What Time IS
Rabbo
and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
The statement above has always been assumed circular, however, because
'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
Not space! That's for sure!
So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
previously never been considered or discovered.
Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
Let's call it T1 and the Time of which we are directly conscious, T2.
Our clocks are calibrated to 'tick' at a rate, dT2/dT1. The hands move
continually to indicate the sum this rate over a T1 time interval.
Clocks show the integral of dT2/dT1 wrt T1.
T1 is a kind of fixed but not absolute scale that doesn't flow. All
past events have T1 coordinates just as they possess spatial ones.
T2 has been 'psychologically calibrated' to have the same intervals as
T1, hence our inability to readily distinguish between the two.
However our recollection and interpretation of historical Time bears
no similarity to our awareness of the constantly moving 'present'.
Clocks read either a T1 or T2 coordinate, taken from an arbitrary
zero. Biological clocks also crudely estimate T2 but 'tick' at varying
rates depending on what we are doing.
Whilst T1 is used as an index for describing the states of everything
in the physical world, T2 is associated with the life process.
Now the theory becomes a bit rudimentary. Let's just say that, by
arranging T2 coordinates in a manner determined by entropy
considerations, we get an ordered scale, like a calibrated measuring
tape.
The explanation of why T2 only flows one way boils down to essentially
the same reason for the numbers on a tape to appear in numerical order
and not at random. The very alignment in numerical ascedancy IS one
way flow. After being conceived at a point in T1, each life is
associated with the numerical ordering of a short section of the T2
'axis',
Now we are faced with another problem.
Because of the apparent free will of living things, T1 can never exist
beyond or 'AFTER' a certain coordinate. However, 'After' is circular.
To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
(T3) which really IS absolute.
And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
Rabbo
Robert Ramsey
are a reference to which all other examples of the quantity are compared. We
define a second as the time taken by 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the light
emitted by a cesium-133 atom. This standard is a defined quantity that has
been chosen at the 14th General Conference on Weights and Measures forming
the SI system. So what would be the difference in your definition of time,
even you set T3 to be absolute, some might argue that T3 is dependent on T4
and T4 on T5. I am not saying it is a feeble thought, it just seems that all
your doing is redefining time to a new standard that will essentially be no
different.
Rabbo <Rabbo@large..> wrote in message
news:380cf7a1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Lewis Mammel
>
> So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
You want to read Aristotle.
>
> Not space! That's for sure!
>
> So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
> previously never been considered or discovered.
... but time is not defined by time, by being either a certain
amount or certain kind of it.
>
> Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
> Let's call it T1 and the Time of which we are directly conscious, T2.
>
> Our clocks are calibrated to 'tick' at a rate, dT2/dT1. The hands move
> continually to indicate the sum this rate over a T1 time interval.
> Clocks show the integral of dT2/dT1 wrt T1.
>
> T1 is a kind of fixed but not absolute scale that doesn't flow. All
> past events have T1 coordinates just as they possess spatial ones.
> T2 has been 'psychologically calibrated' to have the same intervals as
> T1, hence our inability to readily distinguish between the two.
> However our recollection and interpretation of historical Time bears
> no similarity to our awareness of the constantly moving 'present'.
Time on the other hand, is not held to be made up of 'nows'.
>
> Clocks read either a T1 or T2 coordinate, taken from an arbitrary
> zero. Biological clocks also crudely estimate T2 but 'tick' at varying
> rates depending on what we are doing.
>
> Whilst T1 is used as an index for describing the states of everything
> in the physical world, T2 is associated with the life process.
It is also worth considering how time can be related to the soul;
>
> Now the theory becomes a bit rudimentary. Let's just say that, by
> arranging T2 coordinates in a manner determined by entropy
> considerations, we get an ordered scale, like a calibrated measuring
> tape.
>
> The explanation of why T2 only flows one way boils down to essentially
> the same reason for the numbers on a tape to appear in numerical order
> and not at random. The very alignment in numerical ascedancy IS one
> way flow. After being conceived at a point in T1, each life is
> associated with the numerical ordering of a short section of the T2
> 'axis',
>
> Now we are faced with another problem.
