understanding time

[Anomalocaris]

Well, discovery has slowed down its pace considerably. Aside from nuclear power The Higgs boson is one of the only really big discoveries we've made in quite sometime. You could argue this is because we're now concentrating on finding answers to much more difficult questions and you'd be right. The Higgs Boson is in a whole different league from almost any discovery we've ever made let alone any from before the 1950s.
That being said there is correlation that can't be ignored. Based on that correlation the rate of discovery will continue to decrease but the significance of each discovery will increase. 200 years might not cut it.

I think you are picking arbitary milestones without regard to how much real distance is between one and the next, or whether a straight line between two miles stones is parallel or tangential to the primary direction of scientific development, and saying "well, it took us a lot longer to get from this one to that one now than the it took us to cover the two we covered 50 years ago".

You only need to look at the amount of development in electronics to see all physics is not particle physics.

[Ryantology]

I agree that technology is moving at a fast pace, however that pace will slow if new inventions do not come along, and at this time they are not. So the advancements are more or less an illusion, at some point the knowledge we have now will cease to produce new technology because all knowledge has it's limitation. If we do not find new knowledge for truly new inventions, we could become stagnate.

I'm curious as to what basis you have for this impression. Because, someone who follows technology news even casually should know otherwise. And, as more and more technology becomes available, there will always be more of a need for engineers to improve upon new designs.

Human technology will never outpace our ability to imagine new ways to create solutions to problems, and problems never run out. The only thing which can do any harm to technological progress is the desire of the superstitious to subvert science education with myths and nonsense.

[Nine]

[twocompulsive]

Time is a very intriguing thing to me also. I can't explain what it really is, but there are many different theories as to how time behaves, whether or not it exists, and/or what it's nature is. Some people say that it's only an illusion created in our minds, some say that we are living in a timeless universe, some say that time flows, some say that we are only observing slices of the whole of time, and there are a multitude of other ideas that can't remember right now. Time is also considered to be the 4th dimension (and there may be even more dimensions).

The General Theory Of Relativity references time as a continuum. This is without any demarcations, such as past, present and future, which are constructs of the mind. They do exist, but only subjectively so. This can be next to impossible for humans to comprehend, because their entire existence assumes time as absolute and identical, with neat, precise chronological divisions. They quite simply have no alternative reference point for it. Even physicists and cosmologists spend most of their life referencing time the same as the rest of us.

[Cato]

Imagine what's possible if we reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

"Excuse me Egan, you said crossing the streams was [i]bad[i]".

[Anomalocaris]

Time is a very intriguing thing to me also. I can't explain what it really is, but there are many different theories as to how time behaves, whether or not it exists, and/or what it's nature is. Some people say that it's only an illusion created in our minds, some say that we are living in a timeless universe, some say that time flows, some say that we are only observing slices of the whole of time, and there are a multitude of other ideas that can't remember right now. Time is also considered to be the 4th dimension (and there may be even more dimensions).

The General Theory Of Relativity references time as a continuum. This is without any demarcations, such as past, present and future, which are constructs of the mind. They do exist, but only subjectively so. This can be next to impossible for humans to comprehend, because their entire existence assumes time as absolute and identical, with neat, precise chronological divisions. They quite simply have no alternative reference point for it. Even physicists and cosmologists spend most of their life referencing time the same as the rest of us.

No, continuum doesn't mean future is the same as the past. Quantum mechanics also stipulate that time is not a continuum in the sense you imply, but are in fact made up of discrete indivisible parts called Planck time.

[Godscreated]

---

I agree that technology is moving at a fast pace, however that pace will slow if new inventions do not come along, and at this time they are not. So the advancements are more or less an illusion, at some point the knowledge we have now will cease to produce new technology because all knowledge has it's limitation. If we do not find new knowledge for truly new inventions, we could become stagnate.

---

I'm curious as to what basis you have for this impression. Because, someone who follows technology news even casually should know otherwise. And, as more and more technology becomes available, there will always be more of a need for engineers to improve upon new designs.

Human technology will never outpace our ability to imagine new ways to create solutions to problems, and problems never run out. The only thing which can do any harm to technological progress is the desire of the superstitious to subvert science education with myths and nonsense.

