energy that has decayed into a unusable state. When it all decays the universe will reach absolute zero and all motion and change will stop. They do also define entropy as the increase in disorganization of a closed system, but they are not referring to the matter becoming more disorganized exactly. It would break down, in the end it would have to because all the energy is in a unusable state and therefore no nuclear forces or anything would exist to hold the constituent parts of matter together. Entropy only increases in closed systems as well, if you can somehow introduce some new energy, say in the form of heat or light, entropy would decrease slightly when you did so. The human body is a good example of a system that isn't closed, we add food i.e. energy to it all the time.

      I try to think of it like this, and this is just a gross over simplification not a scientific explanation- it just gives you the overall concept in a way you can visualize it. The big bang explodes and the energy causes all this motion and vibration, but that will eventually stop right? No matter how big the explosion was if it added all the energy to the system that the system will ever have then the system has to eventually slow to a complete stop- and that is the increase of entropy. Now actually the big bang didn't explode and it is much more complicated as far as how the energy that was created in that event manifests itself in our universe- but it will eventually decay into unusable states. They call it reaching absolute zero because if heat is a measurement of vibration, (hot) particles vibrate very fast (cold) they vibrate much slower, then if all motion stops you would have a temp of absolutely zero- no temp at all really.

    3. Art Vinette would you please, in depth, explain the, "Spiritual Dimension"

  66. when youtube audio and video are slightly out of sync i feel like i know the words and could speak them simultaneously. i guess im a bit schizzo

  67. Very profound. I really like when physics and philosophy link so well.

    1. "(The laws of)" Physics and philosophy; interesting!; sort of like "Theoretical~Physics"/"Water & Oil?

      Concept; soap using water as a catalyst emulsifies oil?

      Concept; the bursting of the atom, using concept as a catalyst emulsifies Physics?

      Concept; physics is a misnomer?

      Concept; the atom is a misnomer?

      Concept; all of the above is a misnomer?

      Concept; all of the above comes after the fact and is secondary?

      Concept; concept is primary all of the above is secondary?

      Concept; there is one life/one force that manifest all form, ie: the same force that runs this computer runs the air conditioner. same force different forms.

      Concept; All of the above is mental masterbation.


      "Concept; All of the above is mental masterbation."

      This is the correct 'Concept'.


    3. Ozyxcba1 thank you finally someone who understands

    4. Oz i have to say you are the first to pass the multiple choice quiz!!!

      " are the first to pass the multiple choice quiz!!!"

      first and only (lol)


  68. Parmenides was half right, it would be impossible to take one step unless you had an infinite amount of time to step through the infinite fractions thus giving you motion. Which there could not be without time. If you stop time right now, the present divided by infinite fractions, if depicted on a sheet of paper would be a one dimensional dot infinitesimally small technically non existent. If all time is as an infinitesimally small point all time past, present and future must coexist at the same point in time. So what I did in this paused point in time happened one second previous as well as one second in the future and continually happens at every moment in time. So if indefinitely occurring the single non existent point would dot the entire sheet of paper until the sheet was covered in ink. Now there's a 2d representation of a single occurrence, apply every other occurrence to a 3rd dimension. If you draw a 3d graph (a cube) x from point of origin running right, y going up and z running left. Value each axis 1-4 and value the grids respectively only the axis' can be valued linearly whether its 1-4 or 4-1 (the aforementioned ''evil twin universe'' with time flowing backwards being one in the same with the one we know). The grids starting from the second up the y axis running along the x are valued 2,1,4,3 showing there isn't necessarily a natural order of occurrences in time. And given that for time to exist values of any state must change lest everything remain static. The universe may have come to be BECAUSE of FUTURE occurrences. Leaving you either with the question - what came first the chicken or the egg? Or the answer that the universe has ALWAYS been and NEVER will be.

    I love science, I also love weed can you tell?

  69. @ Annette Guida

    While it may seem you are instantaneously processing the information that the painting exists of, it is not so. It takes time for the light to reach your eyes, for your eyes to transmit the signal to your brain, for your brain to process that information, and for you to form an opinion of what you are looking at. It also took time for the artist to create the painting. The only process we know of that is independent of time is quantum entanglement.

    Don't feel bad about that physics grade, I was horrible in piano class. I did eventually pick up the guitar and did great with it, but piano just didn't feel right to me. I envy you, I wish I could play piano so badly. It creates the most beautiful music, and is so easy to be creative with. It is much easier for the band I am in to come up with original material using key boards and then transfer the bass line and melody over to other instruments. I suppose that is because on the piano you can play both the melody and the bass line at the same time, so one person can sit down and show you exactly what they have in mind. Instead of trying to explain the bass line you hear in your head to a bass player and the melody to a guitarist, you just show them. Science, mathematics, engineering, chemistry, etc. are all noble pursuits and very necessary to sustain life- but visual art, music, love, passion- these are the reason we preserve life in the first place.

    P.S. Sorry this was supposed to be a response to the below post but when I submitted it it placed it at the top, I probably made mistake- my bad. I didn't mean to interrupt the flow of this thread.

    1. just thought to say your quite right about the music and art ...and ur ID pic is cool tool and gray are two of my favs ;)

    2. I am a Tool/Grey maniac and always happy to meet another. I would go further but this is off topic. Remember, one need only listen to his muscle memory to realize that forty six and two are just ahead of us! See you around the tool shed brother.

      Warning: Any attempts by non-tool fans to try and understand the above post may result in serious personal injury and/or open flames.

  70. I had to stop the segment. Everything was too hard to digest at once. I have to keep these dilemmas for me, compartmentalized.
    As and artist and pianist, (Not by any means near a prodigy, though).....I have to comment on a thought that has been with me since a little girl...that Art is perceived in SPACE..and Music is perceived in TIME. The results are the same. The methods are the two forces" You play or hear a Bach Fugue, and are getting to completion, by virtue of the lenghth of time until the final note.

    When painting or observing and looking at a piece of art, you are instantly slammed in the brain with the full impact of the visual experience.... ( that is another mode which is made complete by virtue of the full impact.using the FORM which is visual and instantaneous. Therefore, Einstein gets my highest esteem so far, as a man able to calculate and pass on to man, the concept of Time changed into Space....and Vice Versa....
    When I was younger, a Physics professor and i were at odds, my grade was bad. Yes., Throughout all of his mathematical Rhetoric, including the equation of Uncertainty...!! I read with interest Einstien's graph depicting the Take one step...and your time is past by the second. go on and on and on
    and you will have travelled longitudenally and latitude.......That seems like a damned good premise to study with more reality in mind. But thanks for reading my posting.

  71. Time is something we invented becasue we can't understand beyond that concept. After all, we are creations of this universe and not equipt to understand that which might not exist in our universe.

  72. Physicists don't agree that the big bang created space. Some believe this. Others believe it simply expanded an existing, infinite space.

    1. I wasn't aware of the belief that the big bang created spacetime. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I have never heard of it. I have heard the interpretation of the theory that says that spacetime was expanded from a singularity, that it already existed in that singularity in another form. In fact the interpretation that I am familiar with says everything in the universe existed in that singularity, just in forms we do not understand and can not define yet. This alternate interpretation is interesting though. Thanks, I will enjoy researching that.

  73. Early motion pictures were static shots that showed an event or action and it used to project in speed that would give viewers an illusion of a Continuous
    movement...............the same way the event are all detached from each other but it is only we are unable to see the trick.


    1. Then how does information from one instant get communicated to the next? If each moment is isolated from the next or the previous why when you push a ball does it keep rolling? The force exerted on it in that first instant is communicated to the next instant and so on and so forth until finally the ball stops. We also know that in a closed deterministic system we can look at the present state and tell you every state it has ever or will ever be in, because all that information is stored in that system. In my opinion that proves that each instant is inherently connected both to the instant before and the one coming after, its the only way information can be conserved.