> Because of the apparent free will of living things, T1 can never exist
> beyond or 'AFTER' a certain coordinate. However, 'After' is circular.
>
> To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
> (T3) which really IS absolute.
> And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
Whether if soul did not exist time would exist or not, is a
question that may fairly be asked; for if there cannot be some one
to count there cannot be anything that can be counted either.
>
> Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
We have now dicussed time - both time itself and the matters
appropriate to the consideration of it.
>
> PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
Go fetch Aristotle, and you can both have one.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Robert Ramsey
are a reference to which all other examples of the quantity are compared. We
define a second as the time taken by 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the light
emitted by a cesium-133 atom. This standard is a defined quantity that has
been chosen at the 14th General Conference on Weights and Measures forming
the SI system. So what would be the difference in your definition of time,
even you set T3 to be absolute, some might argue that T3 is dependent on T4
and T4 on T5. I am not saying it is a feeble thought, it just seems that all
your doing is redefining time to a new standard that will essentially be no
different.
Rabbo <Rabbo@large..> wrote in message
news:380cf7a1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
> and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>
> The statement above has always been assumed circular, however, because
> 'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
> meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
>
> So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>
> Not space! That's for sure!
>
> So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
> previously never been considered or discovered.
>
> Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
> Let's call it T1 and the Time of which we are directly conscious, T2.
>
> Our clocks are calibrated to 'tick' at a rate, dT2/dT1. The hands move
> continually to indicate the sum this rate over a T1 time interval.
> Clocks show the integral of dT2/dT1 wrt T1.
>
> T1 is a kind of fixed but not absolute scale that doesn't flow. All
> past events have T1 coordinates just as they possess spatial ones.
> T2 has been 'psychologically calibrated' to have the same intervals as
> T1, hence our inability to readily distinguish between the two.
> However our recollection and interpretation of historical Time bears
> no similarity to our awareness of the constantly moving 'present'.
>
> Clocks read either a T1 or T2 coordinate, taken from an arbitrary
> zero. Biological clocks also crudely estimate T2 but 'tick' at varying
> rates depending on what we are doing.
>
> Whilst T1 is used as an index for describing the states of everything
> in the physical world, T2 is associated with the life process.
>
> Now the theory becomes a bit rudimentary. Let's just say that, by
> arranging T2 coordinates in a manner determined by entropy
> considerations, we get an ordered scale, like a calibrated measuring
> tape.
>
> The explanation of why T2 only flows one way boils down to essentially
> the same reason for the numbers on a tape to appear in numerical order
> and not at random. The very alignment in numerical ascedancy IS one
> way flow. After being conceived at a point in T1, each life is
> associated with the numerical ordering of a short section of the T2
> 'axis',
>
> Now we are faced with another problem.
> Because of the apparent free will of living things, T1 can never exist
> beyond or 'AFTER' a certain coordinate. However, 'After' is circular.
>
> To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
> (T3) which really IS absolute.
> And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
>
> Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
>
> PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
> Rabbo
>
Jeff
respect to space. By letting time pass omnidirectionally out into space
at "c", i.e. the speed of light and the speed of time are: ONE AND THE
SAME THING, we create an "Absolute Universeal Metric" that is active
and answers al o the questions currently "at large" in Theoretical
Physics today that Relativity, or any other theories cannot answer. The
primary reason Physicists today don't know how time passes is because
they still incorrectly assume a "static condition" as defining the
background reference of the universe when, in fact, it is active. This
is all explained at website > www.realityphysics.com <. All comments
and opinions appreciated. Thanks.
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
wno...@my-deja.com
Jeff <JLeeCforR...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <380cf7a1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
> > We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows'
> > -
> > and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> > Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
> > The statement above has always been assumed circular, however,
> > because
> > 'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
> > meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
> > So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
> > Not space! That's for sure!