There is only so much that can be done with what we have, granted at this time we have a lot to work with, but we must manage to come up with truly new inventions which means new knowledge, if we are to sustain technology. Look at the car for example, as far as transportation goes, and transportation is still it's main function, it still has five wheels and burns a ton of gasoline. The car is over 100 years old and so is the airplane, yet we still do not have the technology to combine the two for a usable transportation, the knowledge is not there, if it were you can bet it would be in use today. We can't get more than 50 miles out of a gallon of gas, and when we do part of the family doesn't get to go.

[Reforged]

Well, discovery has slowed down its pace considerably. Aside from nuclear power The Higgs boson is one of the only really big discoveries we've made in quite sometime. You could argue this is because we're now concentrating on finding answers to much more difficult questions and you'd be right. The Higgs Boson is in a whole different league from almost any discovery we've ever made let alone any from before the 1950s.
That being said there is correlation that can't be ignored. Based on that correlation the rate of discovery will continue to decrease but the significance of each discovery will increase. 200 years might not cut it.

I think you are picking arbitary milestones without regard to how much real distance is between one and the next, or whether a straight line between two miles stones is parallel or tangential to the primary direction of scientific development, and saying "well, it took us a lot longer to get from this one to that one now than the it took us to cover the two we covered 50 years ago".

You only need to look at the amount of development in electronics to see all physics is not particle physics.

I'm talking about world changing stuff. Like electricity, gravity, the worlds round, human biology, splitting the atom etc etc. All kinds of discoveries that changed our understanding of the world around us.
As our understanding has reached new heights discoveries such as these become more complex and harder to come by. This means they take more time to properly research.
Electricity was discovered by flying a damned kite, you try making a world changing leap in knowledge doing something as simple as that today.
Learning more about human biology is no longer as simple as cutting a dead guy open anymore.
Scientists today are hard-pressed to reach new levels in our understanding. Is it any surprise it should take considerably longer?
Can you imagine Isaac Newton seeing the large hadron coilider?
He'd shit himself, literally void his bowels. As would Ernest Walton and John Cockroft to a lesser extent. The most useful application they'd have is making the tea for the other scientists. It wouldn't be because they aren't highly intelligent, it'd be because it is so far beyond the relatively simple discoveries they made that it would leave them dumbfounded.
We don't give todays scientists enough credit, they have a very hard job. The situation they're in is the equivalent of me reading you The Three Little Pigs and then going "Your turn. :-)" and handing you War & Peace.
Its going to take longer.

[jonb]

I am inclined at this point to enter a wall of text, but will restrict myself. Technological and scientific advancement does not happen in a flow, but rather needs the right conditions to advance it.
I will restrict myself to two evidences of this, but there are many.
China two and a half thousand years ago was the most technologically advanced set of societies. Then those societies came under a central authority, they got a civil service an education system based on exams, which selected the right people for the civil service. After that virtually nothing new was developed. Why? Because creative minds do not sit in round holes comfortably, so the system was biased to excluded people that thought about things from a different prospective.
If you were around in the 1970's where would you say the next advancement in computing was going to come from IBM or a few nerds in a garage?
Just because the pace is fast now it does not follow the conditions which allow it will stay the same get better or get worse. That depends on other factors.

[Nine]

There is only so much that can be done with what we have, granted at this time we have a lot to work with, but we must manage to come up with truly new inventions which means new knowledge, if we are to sustain technology. Look at the car for example, as far as transportation goes, and transportation is still it's main function, it still has five wheels and burns a ton of gasoline. The car is over 100 years old and so is the airplane, yet we still do not have the technology to combine the two for a usable transportation, the knowledge is not there, if it were you can bet it would be in use today. We can't get more than 50 miles out of a gallon of gas, and when we do part of the family doesn't get to go.

First plane 1911


In testing now


It can reach anywhere in the world within 4 hours once it is completed. Its engines are both jets and thrusters so it can get into orbit.

1891 first mass produced car


Modern Production car (2009)


as for your combination.




Its not technology that's the issue. Its more the amount of licenses and expense it would cost your average person makes it a bad investment.