:bomb: ^^^ That's my mind being blown. I asked my brother about this, as he's studying nursing and biology. Apparently a cell's lifespan is determined by the amount of time they take to break down their chemical compounds. The amount of time they take to do that is determined by our genetics. One could argue the same for a battery, the lifespan is determined by how long it takes to break down its chemical compound. Every element has a lifespan. But what determines that lifespan? :bomb:
I dunno, I think of it like a rock, being eroded over time in a creek. But in that case, a rock's composition, hardness, and mass determine it's lifespan in comparison to how much exposure it gets. I suppose a cell would have a similar equation based on intrinsic properties and external pressures. It's amazing to think how little we know about this =P Anyone else think a more accurate wording may be "Is time simply events?"
Thats not even right silly boy, time slows with gravity. not vice-versa. But its not a function of the actual time itself, its the relativity of the points measured. Time still passes, regardless of other conditions.
Youre wrong, you don't know what youre talking about. Whats your source, because I think NASA is well versed in relativity
time is what we use to measure motion... it isn't reliant on motion itself motion causes curvature in time and space, which is why we use the largest celestial bodies in motion to measure against an event is something that happens in the present (or now) and therefore infitesimal so it would be more acurate to say that time is the mesurement of the motion that occurs between events that still don't explain why a shit movie feels like it takes longer to sit through than a good one tho'
I saw it on a documentary on the history channel a bit back. Which stated that in recent times NASA had discovered that time actually moves slower outside of are planets atmosphere. Not buy much though.
for the same reason that Einstein said: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4600/1/wqp.pdf peer reviewed, scholarly, higher education source than the history channel btw I put this one because I cant get his sources up because i have a virus or something that brings most of my searched to bs sites. but you can do the leg work
Despite this thread time will still go on as usual. Only a few of you guys are going through it with headaches trying to figure this shit out.
MattB: Though how would one ever know?! stash: Yes, in the sense that it is initially chance conditions that cause consciousness to arise through motion, from the physical. Interestingly, to assume life is not somehow accidental denies our power to create our own time! I think love is the best thing we've got going. It's a prejudice that seems to give way to itself. I'm fairly certain we could give it all the time in the world!
if you are 'inside a sphere', and try to measure the outside of the sphere, how does one accomplish this? if, like jonah, you get eaten by a whale, you will presume you can describe the outside of and the nature of the creature? the same problem applies to 'time'. as long as you are 'within time', how do you propose to measure it with any degree of veracity? it would be amusing to see how anyone proposes to get 'outside of time' and then prove with more than incantations and rhetoric that they have become 'objective to the concept of time so that they can measure it'. same same 'blind men describing the elephant'. drop some good acid. that may be as close as anyone will get to describing 'time'.