    2. still the same in modern motion pictures

  74. Please take the time to read this pondering I have thought up on an aspect of time - read carefully and stick with it!

    The theory of time being able to move in more than one dimension was really interesting.

    What if the phenomenon of time slowing down as we move faster through space, is time itself smearing its trajectory through another of its possible dimensions of "movement".

    If you think of a triangle:

    The pointy end of the shape represents the initial moment of the "event," the adjacent line represent the end. The Opposite and the Hypotenuse represents two possible movements of time ITSELF to reach the end instance.

    So, you have the straight Opposite line which intersects with the Adjacent line at a perpendicular angle; this would represent a Scenario
    of time ticking at normal speed because its "moving" through only ONE of its dimensions.

    However you have the diagonal Hypotenuse, which takes a longer trajectory to intersect with the adjacent line because its moving in two, rather than one dimension on the page. This would represent time is moving slower as it now takes a longer, want for a better word, "time" for it to move through this secondary dimension to reach the same "instance" as the earlier perpendicular line. Ergo time gives the phenomenon if it ticking slower.

    Maybe the speed at which we travel somehow forces the way time, in its own respect, "moves" through its own dimensions of "movement". So as we move faster the arrow of time moves in multiple dimensions (up/Down as well as forward/backward) making it move slower.

    Does that make any sense?

    What do you think?

    1. Interesting idea, but you are not arriving at the same point in the end. One route takes you to the end point of that line segment and the other takes you to the point on the opposite end of that line segment. Still, I kind of see what you are suggesting even if the analogy was a bit off. The reason I don't believe it is so is because we have measured the effects of time dilation, though it was unimaginably small, on simple jet planes flying at attainable speeds in our own atmosphere. If we had clocks sensitive enough we could measure the effect of you walking down the street and me standing still, it would be so small of a difference though that I doubt any clock could register it. To me that suggest it is not entering another dimension of time.

      Another reason I would question that hypothesis is that time and space are intimately connected and can not be separated, you can not move through one without moving through the other. Therefore I can not see two dimensions of time existing in the same space time continuum. It would seem to me that if you entered another dimension of time you would by default also enter another dimension of space. I could be wrong though about that, don't quote me on it.

  75. I don't know if time exists or not... I do know that if I'm not at the bus stop at 4:49, I'll miss the bus, if I'm not at work at 5:30 a.m., I'll get canned, and that time heals all wounds.

  76. as_above .... you are full of sh*t

  77. time is based in vibration vibration produces form as such form cannot exist out side vibration, vibration cannot exist out side duration duration can only be observed from a point, a point requires a reference, a reference requires omnipotence or all knowledge there for the point is mute.

  78. gravity doesn't exist only magnetism dose and its duration is based on the distance of its polarity.

  79. and gravity has no affect on time

  80. time is only relative to its point in space

    1. Wow, that sounds like a mix of string theory and pure gibberish all to come to the same conclusion that real science supports with actual facts and data, time is relative. But hey, I am exhausted with playing the science police today, knock yourself out. I do wonder why you felt you needed to break that up over several posts though, seems odd to me and it somewhat confuses the flow of the thread. Still, as long as the admins don't mind its none of my business.

    2. that's ok i don't seek your approval and your opinion means nothing to me but hey knock your self out

    3. @ as-above

      I don't blame you a bit, apparently you are already rich with opinions of your own. Your theory has no need for more opinions, it is however in desperate need of some evidence, observations, and experimentation- some kind of proof. That is unless you can point me to credible sources that provide those already, can you? Notice I said credible sources, any one can throw up a website and express their opinion so just any website will not do. You need peer reviewed theories supported by repeatable experiments and carefully noted observations if you hope to be taken serious when making statements like gravity doesn't exist and doesn't effect time. If you can provide those I will happily concede in public.

      P.S. Another thing that would help your chances immensely is to word your theory simply and straight forward. The entire first paragraph of your post makes no sense what so ever, I can't even tell what you are really trying to say. "Time is based in vibration"- the vibration of what? I can name many clocks that do not measure the vibration of anything, yet they keep perfect time. "Vibration produces form"- this sounds somewhat like you are trying to talk about string theory but, you still haven't told us what is vibrating or how it produces form. In the interest of time I will skip to the end, "a reference requires omnipotence or all knowledge"- I assume you meant a reference point and here is the definition of it- A basis or standard for evaluation, assessment, or comparison; a criterion. Now what makes you think we need omnipotence to simply compare two things to one another?

    4. first "time is based in vibration" or simply in a field of vibratory energy
      a form is a collection or vibrating energy acting in coherence creating things such as rocks ,trees, clouds and earth
      h2o at one vibratory frequency is water and at a slower state of energy is ice and a faster creates steam each of these observed appear to be different in nature but consist of the same atomic structure.
      in order to have a true understanding of any constituent you have to be able observe its nature all the way down to its most miniscule detail which includes its environment in other words you cant know everything about anything because of our limited understanding
      as for gravity not existing im referring to the fact that if you break matter down smaller and smaller you find more and more empty space leading to the possible conclusion that matter doesn't exist, if matter doesn't exist what is gravity acting on? the alternative is magnetism which requires no mass and all atomic structures are made up of charged particles
      and as far as peer review and the like
      if i take a crap i don't need a group of scientist to agree with me that i took a crap i can observe it for my self.
      and as a matter of fact i would prefer you disagree with me and that is an opinion i wish to share.

    5. @ as-above

      That's is the most ridiculous bunch of unproven unfounded non-sense posted on this thread. The fact that you boast that you pay no heed what so ever to the scientific method proves you to be just another pseudo-scientific sham. The fact that you are proud of that proves you to be an a55 in my opinion. Besides it is quite obvious that you have postulated most of your ideas by listening to Tool and taking what they say literally, which even Maynard himself admits to be ridiculous. They are entertainers genius not scientists and while they may have plenty to add to philosophy, political discourse, etc. they have nothing to add to science and freely admit so themselves. If you think solving the questions that have plagued mankind for thousands of years is the equivalent of realizing you just had a bowl movement its no wonder you think this is good science, maybe you have 48 chromosomes.

      We know that atoms consist of positively and negatively charged particles. We also know that most atoms have equal amounts of negative and positive particles, or protons and electrons to be more exact, that are held together by the strong nuclear force. Those atoms that do have a net positive or negative charge usually bond with other atoms (covalent bonds) in order to share electrons and become neutral. Now we know also that a positive polarity attracts negative and repels other positively charged particles, and the opposite is true for a negative polarity. Which means if your theory were correct and magnetism is interacting with positively and negatively charged particles it would both push and pull on any neutral atoms and compounds in exactly equal and opposite ways, therefore yielding zero net effect on the compound or atom. Yet we know gravity does have a consistent measurable net effect on all matter, regardless of its charge.

      Matter doesn't exist because it consists of mostly empty space- How can it consist of anything if it doesn't exist? What divides those empty spaces that it mostly consists of? How can you talk of negatively or positively charged particles and then say matter doesn't exist? How can you say that we know nothing because we don't know everything and then turn around and star telling us what you know?

      Sorry, your theory is interesting and imaginative, but not science.

    6. By the way, we use magnates every day to bend the paths of particles, one good example is a cathode tube, aka a picture tube. This technology came about in the twenties I think, when ever T.V. came about. Its also how they separate uranium isotopes to get enriched uranium. In order to do these things it is crucial to be able to predict how differently charged particles react in a magnetic field. We have also extensively studied the magnetic field that surrounds earth and can therefore tell you exactly how it interacts with differently charged particles. In other words if magnetism were gravity they would have discovered that fact long ago. Combining the different known forces has been one of the largest and most sought after goals of science since the time of Einstein.

