[Guille]

I think there is no exactly 1 most ordered form. If you have ten lego pieces, what is the msot ordered form of putting thme together? There is no sucht hing as maximum ordered, there are jsut ordered and disordered. I believe there are several most ordered forms. I foyu have two lego pieces, it is equally ordered if you put one on top the othe,r one aside the other, or anything, as long as they are aside and stable.


I mean by this, that if you move the particles, i.e. they have any overall change, i.e. they will have time, then I think that it is most porbable that they disoder, although not absolutelly true. It could be that they come into another ordered form. But this is not very possible. The important point here is that they start in the most ordered possible form. But this universe didn't start like that. It was chaotic. It had explonsions, inpplosions, crashes, metamorphosis.....

And if you see, there are more and more galaxies in the universe, mroe and more clusters of things, which come into order. So these ting smake us think that is possible that order is actually growing. But our day-to.-day life experiences don't agree with this.

[SinJin]

I always thought the universe started with an extremely low entropy. Anyways, I think I see what you're saying. If there is only order and disorder, then one or the other has to happen. But since it's more probable that disorder will increase, which is the change that creates time. However I think that, although very rare, if order increases then the flow of time would remain the same because there is still a change being made, regardless of its direction. I could be wrong though.

Also, if time is ticking along according to things becoming more disordered, what happens when the entire universe is in it's most disordered state? Would it be a frothing sea of useless particles? And would time exist in the state, until a random flux caused entropy to lower again?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin I always thought the universe started with an extremely low entropy. Anyways, I think I see what you're saying. If there is only order and disorder, then one or the other has to happen. But since it's more probable that disorder will increase, which is the change that creates time. However I think that, although very rare, if order increases then the flow of time would remain the same because there is still a change being made, regardless of its direction. I could be wrong though.

I don't think this is wrong at all, I agree.

Originally Posted by SinJin Also, if time is ticking along according to things becoming more disordered, what happens when the entire universe is in it's most disordered state? Would it be a frothing sea of useless particles? And would time exist in the state, until a random flux caused entropy to lower again?

It is dificult to be sure, but I think time will always be there as much as there is matter, or, in this case, not matter, but matter's particles spread. By the way, the universe was like that in teh very begining of the universe, and stil time went by. The speed of time is more to do with the speed of objects, than with the disorder-order (thsi one only explains direction).

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>> The speed of time is more to do with the speed of objects, than with the disorder-order (thsi one only explains direction).

There seems to be a contradiction though. If a particle (for instance a photon) moves at the speed of light then time stops for it. Is a person travels the speed of light time would also stop for him/her. So these are things moving really fast that time slows down and stops for. However, as stated in the last post, If you froze all the particles in the universe, time would also stop. So on one end you have really fast movement stopping time, and on the other end you have no movement at all stopping time. How's this possible?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin There seems to be a contradiction though. If a particle (for instance a photon) moves at the speed of light then time stops for it. Is a person travels the speed of light time would also stop for him/her. So these are things moving really fast that time slows down and stops for. However, as stated in the last post, If you froze all the particles in the universe, time would also stop. So on one end you have really fast movement stopping time, and on the other end you have no movement at all stopping time. How's this possible?

Haven't you ever realised that actually opposites ar eequal!

Anyway, in this case I must add something. Things without mass can go at the speed of light, and, maybe (not sure about it), faster. For example, photons don't have mass, so they travell at light's speed, and have infinite life if they are nto destroyed (they area lways destroyed anyway).

Things that have mass can't go at the speed of light. This is because the faster you go you gain energy, thus gain mass, thus make more gravity, thus time goes lsowe,r by time going slower, you aren't going faster, and it gets harder and harder and harder to go at faster speed, until it's impossible, for if you go at just one decimal of km/s less than light, if you gain 2 times of power, you will gain so much more mass that you will gain only like have a decimal km/s, so you willnever achieve.

This is what makes light to be a limit, nothing else.

