/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15918553
I'm too lazy to actually make this so just imagine one of those bell curve IQ memes with "1 planck time" "NOOOOOOOOO PLANCK UNITS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ANY ACTUAL PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE THEY DON'T IMPLY THE UNIVERSE IS FUNDAMENTALLY QUANTIZED" "1 planck time"

>>15918553
earths core time liquifyes at 0.0001% per second anyhow thats not what humans preceive at time, human time is competelly retarded, its basically semi frozen.

>>15918610
if you get dragged along the core vector complexity decary (humans preceive complexity decay) if you get dragged in it increases.
thats all fine but the universe it self increases in complexity this is why its bc.

It depends on how fast you're traveling and whether or not you're close to a massive source of gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zT4Y-QNdto

I feel time and the universe is preplanned so we can rewind time and go back and forth.

>>15918653
When you do this, someone else usually rewinds again later to make it so you didn't.

>>15918656
We can imagine getting back in time. The imagination is like the universe.

>>15918553
>How thin is the line between the future and the past?
One Plank instant at a time.

I'll steal Lee Cronin's line: "the universe cannot contain the future."

>>15918595
kek, here's your (You)

>>15918656
the "fix" to this is that it might only be possible to go back to when you invented the device that would allow you to go back, and no more. but still, that implies that as soon as you make it you'll instantly have a bunch of future people appearing at the very first possible time when you turn the machine on, trying to do something or other, whatever.

>>15918553
"Now" is a hypersurface of simultaneity the orientiation of which in spacetime depends on the observer.

>>15919063
elegant

I guess it tends to 0

>>15918553
Time is fake. It's a social construct.

oh wow duuuuuuuude your so deep and stuff, maaaaaaaaan, your like totally blowing my mind and stuff, omg your so smart!!! your totally like a philosopher and stuff, maaaaaaaannnn

>>15918618
If that's true, then why does causality seem to always agree on what happens?

>>15918553
one moment