    7. I hear you. As much as I try NOT to get fragmented, I do. Your comment caught me. or else I would stay on the computer trying to keep on topic, which can be difficult re: such a topic so broad.?) I have a damned headache from myself, thnking about how to make a point clear, and understand with objectivity, other views......So, after tonight, I'm gonna have to try not to let passion be the enemy of precision. Thanks all.

    8. Precisely. As Space is only relative to its point in Time.

  81. time is simply movement through space. our perception of time may vary according different stimulations. it is merely a concept to measure this movement.

    1. Time can be the measurement of physical systems, like radio active decay. It doesn't have to be the measurement of movement through space. The reason time dilation is accepted to be the actual slowing of time and not just the slowing of clocks is because when we measure it using the half life of a particle, light clocks, mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, etc. time dilation occurs at the same rate and to the same extent to each of them. If it was simply effecting the way these clocks worked, not really slowing time, they would all show varying results because they all work differently. Once you accept and understand time dilation you can study and understand length contraction, which tells us distance is also relative. If distance is also relative then movement through space would not give us a universal time any more than other means of keeping time would.

  82. judging time in a persons life is like judging water on a person swimming in the ocean. what time is it? 9:02pm. what is the number of the drop of water on your head? (insert insane number). time is only relevant on a local level. time from space doesnt count for anything. if a 30 minute video is streamed to me but it takes 90 minutes to get it, does that mean the server who sent it to me is in the future? no. the concept of time is a measurement of something that is otherwise infinate. why isnt this obvious?

    1. time is simply movement through space. our perception of this movement, based on a variety of reasons, may alter. If the whole universe were at absolute zero, there would be no time.

  83. Psinet. I think that you need to take a look at your own psychlogy mate. How do you think einstein or the true 'apparent' progressors in society moved forward? By realising that they need to think outside of the definable. The reason that religon has a place in society, after even breaking away the individuals psychology and any other apparent reason for which we would chose to define a persons choice by is because science 'does not' hold on a second you might need to read that again 'does not' provide answers, only more questions. It provides us with a platform in which we chose to interact with the world aroun us. If you can tell me were 'something came from nothing' (and by logical regression that is the basis for mathematics and the way in which we choose to express the world around us) then I will beleive your ignorance as true. The one thing I think you could probably learn about your statement is about yourself and your general lack of respect and care for others opinions. You are trying to run before you could walk. Learn about yourself a bit more and then maybe you'll respect others and your opinion. Through the worm hole is bringing science into the for front again by inspiring people think philosophically. You will bring nothing to yourself, the perspective or the reality in which we exist if you are so closed minded, Science is about a religous as Islam, Christianity etc. Choose you words carefully and you should get some were.

    1. While I agree with your over all sentiments I can't agree with several statements you made. Science does offer us answers, it does have a place in our society, and it is not religious in the slightest. We never accept the answers science gives us as final, we do not have faith that that we know that much about anything- that is the reason science is such a better means of finding truth versus spirituality or religion. Religions say this is the answer and we have total faith that it is correct even though we have no proof and know that the reality we know doesn't work that way. Science says this is the best answer we have presently, we believe that because we have done experiments, made observations, checked the mathematics, and that process was repeated many times by many different people, and they all agree- but we will remain open to future evidence. These are completely different philosophies.

      The issue we face is that many people, and even pop culture science programs like through the worm hole, present interpretations of theories and conclusions deduced form theories as if they are part of the actual theory and accepted as truth by the scientific community. This leads people to believe that scientist have faith in things that have not been truly tested like multiple universes, that matter only assumes shape and form once we look at it, etc. The truth is that these are interpretations of what the data we have could mean, not necessarily what it does mean. We have to consider all the possibilities suggested by the data no matter how wild and weird to us, or we are limiting our pursuit of truth. No real scientist though would tell you that they believe one of these interpretations as absolute truth, only as possible truths. These shows and people should make it clear when they are leaving the theory and data behind in order to draw conclusions that have yet to be proven or even tested. It would make it more clear to people that science does not operate like religion in the slightest, in fact they are exact opposites in many ways.

      Now that would lead you to believe science doesn't offer any real answers, but its not true. Look around you, the computer you're typing on is an answer, the cell phone you use is an answer, your air conditioning is an answer, etc. We could not make these things work if we did not have the correct answers to certain questions. Still science leaves those questions open, simply because it is our philosophy to do so with every question. That doesn't mean that we wonder if the laws of thermal dynamics are correct though, we know they are, but by leaving the question open we might in the future come to understand those laws even better, not necessarily prove what we now know is wrong but to prove it may be incomplete or have deeper implications than we thought.

      Now for your think out of the box speech, science should make it clear that questioning things that have stood the test of time and peer revue for years, things that we use everyday in our technology, things that have been accepted as truth so long they have become common sense- is counter productive and senseless unless you have data or an observation to suggest we were wrong. Science doesn't simply test every possible scenario they can dream up, that would take forever and we would never get to the truth about anything. If you walked outside and found your dog had some how gotten out of his inclosure would you seriously investigate the possibility that he flew over the fence? Would you feel like you were not open minded if you didn't consider that possibility? Now if you come out and found the same thing but had some kind of data or evidence to suggest that he did fly over the fence, then science says you should look into it even though it seems impossible.

      As far as your theory that mathematics is based on the concept of something coming from nothing, I don't even understand that statement. Mathematics is not based on something coming from nothing. The big bang theory does set up infinite regression unless you can believe something came from nothing but, through quantum mechanics we have discovered that our ideas of cause and effect, the concept of nothingness, our perception of reality in general seems to be useless when dealing with a singularity. So maybe something didn't have to come from nothing, maybe it did and there is perfectly sound explanation of how it did, we simply don't know yet and neither do you. Besides the big bang theory doesn't attempt to tell us were the singularity came from. Once again you are confusing an interpretation of what the big bang could mean with the actual theory itself. Science admits it doesn't know where the singularity came from, once again that's a huge difference from religion which says it knows it all.

    2. Excellent @wald0. A very simple yet thorough explanation.

    3. @wald0

      Your posts have a greater scientific merit than the documentary. Every post has been informative, interesting, coherent and demonstrates a clear understanding of the topic. Well done.

      The documentary was interesting too, but it was highly speculative. Nothing wrong with speculations as long as one knows the difference between it and facts.

  84. Ir1s, you are a hippy. You do not understand physics. Quantum physics does not operate as an excuse for you to make daft statements like "what if we use our consciousness to pull things out of the quantum foam". You are talking crap, you have no idea how to execute such a daft suggestion and it is meaningless. Please stop projecting your crappy white noise onto the internet, as some use it to find real information, and your religious proselytizing is just a function of your own twisted psychology. STFU

  85. @ Ir1s

    What!?! Now you are seriously telling me that you have traveled in time?!? Alrighty then, good luck with that. (LOL) No wonder you took my attempt at real debate the wrong way. Can you say lithium? I mean I am not a doctor or anything but I would have that checked out man. Then again thank goodness for folks like yourself, the world would be a much duller place without you. Heck, just turn up the radio man it will go away eventually.

    By the way, I have no facts of my own only opinions. Facts are by their very nature universal. The things I talked of, the sequential order of cause and effect and so forth are THE facts- not MY facts. But hey, if you really have traveled into the past what do you care for mere facts? You are beyond facts and reality, you are a god. Seems odd that you are spending your divine time on TDF debating with mere mortals, go forth and bring about a new paradigm great exalted one.