Time is relative to the person measuring it we calculate our time by
our planets revolution around our sun, even if we left our planet we
would measure time in relation to the time we left our planet.There
may be a cosmic time but even then it would have to be measured by
us in relationship to ourselves like the gears in a clock the smaller
gear may have interaction with the larger gear but the difference in
the size creates a different scale.(Two planets both support life
depending on how they gauge time you could have two different times
that could interact but would never be the same,and could also be
hundreds of years apart).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
B. Reed
Rabbo <Rabbo@large..> wrote:
>We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
>and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
>Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>
>The statement above has always been assumed circular, however, because
>'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
>meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
>
>So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>
>Not space! That's for sure!
>
>previously never been considered or discovered.
>
>Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
This is not a new idea. And it doesn't solve anything, it just makes the
model more complex and causes exactly the same difficulty to arise one
level down.
...
>To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
>(T3) which really IS absolute.
>And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
>
And so ad infinitum. The "turtles all the way down" hypothesis isn't very
helpful.
>Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
>
>PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
How come every time someone rediscovers some little corner of philosophy,
they start clamoring for a Nobel prize?
Have fun,
Bryan
rs
Another thing that flows is the entire physical universe "space". There
is
a constant scalar progression in an "outward" direction which also
translated in our normal 3D space as outward. This is popularly
interpreted
as the expansion from the hypothetical big bang. Equally viable is
that the universe is in more or less a steady state, for practical
purposes infinite, and that every point can be considered the center.
Now "time" can be considered as a scalar outward motion also and in
reciprocal relationship with space. So it is "flowing" in exactly the
same
manner as space. However, our perception of time as duration is limited
to 1 dimension (not 3) -- hence the scalar quantities used to describe
time.
We tend to think of "time" as an abstract measurement (duration)
and "space" as a container which holds the universe. This is wrong.
It is more accurate to think of space and time in a reciprocal
relationship,
both having 3 dimensions. .Instead of thinking of space as a box with
things
like galaxies in it, it is more accurate to say that radiation and matter
are
the border of the box and that that relationship of space and time define
this border (e.g. space on inside, time on outside or vv.) There is a
comprehensive theoretical framework based on this idea which is
described in some web pages at www.intrepes.cz/sr.
.
Rabbo wrote:
> We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
> and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>
> The statement above has always been assumed circular, however, because
> 'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
> meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
>
> So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>
> Not space! That's for sure!
>
> So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
> previously never been considered or discovered.
>
> Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
> To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
> (T3) which really IS absolute.
> And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
>
> Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
>
A suggestion - read "Beyond Space and Time" by Dewey B. Larson.
>
> PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
> Rabbo
>
la...@interactive.net
Lewis Mammel <lhma...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Rabbo wrote:
>
> >
> > So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>
Thanks for that, Lewis. A very apt suggestion. As I recall it,
Aristotle defined time as the number of motion with respect to before
and after.
Since you are familiar with Aristotle, and also with contemporary
physics (judging by some of your other postings), let me ask you a
question about both:
There has been a lot of discussion in recent years about the problem of
time in relation to unifying quantum mechanics and the general theory of
relativity, since the notion of time is apparently not used in the same
way in these two theories.
My question is whether you believe that a reconsideration of Aristotle,
or perhaps other figures in the main stream of philosophy, would help to
clarify this problem and, if so, how?
Lancelot Fletcher
lance.f...@freelance-academy.org
Antti Luode
> In article <17599f0b...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
> Jeff <JLeeCforR...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <380cf7a1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> > Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
> > > We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows'
> > > -
> > > and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> > > Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
> > > The statement above has always been assumed circular, however,
> > > because
> > > 'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
> > > meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
> > > So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
> > > Not space! That's for sure!