[Graybeard]

I don't think that time stops for anyone, it just changes relative to others perceptions. For you time will always pass at the normal perceived rate. others won't see it this way... sometimes faster ... sometimes slower

Also, regarding the particles in the universe and their placements ... to move the particle from one place to another requires energy (matter?) this energy must also be in the Universe. if not it must be taken directly from the existing particles. this will change them forever.

In any case, as long as the energy transfer is greater than the (more) ordered state you leave the particles in, as long as the OVERALL disorder is greater than the initial OVERALL disorder then you may leave the particles in a more ORDERED state than before..

But total disorder has increased.

Also I believe that the Universe started in an High-Order state !!??

[SinJin]

In reference to Guille's response:

In this thread, I was trying to explain time through changes - no change = no passing of time, change = passing of time. I was relating it to particles changing and also macroscopic objects changing, like stars and planets. But here in your response, you refer to time as if it's some mysterious force that exists seperately from the actions of matter. For instance, you mention that as you go faster, you gain energy and mass which increases gravity which slows down time (which I realize is a proven theory). But I'm talking about time being a rate of change, merely a tool to distinguish one configuration from another. So I still don't understand how (going by my theory in this thread) this rate-of-change-which-makes-time is affected by gravity. Please explain it in terms of my theory on this thread, if possible. Or let me know my theory's totally bogus.

[Guille]

sinjin,

Your theory is not awrong at all, I actualy believe it too. Well, I consider it not anymore a belief but a knwoledge, it comes directly from thousands of billions of experiences in our lifes.

Now I see what you mean. Well, I think maybe I don't have nough knowledge as to answer the question in relation to your theory, but I'll try.

time in itself is not affected by gravity. This is a very hard idea to explain, but I'll try to. Humanity has amde a very big error, and this is, to convert the word time into an entity. Time is not an entity, or not atleast an entity of the type that it is refeared to, I hope the word time dissapears once and for all. Time is, and only is, the change in position of objects. Now, the rate-of-change of position is NOT time, it is the measurement of time, such as nanoseconds, miliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, milleniums...etz. TIME=CHANGE, as you already stated. Now, when an object gains energy, it gains mass. Mass creates gravity. Gravity is a force, that curves space and time. I'll explain. It of course doesn't curve time, it curves sopace. but as time is just change in position of an object in space, then time also curves. Imagen a road that has a curve downwards, and then upawards. If you measure the number of meters from one point to another, it is 20 meters. but if you measure the legth of the road, whicha ctually takes you through these 20 meters, the legth of the read is 100 meters. This means that, going at the same speed, you would take 5 times more to travel the road than you would take if it was streight. So you are taking mroe time for less space, and, as time is just the change of position, you are actually making more change for equal space, and, this is logical, because when you go trhough the road if it is strieght you have less different postions than when you tak ethe whole curve.

This is what happens with gravity. This is what happens: time slows time to the particular object gaining mass. Although I understand it easily my self, I think my explenation will still be no-valid. It's jsut a very ahrd idea to explain, I didn't understand it until when i bought a book on einstein. I would do that exactly.

Originally Posted by Graybeard Also I believe that the Universe started in an High-Order state !!??

what?

If you believe in the big bang theory, then you msut agree that everything was extremely disordered, and thene verything came into order, and then everything goes into disorder.

If you don't believe in the big bang theory then you have strong disagreements with the current cosomological science, and you must give a valid thoery that makes more sense and that has proof.

[SinJin]

Thank you Guille, I do understand now. The road analogy helped a lot. And I agree with you that we refer to time too often as an entity. By the way, do you know the name of that book on Einstein that you mentioned?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin Thank you Guille, I do understand now. The road analogy helped a lot. And I agree with you that we refer to time too often as an entity. By the way, do you know the name of that book on Einstein that you mentioned?

well, there are really many of them, and several are very good, but I haven't read them.


I have read only one book on Einstein, it included all his works on physics, with example, explenations....But I have forgotten the book. It was given yo me by a teacher, so tomorrow, monday, I will ask the teacher for the title of the book, and I'll post it here.