    1. Waldo, am sure that @Ir1s: not sure if he or she, only meant that subjectively not objectively.

      Thinking about the past, that I sometimes do to much of, to me means travelling back in time.

    2. I hope you are right, but he didn't say it that way. He strongly suggested that he had physically traveled back in time. He even went so far as to say it didn't cause the physical effects I had predicted and that time was circular for him, doesn't sound like a trip down memory lane to me. But hey, this is getting negative and boring- not talking to you but this back and forth between me and Ir1s. I agree to disagree with you Ir1s, we are not having a productive conversation anyway. good luck to you and I apologize if it seemed I got personal with you. I admit I kind of did in that last post, but it was intended to be humor more than insult. Everyone has a little crazy in them, especially me.

    3. Waldo why do uneducated hippies who don't believe in science watch science related documentaries? I don't understand. All they do is cloud the issues with their own daft religion. They are not about reality - they are about confronting people for an opportunity to spout junk from their unconscious mind. And that's it. What they say isn't worth the air it is carried on - because it is driven by a personal psychology - how they WANT the world to be. Well - sorry hippy - the world doesn't give 2 $#@!'s what you want.

    4. While I sympathize with your frustration TDF is a public site and no one has the right to deny others the right to watch whatever they want on this site. The only exception to that rule should be when someone is intentionally breaking the rules or abusing the forum in some way, and the authority to make that decision lies with the admins only. I realize you never said they should be banned but that they should elect not to watch science based docs all on their own, but we have no right to tell someone that. I watch religious docs and I am an atheist, I watch docs about the supernatural and I am a realist, etc. etc. I do so because I want to completely understand what it is that I say I don't believe. One of my biggest pet peeves is someone that says they disagree with something but in reality they don't even understand what they say they don't believe, evolution is a great example. I hear creationist all the time saying evolution is wrong, then as the debate continues you realize they don't understand the theory at all. I hope everyone that wants to agree or disagree with any theory will take the time to understand it first.

      I am guilty myself of occasionally losing my cool and attacking the person instead of debating the issues, so I am not trying to say I am perfect by any means. In fact I have to take ownership of this ugliness because my above post is somewhat out of line and looks to have started something I never intended. I hope this doesn't come off like me preaching to you or trying to say I am never out of line. In fact I said exactly the same thing once to someone on a forum about a religious doc, Vlatko and others on this site helped me understand why that was wrong. I am merely passing on what they helped me learn.

    5. Hyppies made great contribution to the world in their own way (still do). Thanks to hyppies there are a lot less religious people out there.
      They watched science related doc to help them understand science, just like most people. Being educated is not necessarily an indication that someone is well "rounded'.

  86. I always enjoy this type of material very much, while at the same time (no joke there) I feel at a loss to really grasp it, because I simply do not have the mathematics. I'm a little reluctant, therefore, to make any comments. But I WILL say that I think the neurologist MAY be wrong...or at least didn't present his evidence clearly enough for ME to understand. Having been hospitalized with depression a few times years ago, I had the very fascinating experience of attempting to socialize with people suffering from varying degrees of schizophrenia. None of them seemed to be at a loss as to proper time, as the doctor suggests, but were tormented, rather, by such things as auditory and visual hallucinations, usually based on religious themes. They would respond to me immediately, but more or less incoherently, and I don't recall ever having the sense that they weren't directly in the moment, but from a very skewered perspective based on their delusions. One guy, who wore a large popcorn bag on his head, kept insisting I was John the Baptist, based -evidently- solely on the long hair and beard I had at the time! How, exactly, it might be that such a thing as mere misperception of time could lead to all that, I don't think the doctor made clear at all... Don't "normal" people "misperceive" it all the time? When we're sleeping, when we're having fun, when we're stoned or drunk? And if you say something like, well, their brains "fell back on" these things in an effort to make some kind of sense AS A RESULT of their problem with time, that still doesn't seem as pertinent to me as understanding why THIS hallucination, for example, instead of another...And how, exactly, is there such a commonality of themes across the spectrum of schizophrenia? Is it just cultural? Do sick people in India think they're Vishnu? If so, what exactly does that have to do with time?

    Having written all this out, I think I'm beginning to understand the doctor a little better... But there still seems something a little iffy about it to me. I think there's something crucial missing, but what it might be, I certainly don't know. Probably a MEDICAL DEGREE, huh?!

    1. @ Pysmythe

      After reading your post, a TDF documentary came to mind that you almost certainly have already seen, but on the off chance that you
      may not have, I recommend:

      TDF? SCIENCE? 78.God on the Brain


    2. I haven't seen it yet. I'll check it out...

    3. They've blocked it on copyright grounds, is what I got. But I DID recognize it, in fact. I saw it a while back on the tube. It's interesting that magnets can produce 'spiritual' sensations... Kind of a reverse of the 'ghost in the machine' dualism, as it's typically viewed.

    4. @ Pysmythe

      If magnets can induce 'spiritual' sensations, then perhaps reversing polarity could terminate them. Maybe we could fiddle around with H.A.R.P. and find a way to cure humanity of religion.

      It might really work! (lol)


    5. I just wanted to tell you how awesome your profile avatar is. :)

    6. indeed that Avatar gave you a hell of a great personnality!
      I like it!
      Hey Savage....are you making a pass?

  87. @Achems: You make a valid point about historical science fiction becoming modern reality. However there is always a progression toward the tangible. Going to the moon was once fiction and became reality. The moon was always there to the naked eye all we needed was the vehicle. Perhaps one day time will become like space, a dimension in which we freely travel we just need the vehicle. I tend to be a skeptic though. If one day we will discover the means of time travel what would prevent us from simply going back in time and giving the tech to us today? Or the old go back and change pivotal events. Even 1000 years from now I think someone would jump in travel back and kill Hitler. That is not in our history so perhaps time travel is not in our future.

    1. Yes, time travel to the future is a direct possibility, but never to the past, impossible, because there is no single past, even thinking about the unobserved past dramatically changes it.

      See my reply to @Is1s: about the past and future events according to Stephen Hawking.

    2. I suppose. But what use is time travel if not to have some effect? Yes there is exploration, and going back to when women wore Victorian style dress would be interesting. I once had a altered state convo with a friend where I insisted that "aliens" were just evolved humans who had conquered time checkin in on us for history class. Who knows?

    3. The only time travel into the past that is possible is looking up at the sky. Preferably the NIGHT sky, heh-heh...

  88. great documentary. the whole cause and effect issue in the comments got me thinking about bell's theorem and quantum entanglement (basically that if you take two particles from the same atom you can cause instaneous change in one by changing the other, no matter how much distance you put between them). it seems like this contradicts the whole concept of causality and/or the idea that nothing can move faster than the speed of light; the former because if you change the spin of one particle, for example, and the other's spin is IMMEDIATELY changed, you cant really say that you CAUSED that to happen, because the actions are simultaneous. and the fact that the distance between them is irrelevant means that whatever communication the 2 particles have must either be much faster than the speed of light or exempt from the rules of our physical world... it reminds me of the ansible communication in the Ender's series. any thoughts?

  89. @ Achem

    I realize that it is a relative effect as far as what you observe, but when you return to the frame of reference of the observer standing still you would have experienced time differently, meaning you would have aged less than them. Time dilation applies to everything, chemical reactions, physical motion, radioactive decay, your brain, your eyes, etc. This is why you do not notice you are moving slower, your senses and your ability to interpret external stimuli has slowed to the same rate as your movement- so it all appears normal to you. But it is not just a optical illusion, if that is what you were trying to say. Time did actually slow down for the person moving faster compared to the person moving slower or standing still. We know this because atomic clocks, which measure the resonate frequency of atoms, move slower on jets while in flight. I think maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at though, because I know I have heard you talk about this very thing before.