>
> Time is relative to the person measuring it we calculate our time by
> our planets revolution around our sun, even if we left our planet we
> would measure time in relation to the time we left our planet.There
> may be a cosmic time but even then it would have to be measured by
> us in relationship to ourselves like the gears in a clock the smaller
> gear may have interaction with the larger gear but the difference in
> the size creates a different scale.(Two planets both support life
> depending on how they gauge time you could have two different times
> that could interact but would never be the same,and could also be
> hundreds of years apart).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Want to mess up you heads completely?
Read this:
http://www.spacer.com/spacecast/news/time-99c.html
A.
Lapidary
[ snip ]
> > avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
> >(T3) which really IS absolute.
> >And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
> >
>
> And so ad infinitum. The "turtles all the way down" hypothesis isn't
very
> helpful.
>
> >Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
> >
> >PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
>
> How come every time someone rediscovers some little corner of
philosophy,
> they start clamoring for a Nobel prize?
>
J.W Dunne got there first anyway.
--
Regards, Peter D Jones .
"I had a million pounds in the bank. I spent most
of it on booze, women and fast cars. The rest I
wasted" -- George Best.
Lewis Mammel
>
> In article <380D67E1...@ameritech.net>,
> Lewis Mammel <lhma...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > Rabbo wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
>
> Thanks for that, Lewis. A very apt suggestion. As I recall it,
> Aristotle defined time as the number of motion with respect to before
> and after.
>
> Since you are familiar with Aristotle, and also with contemporary
> physics (judging by some of your other postings), let me ask you a
> question about both:
Well, I have SOME familiarity with these things, but I'm really just
a dabbler in Aristotle, and while I have a Ph.D. in physics, I don't have
the working skills in advanced areas that many other contributors do.
I do have my opinions, and I don't mind sharing them, but I can't claim
any special consideration for them.
> There has been a lot of discussion in recent years about the problem of
> time in relation to unifying quantum mechanics and the general theory of
> relativity, since the notion of time is apparently not used in the same
> way in these two theories.
The problem is really that of quantizing geometrodynamics. Since the space-time
continuum is at issue, rather than some field defined over it, it presents
special difficulties. A lot of other people know a lot more about this than
I do!
> My question is whether you believe that a reconsideration of Aristotle,
> or perhaps other figures in the main stream of philosophy, would help to
> clarify this problem and, if so, how?
I don't think philsophical reflection is likely to contribute to a quantized
theory of gravity per se. I do however, think that the issue of time, and in
particular the problem of "the now" is not really addressed by physics at all.
I believe that the problem of consciousness is closely related to "the now", as
Aristotle intimates, and to the "problem of measurement" in QM, but I don't have
any idea how anyone could make a scientific approach to this problem. Perhaps as
advances are made in the neurological correlates of subjective experience, some
insights will emerge on what kind of physical processes are important to it.
Penrose, of course, has advanced speculations on the relation of QM to consciousness,
and although I think these are simplistic and premature ( even if Penrose is a genius)
I think he's right to look for a connection here. I do think that traditional
philosophy can inform a scientific effort in this area, which is widely shunned
and even scorned by those trained to focus on the objective.
Another thing I believe is that relativity theory does have revolutionary
implications for our everyday notion of subjective time. These were touted
in the early days of the theory, but I guess since there's nothing really
to do about it, any kind of excitement that might be felt has been shunted into
wild speculation on time tunnels and so on, so that we have sort of rehabilitated
our old intuitions and count them as immune from such speculations. I certainly
don't know where to go with this, but again, I do look for neurological advances
to eventually redefine the playing field.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Rabbo
<robert...@home.com> wrote:
>Just a quick note. Time like length (meter), and mass are standards, they
>are a reference to which all other examples of the quantity are compared. We
>define a second as the time taken by 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the light
>emitted by a cesium-133 atom. This standard is a defined quantity that has
>been chosen at the 14th General Conference on Weights and Measures forming
>the SI system. So what would be the difference in your definition of time,
>even you set T3 to be absolute, some might argue that T3 is dependent on T4
>and T4 on T5. I am not saying it is a feeble thought, it just seems that all
>your doing is redefining time to a new standard that will essentially be no
>different.
