Present is actualy an active factor, not time itself, like a sharp blade it cuts the future into slices of past. It keeps everything in motion in a static and motionless ocean of time.
Without the prsent none of the action is possible. Our soul holds the present we are alive otherwise dead. The present causes actions happening this is actualy the 4rth dimension not time.
2006-12-19 00:21:48 · 15 answers · asked by Ishfaq A 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
I would say firstly that time is a made-made concept, It doen't exist in nature or space. It is an invention which helps us to function, In all that we do. Time has no state but of that in the present. Because the past has ceased to exist and the future is yet to exist.
So in answer to your statement I would say time is a figment of our collective imagination and doesn't actually exist at all.
2006-12-20 09:45:53 · answer #1 · answered by TONY T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Words_Smith_4u. Except for the human construct part. Time rolls on regardless of the presence of human consciousness. This is a fair assumption as we have no evidence to the contrary.
I'd held off answering at first, but I was also going to say that I think time has no 'state' as such. Future and past are relative, and time is a continuum.
Sorry for not bringing anything new, but I wanted to express my view.
2006-12-19 00:38:41 · answer #2 · answered by bad_sector 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say (based on your mindless techno-babble) that you're pretty much full of sh!t. Especially as most of the work being currently done indicates that 'now' is actually a sort of probability distribution on the Planck scale (which theory also contains a pretty fair solution to explain why anti-particles appear to be traveling 'backwards' in time)
But, in the meantime, see how many followers you can get and how much they'll donate to support your newfound religious (or whatever) insights.
Doug
2006-12-19 01:05:09 · answer #3 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the present is not a state of time then how are we living and dieing the present leads to the future with out it there is not state of future. present is the most important state of time. lol i probaly went out of your question sorry lol. present can lead to the past and future. ^^ 2.the state of present time is like (metaphor) a tree finding its root in the soil rich with minerals (memories=past) and the roots absorbing and growing(future) lol strange metaphor lol. but the 4th dimension is a realm were no human can survive on the pure energy of your soul,spirit oops i think ive over done it lol.but ive been on this topic for years and have a good idea i think lol.
2006-12-19 00:36:40 · answer #4 · answered by zai wei 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well since you find a use for the soul for your hypothesis of time, for which we have no evidence to suggest that such a thing even exists I think I'd have to sum it up with the word. Gibberish.
I'd give a summary of what real scientists think about time but somehow I dont think you're interested.
2006-12-19 06:32:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) if present is not a state of time then neither the future nor the past can exist for the present has yet to come (future) and go (past)
2) a present definatly has nothing to do with time.... trust me well all be unwraping plenty soon....lol
merry christmas!
2006-12-19 00:38:22 · answer #6 · answered by jojo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say you have it backward. All that exists in our universe is physical present time. This exists apart from either the past or present. Were there no present physical time, there could be no such concept as the past or future.
2006-12-20 07:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As nice as your new religion is, it doesn't stand up to scientific testing. Time is a dynamic dimention. 'Past', 'present' and 'future' are labels we have given to events at certain points in time with respect to our own point in time but, according to special relativity, something that is in the future for me might be in the past for someone in a different frame of reference, depending on our relative speeds. This means that your theory is majorly flawed.
2006-12-19 00:29:07 · answer #8 · answered by Mawkish 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you need to do a bit of research on what time actually is. Nothing you've said makes any sense whatsoever. Sorry.
2006-12-19 19:03:10 · answer #9 · answered by Hello Dave 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say that time is a continuum. It consists of no states in that if there were a state, it could be isolated. The measurement of time is multidimensional and thus is 'stateless'.
Time, we must remember is a construct of the human mind.
2006-12-19 00:26:55 · answer #10 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