    Einstein says that as your speed increases your mass increases, we experience this as g-force. I have always wondered if that increased mass is not what slows time down, we know that more massive objects do slow time. Any way that's just my thoughts, not part of Einstein theory. .

    1. Waldo,

      No, sorry you have it wrong, time dilation does not as you say apply to everything, Et al. your senses, ability, etc: biologically nothing about the body has slowed down, they are as normal as say the stay at home twin brother not travelling, while you are travelling close to the speed of light to another planet say, the stay at home brother is also travelling away from you so to speak at almost the speed of light also, you according to the (Lorentz transformation) do the turn around first from the planet, the one who changes speed, and returns will have aged slower.

      And again no, g-force is centripetal force. Pins you to the chair as in astronaut training, and so on.

    2. I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this one Achem, I have lots of scientific literature that says I am right about time dilation effecting everything. That's peer reviewed literature by the way. I can give you several url's to back it up as well if you like. I would rather not get caught in moderation though when you can simply google it and find the stuff easily enough.

      Now as far g-force being the sensation of gained mass caused by acceleration, you are probably right on that one. That was my idea not real science. But, after thinking about the fact that you experience g-forces only during acceleration or when taking a curve and not the whole time your are moving, I would have to be wrong. Its not always centrifugal though, it can be caused by inertia- an object at rest trying to stay at rest. I am talking about the force that sucks you into your seat when a car takes off really fast in a straight line, inertia.

    3. @WaldO:

      Don't know if we are talking about the same thing here, but Einstein theory of relativity postulates that the spaceship has a frame of reference as valid as your own while you are on Earth.

      I, that am on the spaceship will have no special claim to any universal passage of time. From the frame of reference of the spaceship, it is stationary and you are on Earth are moving away at almost C.

      So in other words, the duration of a second in your frame of reference on Earth, is the same as in the spaceship, one second.

      Now what where you referring to, time dilation when coming very close to massive objects?? the bending itself of spacetime?? and light by gravity??

    4. No, I am referring to the well known fact that time slows relative to someone standing still as you move faster. They have placed atomic clocks on jets to prove this. If you go to the PBS website and look at the NOVA page then do a search for Einstein's big idea it explains it in detail. It is not a feature of general relativity, it is a feature of special relativity. If the NOVA page doesn't impress you then just google the question, does time slow when we move faster. Take your pick, there are tons of web sites explaining it. Heck if you go to science dot discovery dot com slash timemachine slash timemachine.html They even have a slide show explaining it.

      Special relativity takes into consideration Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space. In other words it may seem to you in the space ship that the earth is speeding away, but in reality it is fixed in spacetime. This is why time is ticking at different rates for these two reference points and why when you return to that fixed point in time and space you will not have aged as much as other carbon based biological systems that remained stationary. If they were both actually flying away from one another at the exact same speed they would experience exactly the same thing. And of course no one has any special claim to the universal passage of time, it is relative not universal. That's exactly my point.

      The way you describe the Lorentz transformation makes no sense really, even if you slow down and turn around if you look at the earth while doing so it will appear to have done the same thing. Just as it appeared to race away from you while you were racing away from it, it will now look as if it is racing toward you after slowing and then turning around. The difference is that your observation is an optical illusion, the earth is not racing away from you as you depart nor toward you on your return, it is remaining stationary. However those on earth are not experiencing an optical illusion, you are really moving through space and time away from them and then back toward them. You can verify this by looking up the Lorentz transformation on wikipedia amongst many other sources. It will always define it as describing only those transformations in which the space time event at the origin is left fixed or stationary.

      If it worked the way you are saying then those clocks on those planes would not have marked the passage of time more slowly, because they never slowed down and turned around. They simply flew from point a to point b, and time dilation still took place.

    5. @WaldO:

      You say, "I am referring to the well known fact that time slows relative to someone standing still as you move faster."

      You think that 'time dilation" is a real slowing down of biological bodily processes? No, it is an effect of observation between two different inertial frames.

      Every process in the moving frame slows down from the observing position. "But" in the moving frame itself, everything is operating as normal, RE: Einstein, spaceship scenario.

    6. Again I will have to disagree with you strongly. The fact that atomic clocks slow down tells us that the resonate frequency of the atom itself slows down, that is what the clock measures in order to keep time. Now that is not a optical illusion or just an observed effect, it is the actual slowing of time. They have also measured the life of certain particles that should die before they reach the earth, they simply do not have long enough life spans to have come from their source and traveled to the earths surface at the speed they are traveling- yet we do find them here at the earths surface still intact. This is because of time dilation, time slowed enough to let the particle live long enough to reach us. But, I can clearly see you refuse to believe I know what I am talking about, so here is what physics dot ucr dot edu has to say about it.

      "...consider the above subatomic particles. As mentioned they are moving very fast but we can still imagine Superman (an unbiased observer if there is one) riding along with them. So we have two pictures: from the observer on earth Superman's clocks (accompanying the particle) are very slow, and so he/she can understand why it takes so long for the particle to decay. But for Superman the particle is at rest and so it must decay in its usual short time...the fact remains, however, that the particle does reach the earth. How can this be? For the observer on the earth this is because of time dilation for superman it is because of length contraction, which is an effect of time dilation..."

      Now that clearly states that a particle that should not be able to reach the surface of the earth because it should decay long before it gets here does reach us because of time dilation, and this is an educational web site maintained by a college physics professor. Not only that but it tells us that according to superman's clock the particle died right on time, but he and the particle covered much more distance than they should have been able to considering the time that has passed on his watch versus the speed he was flying- this is called length contraction. That means it is not just an effect we observe, it actually slows time relative to our time here on earth and allows the particle to live longer and both superman and the particle to travel further than they should have according to our identical atomic clocks here on earth.

      The twin paradox states that the twin that returns is younger than the one left on earth. That is not a abstract statement, his cells have actually aged less than the twin that stayed at home. Now if that doesn't tell you that it slowed his biological processes relative to the twin that stayed home what would? If his biology carried on the same as the twin on earth why did his cells age less? Why do particles take longer to decay and are able to travel distances that they should not be able to live long enough to travel at the speed they are going? Why when they land the plane or space ship does the clock still read different from those here on earth, if it was an optical illusion cause by the frame of reference we would find that actually it reads the same as our clocks, it just looked as if it didn't while it was moving? The truth is that the clock measured the actual resonate frequency of the atom and it had slowed down compared to what it was when sitting stationary, it has recorded an actual event not an optical illusion. Am I to believe it slows the decay of particles, the resonate frequency of atoms, but not biological processes? That doesn't make sense. You say that every process in the frame of reference that is moving is acting normally, this is only true from the point of view of those that are in that frame of reference and I never denied or questioned that. My point is that even though it seems normal to them, it has slowed compared to our time here on earth and this is a real effect not just an optical illusion. Every process we have attempted to measure in this situation has slowed relative to the time it should take when on earth or sitting stationary. Why would biological processes be impervious to time dilation when nothing else we have measured is?

      I hope this doesn't sound ugly, I tried to word in such a way that it would not, but it still seems a little stiff.

    7. @WaldO:

      First of this is just a discussion that I enjoy.
      But to continue on with our bone of contention, you say that the bodily functions at the sub-atomic levels slows down, and that is why in the twin paradox scenario one twin is younger that the other. I say it is not. The twin is younger because of the effects of time dilation and length contraction.

      Will start off with Einstein synchronization, it is possible to synchronize all clocks because the speed of light is constant.