No you have completely missed the point. It is a bit hard to absorb in
one session.
Rabbo
Rabbo
<lhma...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Rabbo wrote:
>
>>
>> So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>
> Time on the other hand, is not held to be made up of 'nows'.
As far as living minds are concerned, T2 is.
>>
>> Clocks read either a T1 or T2 coordinate, taken from an arbitrary
>> zero. Biological clocks also crudely estimate T2 but 'tick' at varying
>> rates depending on what we are doing.
>>
>> Whilst T1 is used as an index for describing the states of everything
>> in the physical world, T2 is associated with the life process.
>
> It is also worth considering how time can be related to the soul;
I wouldn't know what that means!
>
>>
>
> Whether if soul did not exist time would exist or not, is a
> question that may fairly be asked; for if there cannot be some one
> to count there cannot be anything that can be counted either.
The three time dimensions would exist if there was no life just as the
three space dimensions do. T2, however, would be about as useful as
the y axis on your monitor screen.
>
>>
>> Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
>
> We have now dicussed time - both time itself and the matters
> appropriate to the consideration of it.
>
>>
>> PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
>
>Go fetch Aristotle, and you can both have one.
I don't think he understood the algebra behind one variable changing
wrt another.
>
>Lew Mammel, Jr.
Rabbo
Rabbo
>In article <380cf7a1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
>Rabbo <Rabbo@large..> wrote:
>>We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
>>and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
>>Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>>
>>The statement above has always been assumed circular, however, because
>>'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
>>meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
>>
>>So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>>
>>Not space! That's for sure!
>>
>>So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
>>previously never been considered or discovered.
>>
>>Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
>
>
>This is not a new idea. And it doesn't solve anything, it just makes the
>model more complex and causes exactly the same difficulty to arise one
>level down.
>
It just makes the model more realistic, you mean. You cannot deny the
fact that the well known entity we call time appears to be 'passing'
at a constant rate. A 'Rate' can only occur relative to something
else. What is that something? It has to be another Time dimension.
I don't know why anyone should find the notion of more than one Time
dimension at all unusual. To me, it is incredibly strange that there
is even one.!!
>...
>>To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
>>(T3) which really IS absolute.
>>And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
>>
>
>
>And so ad infinitum. The "turtles all the way down" hypothesis isn't very
>helpful.
No, three are enough.
>Bryan
Rabbo
madtom
There may just be a few other alternatives to the question of time.
Here is a resent article that explores that question.
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 13 OCTOBER
1999 AT 14:00 ET US
UK Contact: Claire Bowles
claire...@rbi.co.uk
44-20-7331-2751
US Contact: New Scientist Washington office
news...@idt.net
202-452-1178
New Scientist
Does time really exist?
TIME seems to be the most powerful force, an irresistible river
carrying us from birth to
death. To most people it is an inescapable part of life, a
fundamental element of the
Universe.
But I think that time is an illusion. Physicists struggling to
unify quantum mechanics and
Einstein's general theory of relativity have found hints that the
Universe is timeless. I
believe that this idea should be taken seriously. Paradoxically, we
might be able to explain
the mysterious "arrow of time"-the difference between past and
future-by abandoning
time. But to understand how, we need to change radically our ideas
of how the Universe
works.
Let's start with Newton's picture of absolute time. He argued that
objects exist in an
immense immobile space, stretching like a block of glass from
infinity to infinity. His time
is an invisible river that "flows equably without relation to
anything external". Newton's
absolute space and time form a framework that exists at a deeper
level than the objects in
it.
To see how it works, imagine a universe containing only three
particles. To describe its
history in Newton's terms, you specify a succession of sets of 10
numbers: one for time
and three for the spatial coordinates of each of the three
particles. But this picture is
suspect. As the space-time framework is invisible, how can you
determine all the
numbers? As far back as 1872, the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach
argued that the
Universe should be described solely in terms of observable things,
the separations
between its objects.
