hmm..Maybe my ramblings weren't quite so off-topic after all? I've enjoyed hearing everybody's thoughts on time slowing as we age...pretty funny.
I especially liked the idea that, the older and therefore slower you get, the faster time moves for you. That got me laughing. And, probably closer to the truth, as you said, PsykoKidd, a year is more significant to someone who's only 6. That would be a whole 6th of their entire lifetime--whereas a year to a 30-year-old would be a meek 1/30th. I haven't read this article yet, but on the idea that time does not exist, here's something for thought. I've read on the Internet that Richard Feynman (i believe) had a theory of quantum physics or what not. If it is all true, then it would mathematically mean that anti-particles are literally particles which move BACKWARDS in time. Strange universe, isn't it? -ryan weh ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Passage of time > Interesting idea, though to someone who is 6, 1 year is a more significant > block of time. Children also have less independence, so they find themselves > in more boring situations. > Something by far more interesting though, was something I read on > spacer.com which said that time may not exist at all (or more precisely it is > an illusion). Which incidently would (according to the article) explain away > the arrow of time problem. It isn't quite as perposterous as you would think > at first glance, Einstein's relativity already demonstrates time isn't > absolute. (Just an abstract of which I gleened from the article is that time > doesn't exist, rather a dynamic cascade of probable configurations of the sum > of the parts of the universe is purported by the theorist) > > Here is the link: http://www.spacedaily.com/spacecast/news/time-99c.html > > P.S. If you read that article...keep your head cool it might just overheat ;) > Troy