      "The Lorentz transformation" for time shows that the clocks in any frame of reference moving relative to you cease to be synchronized. (has nothing to do with slowing down of bodily functions)

      The "Andromeda Paradox" is something you should fully understand if you want to fully understand the "Twin paradox"
      The net effect of the the Andromeda paradox is that when someone is moving towards a distant point there are later events at that point for someone who is not moving toward the distant point. google it to know what am talking about.

      The nature of "length contraction" According to "special relativity" items such as measuring rods consist of events in space and time and a three dimensional rod is the events that compose the rod at a single instant. This means that two observers moving relative to each other will usually be observing measuring rods that are composed of different sets of events, read 3 dimensional.

      "Time Dilation" The term time dilation is applied to the way that observers who are moving relative to you record fewer clock ticks between events than you. In special relativity this is not due to properties of the clocks, such as their mechanisms betting heavier, or slower.
      Indeed it should not even be said that the clocks tick faster or slower because what is truly occurring is that the clocks record shorter or longer elapsed times and this recording of elapsed time is independent of the mechanisms of the clocks.

      The differences between clock readings are due to the clocks traversing shorter or longer distances between events along an observers path through spacetime. Which has direct application for the twin paradox scenario, that I might get into later if need be.

    8. Look man, no offense but this is going no where. You are attempting to educate me on subjects I have studied for years and have restudied over the last two days intensively to make sure I didn't make a mistake- I have even asked college physics professors and they say I am right- that time dilation slows every process relative to how long it would take on earth. Besides that you are being extremely condescending toward me, I am a physics major you know and the Andromeda Paradox as well as Lorentz Transformations are required reading. I have given you several references that are credible and say the same thing I am saying. So I am not sitting here thinking I am some genius that is impervious to mistake, I am simply repeating what I have read in peer reviewed literature and been informed of by people that know much more about physics than you or me- you know staying true to the standards of good science like we preach about all the time.

      The only disagreement we seem to have is that you contend that biological functions do not slow down due to time dilation, I think that makes no sense. If it slows every other process we have tested then why wouldn't it also slow biological functions? After all aging is simply the measurement of EVENTS that take place in our bodies over TIME. If time slows, or as you put it there are more clock tics between events, then biological aging has slowed relative to someone standing stationary. Now biological aging is a biological process and it has clearly been slowed. That makes perfect logical sense and is supported by your own statements, and plenty of scientifically reviewed evidence that I have sourced for you. If a particle ages slower compared to our clocks here on earth, and surely you do not contend that is wrong after the experiment I sourced for you, then so would a human being.

      We have reached a point where this conversation is becoming repetitive, condescending, and just plain tired. I have agreed to disagree with you several times to no avail. I have no further evidence that I am correct. If what I have given you isn't enough then we will have to agree to disagree. Now that doesn't mean that either of us pops up to tell the other that how he is wrong again, or that we just keep repeating the same statements in different words. It means we shake cyber hands and walk away. I'll take half the blame for this, I should not have offered further evidence when I said I agreed to disagree. That only rehashes the whole thing and we start all over again and end up right back here, agreeing to disagree. Now I realize that much like myself you will not be able to let me offer the above evidence without attempting to disprove it, it appears to be both our natures. But don't be offended if I don't respond as it is pointless. No offense intended, good day, gods speed, catch you later. I hope this doesn't effect future conversations we may have. I do value your input even if we disagree about this issue.

    9. @WaldO:

      Fine, I will drop it! But do not give me that jazz about being condescending, am sorry to say it was you that was being condescending to me. Or to be fair, maybe will meet you halfway. It is dropped!

    10. Look man it is not up to you decide when I feel someone has been condescending to me. You say I made you feel the same way, I apologize- it was never my intention and I will not tell you how you feel. If you say you felt I was condescending to you then I was, even if it was unintentional. So let me make that clear, I apologize with no strings attached or hedging of bets, no buts or calling your feelings "jazz"- just a straight forward apology.

      In your last post you tried to deny any wrong doing and place all the blame on me, but then say it is fair to meet me half way and just drop it. You can practically see your ego and your sense of ethics fighting one another in that statement. If it is fair to meet me half way then do so it is as simple as that. To me friendship is more important than being right so on top of the apology I will go a step further than meeting you half way. If it is the only way we can remain friends, I concede you were 100% correct and know more about time dilation than me.

    11. @WaldO:

      What are you a baby? almost like walking on eggshells with you sometimes. Grow up for Chr*** Sake, and quite crying the blues, that is all that I have to say. When I said it is dropped, then it is dropped! There are no winners on time dilation!

    12. Wow, you are really showing your true colors today huh Achem. Someone apologizes to you and pleas to remain friendly, concedes the argument even, and all you can do is spew more insults and vitriol. Its over when you say so? No, you don't have an ego problem at all. (lol) Crying the blues- no, your sense of importance isn't in the slightest over inflated.(LMAO)The apology I offered you was made out of a sense of common decency, not a desperate need for your friendship. There are no winners on time dilation- well thank you for making that decree, I wasn't sure what my opinion should be until the Mighty Achem told me so. I had you pegged all wrong Achem, now that you have shown me who you really are I agree with you- this isn't worth even the tiny effort of an apology.

  90. Time may indeed be an illusion.

    In general, any object of consciousness may be an illusion.

    As has been suggested many times, all that is may simply be All-That-Is experiencing itself.


    Where does that leave us? Where do we go from there?

    Such questions are rendered meaningless.

    There is nothing further to be said.

    “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one pass over in silence."
    ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

    Fact is, we will go on eating and drinking and sleeping whether sleeping, drinking, and eating are illusions, or not.

    If all is illusory, then that only goes to show how concrete and important
    illusions can be.


    1. Good answer, Oz.

    2. Something very like that is pretty much what I felt throughout this doc. Excellent post...particularly that last line.

    3. Thnx, Pysmythe.
      Been following some of your posts.


      P.S. Did you just change your avatar?

    4. Yeah, it was either this one, or the monkey in a suit with a gun! "Funny images" on Google, of course. One of these days I'll put up something more personal, probably a pic of my little boy. He's as cute as they make 'em, IMO, lol.

    5. why not DickCheney and scare everyone to death?! (lol)


    6. Dr. Strangelove?! Did you SEE his fat ass at Obama's inauguration in a f'kn WHEELCHAIR?? I nearly died laughing, so help me! It was so appropriate...

    7. you wouldn't want that avatar during hunting

    8. In that case, I hope whomever is hunting me isn't hunting with Cheney -for THEIR sake! lol.

    9. We humans use our senses to map, see, explore, and define the worlds that surrounds us but we cannot define ourselves.
      We may be a mirrorlike receptiveness. A ball of conciousness,(close your eyes, meditate and your limbs dissapear, what's left is a feeling of being energy suspended in nothingness).
      Everything we discover outside of us seem to exist inside of us in a similar ways.... a reflection it is.
      The deeper one goes in the wormhole, the closer one comes back to the surface of i.
      Nature could be physical and us not.

      "Time Changes, the world goes on changing, but the experience of silence,the joy of it, remains the same." Osho

  91. I don't think time is an illusion. Look out your window and see how all the past moments of time have come together to form the reality of that moment in time, when you looked out the window. We can all see into the future too, of what might happen if we stopped showing up for work on time. This was a great doc for giving the brain a stretch, but the reality is that we are stuck with time.

    1. Good answer, Sertsis :-)

    2. Stuck in time!

    3. Stuck with time.
      p.s. Hope you had a good time this weekend.

  92. Vlatko:

    I've been watching the docs and lurking around the site since Feb. - I like your site very much.

    You have quality films - I always have a good time here - whether it's watching the docs or reading the comments.

    Thank you.

  93. @Achems_Razor:

    "You say, 'I believe all physical reality is a manifestation of our thoughts and emotions'...A lot of theoretical, quantum physicists also ask the same thing, do we collapse the waveform by our thoughts, by looking, and collectively form all we see from the vast sea of unlimited probabilities from the quantum foam."

    Thank you for putting it so much better than I did. We are not separate from Nature. Things are not thrust upon us. We choose what what physical things manifest - collectively and individually in cooperation with Nature and with each other. There is an unlimited amount of probabilities to choose - still, there are parameters.

    As Waldo points out, cars run down and water cools off. People don't regenerate limbs. That said, it doesn't mean we couldn't play around with those facts if we're going to be choosing probabilities.

    What might happen if we consciously try to pull out different things from the quantum foam? Or, how about just examining what we pull out now and choosing where to go from there?

    Weird stuff - I know.

  94. Of course time exists. Time dilation would not be measurable if it didn't.

  95. im tired of this series. ugh. boring. i wish hitchens would do one like this, it would be hellafunny

    1. I still like the series , but it does seem to be running out of ideas sort of.

    2. The next title could be:
      What can GOD be to be?
      And get (closer to being) over with the question once and for all!
      Allez Morgan, dig deeper in the hole.

    3. I don't think he's in any shape to right now, but, yeah, that would be good times.

    4. What's wrong with Hitchens? I hadn't heard anything. I'll have to google it, I hope he is o.k. He is one of my favorite authors.

    5. He's got cancer, but I'm sure you've found that out by now...Not sure what his status is, as of the last few weeks.

  96. @Waldo

    Most of the things you attributed to me - I did not write. Please read my post again.

    One more time - a lot of the science being practiced nowadays is self-limiting. Those things which do not fit scientific theory are ignored.

    Unfortunately - that leads to a self imposed limitation in regards to learning how our physical world/universe works.

    Jeez Louise - I did not say that everything is chaos and things happen willy nilly. There are other alternatives.

    What are you so afraid of losing for gosh sake? Being right?

    You don't have to attack me because I believe something different than you do. You will not be one bit less if I hold a different opinion.

    1. I didn't attack you. You put forth a hypothesis, "Time does run in all directions..." and I simply stated that experimentation, observation, and experience say otherwise. You also said that most everyone here was attached to science as the only truth, I explained that science is a process not a collection of information. I even told you that if you wanted to believe what you said you did be my guest, in other words I don't hold it against you nor think you aren't entitled to your belief. I only pointed out there was no proof or observation that supported your hypothesis, I never got personal or ugly.

      As far as you never saying things happened willy nilly, you never said that exact phrase but the logical conclusion of your suggestion that time runs in both directions and isn't linear means cause and effect could not exist . Why, because they have to run in a specific order cause then effect, its the only way things could be predictable. If they run backwards or do not exist at all you are left with a world were things happen for no apparent reason at all, cold water just heats up for no reason, your car simply starts running away with no external force working on it, a house spontaneously assembles itself instead of falling apart by itself, things become more and more organized instead of less and less organized- in other words entropy decreases instead of increasing. Or maybe it increases for a while then starts decreasing and just switches back and forth sporadically.

      You say there are other alternatives, it doesn't have to be that way because time runs in both directions. Then explain how it would be. What would it be like if time ran backwards for a few days, if cause did not proceed effect? It seems fairly obvious to me that we would see things happening but not have any idea why, no ability to predict the next second or what had happened in the past.

    2. I have to agree. Cause and effect depend upon linear time, and all science depends upon cause and effect. The disproof of linear time would then by nature discredit all scientific study. Sometimes too much imagination leads us from science to science fiction.

    3. I can only give you anecdotal evidence for my contention that time runs in all directions. Personally, time for me is circular not linear. I have traveled back to my past and made a difference in my present.

      The scientific proofs you ask for I cannot provide. I did not notice the things you mentioned happening, although in some probability I am sure those things could and do happen.

      I can't agree that things acting oddly or in contradiction to your facts have no reason - maybe we haven't looked in the right place yet. Maybe we are limiting ourselves.

      And, our existence is chaotic, just there is an underlying order to it. Without the chaos, how could we bring anything new to the world?

    4. @StillRV:

      Your right, "to much science leads us to science fiction" like all the science fiction in previous times, like going to the Moon, sending probes to other planets, having space stations in orbit, mapping the universe, space telescopes, Hubble etc:
      Why our science fiction might even take man to mars someday, and you never know, science fiction might even get us to shoot for the stars. Closer to home science fiction is already bringing us quantum computers etc: and like it or not the quantum revolution is a-coming!

    5. You said... "I have travelled back to my past and made a difference in my present"

      Perhaps, but only as a mind construct, because all the (unobserved) past is, is a mind construct, not real. But, by even thinking about the past might change the outcome of future events.

      "Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history. The observations you make on a system in the present affect its past."

      (Stephen Hawking)

  97. Yes, time does speed up. They know this because they watched how long certain particles live in different gravitational environments, they found it varies the same as the passage of time varies depending on the gravitational environment. This proves it isn't just the mechanics of the clock slowing down or speeding up, it is the actual passage of time. Read more about time dilation if you are interested in this concept. The best way to try and imagine for me is that time is like the water of a river, flowing faster or slower depending on where you are in the river but always flowing in the same direction. The closer you get to a massive object the slower the time flows. Your speed through space relative to the speed of light also effects the flow of time, the faster you move the slower time moves. Just google time dilation and be prepared to have your noodle blown.

    Woops this was supposed to be a response for greyspoppa, my bad.

    1. A practical application of time dilation, one that everyone is familiar with, is the Global Positioning System. The system has to be adjusted so the time clock here on earth is in sync with the clock on the satellite. If this adjustment was not made our GPS would be out 10 kilometers per day rendering it useless.

      I have tried to come up with a way to better understand time dilation. Your river analogy is the best I've encountered.

    2. Thanks, but its not my analogy. I can't remember where I heard it but it is something someone else come up with. It does describe it nicely though.

    3. Actually @WaldO: analogy "the faster you move the slower time moves" would be only for an observer say, looking at your watch moving slower as you are moving faster, you yourself, the one moving faster, would still be normal time for you. Time is relative to the observer.

      Or a scenario, say you where approaching a black hole at close to light speed, a friend watching from a distance would see you slow down, and stop forever frozen in time at the event horizon of the black hole, while you yourself would not so merrily be travelling without slowing down or stopping into the black hole, to your doom.

  98. The clock test in Colorado blew my mind, that raising one clock a foot higher than the other, would release the higher of enough gravity to speed it up, so does time speed up also? I'm a lil high right now and i cant stop thinking about it, very top rate docu. No answers really but alot of theories to put your mind to work.

  99. Morgan Freeman could narrate me expelling my bowels and it would make great TV. I'm not saying Through The Wormhole is a bad show; it's amazing.

    I'm simply saying that Morgan Freeman is the man.

    1. and that is why any good voice over machine will have a Morgan Freeman setting.

    2. Actually, Morgan Freeman is God, lol. Also, the President, etc., etc.

  100. Great doc. love wormhole series.

  101. @Vlatko
    You found a way to have your calendar page ! LOL
    On the ad Popular Screensavers in the top corner, what are those things bursting around the girls? Energy? Flies? one is getting her back eaten, the other her left boob.
    By the way, i am off to a music festival this week-end Star Belly Jam Crawford Bay. Camping, good music, good food, good people, no in the slow lane.
    az easy

    1. @Az,

      The ads are not static. Every visitor is seeing different ads. Therefore I can't see what you see.

      Have a great time. Sounds like a plan. Edit: I wish I was there... together with a small TDF crew.

    2. Why a small crew Vlatko ? The way I see it, the more the merrier, no?

    3. If you change your mind....tell me i have a few preferences! lol

    4. Crawford Bay Eh? be there in 12 hours, have fast muscle car!

    5. Az, if the ads are bothering you, you should be able to get an addon or extension for your browser, which will filter them out. Adblock is a good one, I use it for Chrome.

      Have a great weekend! :)

    6. I'll pass the info to the next smart computer guy that comes around. As for me i use it more like a piano! lol

      Doesn't every one see a commercial at the top right of the TDF page just below e-mail address?

    7. Music fests are always a good time. Have fun Az.

  102. Pleasingly fine episode in the series this was, however it got carried away nearing the end.

    Here is some pondering of mine about time that I hope you will agree with or debate against it.

    We feel time because we have senses to detect changes in stimuli that we receive. Most prominent of those is the sight, we see things changing, moving and so on.

    Alternate states of the mind do change time perception, like one of those scientists said, when you smoke weed or in an emergency time slows down. Our eyes work like cameras (I'm sure the docu "Human Machine" explains it better) they snapshot every thing we see and make it in to a film.

    Ok, here is what I think:
    Time does not exist in nature. It does not exist because there is no point A and point B in the nature. It's like the Phormidities (the philosopher they talk about in part 3) says there is no motion because motion is infinite and NOT chopped up in fragments or moments! WE do those thing we see them in film because it's how our eyes work NOT because everything around us is like that.

    To make it more visual let's say that a motion is when you lift your arm up. But does it stop there when we THINK we achieved the motion in question? Even under precise measurements of how fast or how long the said motion was performed It will never stop there like some simulation program on your PC because it is continuous and infinite.

    I'd like to hear some critic on this one because it's impossible that no one has thought of this reasoning before.

    Thank you.

    1. I assert that time is simply the logical progression of cause and effect, and therefore is very real. The second law of thermal dynamics says that entropy will always increase, which means time runs in one direction only. It may run at different speeds depending on the frame of reference, i.e. time dilation, but it is always moving from the past to the future, never the other way around. When you define time this way it is perfectly clear that it is real, and a product of the natural laws of physics. To say that reality only exists in snap shots that have no communication or knowledge of each other makes no sense when you look at time this way. How would we be able to trace cause and effect backward through a deterministic system if each instant was independent of the one before or the one coming after? Looking at the current state of a system would not tell you anything, but we know that it does. We have been able to deduce how most of our universe was formed because we know that cause and effect are both predictable and sequential. Our clocks simply divide time into universally recognized increments, they don't create it. Any system that is in a constant state of change running in one direction naturally produces time. You said, "It (time) does not exist because there is no point A and point B in the nature," I disagree. Point A is the starting point of the closed system that is our universe and point B is the highest state of entropy possible for that closed system. The natural progression from lower to higher states of entropy both create time and assure that it runs in one direction only.

    2. What I meant by "there is no point A and point B in nature" is that we impose it onto other objects or what ever we decide those points represent.

      "To say that reality only exists in snap shots that have no communication or knowledge of each other makes no sense when you look at time this way. How would we be able to trace cause and effect backward through a deterministic system if each instant was independent of the one before or the one coming after?"

      I said our eyes work that way (taking snapshots) and our brains then make it in to a story (a real time film that you see around right now). It has nothing to do with reality as it is out there it's all about how we make reality inside our own heads.

      If you see the world as a series of instances (i.e. how our eyes work) it's only logical that we see cause and effect as a series of events that takes place one after another affecting each other, but that is only our subjective interpretation of the data we receive.

      Clocks were made to work like we do, not like the universe does.

    3. I like to see the fundamentals of physics questioned.

      It's comforting to have an explanation that seems to cover our physical world marching from point a to point b It's extremely handy to have a theory of cause and effect - something did this so something else happened.

      I believe we use time as a convenient reference point for our physical senses. Time does run in all directions. We train ourselves to think time that we create is linear and so we experience it as such.

      Not necessarily a bad thing - definitely limiting. Limiting in the sense we must ignore those perceptions of time that don't fit into our beliefs of what linear time is. And since we ignore those perceptions, we shrink our knowledge of the universe.

      We have all had those experiences where time speeds up or slows down or we feel just like a kid again or we feel incredibly ancient.
      One could probably argue all day about whether cancer remission is going forward to post cancer or backward to pre-cancer.

      I believe all physical reality is a manifestation of our thoughts and emotions.

      Also, in reference to your question about arm movement - if you slowed down time enough and had the instruments to measure it, you could find those who would agree it is infinite

      Most people who are believers of science will agree this is only subjective and is less valid than objective. I have yet to see proof of this that convinces me.

      Interesting questions. Thanks - usually everyone here is totally attached to science as the only truth.

    4. Questioning even fundamental beliefs is a good thing, but abandoning what we all observe and measure to be reality seems counter productive, unless you have very solid proof. If we don't believe in the logical sequential progression of cause and effect everything, and I mean everything, we know would have to be false. Which we know isn't true because we watch it work everyday in the technology that we use. A world that doesn't conform to the logical progression of cause and effect is a world of chaos, things happening for no reason, and nothing being predictable. Now we all know this is not the universe we live in, it might be fun to pretend otherwise but its not reality.

      Science is not truth, its a process for discovering truth and yes, it is the best one we know of for doing the job. You woke this morning and for the most part you knew exactly what to expect- things you threw in the air would come back down, objects that were at rest would not start moving without an external force acting on them, cars don't self assemble they fall apart, water doesn't suddenly start heating up for no reason it cools down after heating, etc. that should prove to you that time runs in one direction and there is a definite system of sequential cause and then effect- never the other way around. But hey, if you want to think that somehow all of that is just being assembled in our heads, that in reality things are just happening willy nilly with no logical order then be my guest I suppose. My point is that you have no proof of that, it is merely speculation for the sake of speculation.

    5. Yes, the quest of science is to retest and revamp all phsysics if deemed necessary. Happening all the time, new hypothesis always in the works.

      Yes, to use time, must be in reference to something, to movement, but movement to what? just to our Earth, does not cut it, our galaxy? still does not cut it, everything is in a constant state of movement. Time is relative to the observer.

      So time is actually measured by (Universe Standard Time)

      Arm movement could only, at least in our linear time frame, be slowed down to only a Planck second for it to make any sense.

      You say, "I believe all physical reality is a manifestation of our thoughts and emotions"...A lot of theoretical, quantum physicists also ask the same thing, do we collapse the waveform by our thoughts, by looking, and collectively form all we see from the vast sea of unlimited probabilities from the quantum foam.

    6. Seems like you're saying that without conscious awareness...there is no time.?
      For example..."This is boring, how much longer?"

      Are you saying that time exists only if we bring it into our awareness?

      What about the lifespan of a star? If no one is there to witness its life and time still nonexistent?

  103. For the last 5 years I come to the conclusion that time is an illusion, a fabrication of western objective reality. The only thing that does truly manifest is movement and our measurement of that movement is directly related to our experience, and I must say that not having read Einstein I am told that this is what Einstein came to realize. Time is Maya, an illusion that most of us cling to often with violent fixation. Time and reality are our inventions so that we can comfortably and conveniently live in Time! The invention of time is for our convenience, to give our lives ground. I am with Julian Bond on this... it still seems like childish notion that we must meet the objective reality of time and yet that objective does not sound very objective when trying measure "particles" of light that the apparent objective nature of which is dependent on our objective measurement that is highly relative to our own failed objective(which is really subjective!!!) interpretation. I believe it very simple: Time is not real, it is OUR MOVEMENT through SPACE that is REAL. The new ideas seem to need, no REQUIRE, ever more complex explanations or the idea crumbles.

    1. After 'learning' about the details of the federal reserve through this great site, it's obvious time was a necessity to punch the clock