With that in mind, we can use a very different framework for the
three-particle
Universe-a strange, abstract realm called Triangle Land. Think of
the three particles as
the corners of a triangle. This triangle is completely defined by
the lengths of its three
sides-just three numbers. You can take these three numbers and use
them as coordinates,
to mark a point in an abstract "configuration space" (see Diagram,
p 30).
Each possible arrangement of three particles corresponds to a point
in this space. There
are geometrical restrictions-no triangle has one side longer than
the other two put
together-so it turns out that all the points lie in or on a
pyramid. At the apex of Triangle
Land, where all three coordinates are zero, is a point that I call
Alpha. It represents the
triangle that has sides all of zero length (in other words, all
three particles are in the same
place).
In the same way, the configurations of a four-particle universe
form Tetrahedron Land. It
has six dimensions, corresponding to the six separations between
pairs of particles-hard to
conceive, but it exists as a mathematical entity. And even for the
stupendous number of
particles that make up our own Universe, we can envisage a vast
multidimensional
structure representing its configurations. In collaboration with
Bruno Bertotti of Pavia
University in Italy, I have shown that conventional physics still
works in this strange
world. As Plato taught that reality exists as perfect forms, I
think of the patterns of
particles as Platonic forms, and call their totality Platonia.
Platonia is an image of eternity. It is all the arrangements of
matter that can be. Looking
at it as a whole, there seems to be no more river of time. But
could time be hiding?
Perhaps there is some sort of local time that makes sense to
inhabitants of Platonia.
In classical physics, something like time can indeed creep back in.
If you were to lay out
all the instants of an evolving Newtonian universe, it would look
like a path drawn in
Platonia. As a godlike being, outside Platonia, you could run your
finger along the path,
touching points that correspond to each different arrangement of
matter, and see a
universe that continuously changes from one state to another. Any
point on this path still
has something that looks like a definite past and future.
Now's the place
But we know that classical physics is wrong. The world is described
by quantum
mechanics-and in the arena of Platonia, quantum mechanics kills
time.
In the quantum wave theory created by Schrsdinger, a particle has
no definite position,
instead it has a fuzzy probability of being at each possible
position. And for three particles,
say, there is a certain probability of their forming a triangle in
a particular orientation with
its centre of mass at some absolute position. The deepest quantum
mysteries arise
because of holistic statements of this kind. The probabilities are
for the whole, not the
parts.
What probabilities could quantum mechanics specify for the complete
Universe that has
Platonia as its arena? There cannot be probabilities at different
times because Platonia
itself is timeless. There can only be once-and-for-all
probabilities for each possible
configuration.
In this picture, there are no definite paths. We are not beings
progressing from one instant
to another. Rather, there are many "Nows" in which a version of us
exists-not in any past
or future, but scattered in our region of Platonia.
This may sound like the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum
mechanics, published in
1957 by Hugh Everett of Princeton University. But in that scheme
time still exists: history
is a path that branches whenever some quantum decision has to be
made. In my picture
there are no paths. Each point of Platonia has a probability, and
that's the end of the story.
A similar position was reached by much more sophisticated arguments
more than 30
years ago. Americans Bryce DeWitt and John Wheeler combined quantum
mechanics
and Einstein's theory of general relativity to produce an equation
that describes the whole
Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe,
and out comes a
probability for that configuration. There is no mention of time.
Admittedly, the
Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial and fraught with
mathematical difficulties, but if
quantum cosmology is anything like it-if it is about
probabilities-the timeless picture is
plausible.
So let's take seriously the idea of a "probability mist" that
covers the timeless Platonic
landscape. The density of the mist is just the relative probability
of the corresponding
configuration being realised, or experienced, as an instantaneous
state of the Universe-as
a Now. If some Nows in Platonia have much higher probabilities than
others, they are the
ones that are actually experienced. This is like ordinary
statistical physics: a glass of
water could boil spontaneously, but the probability is so low that
we never see it happen.
All this seems a far cry from the reality of our lives. Where is
the history we read about?
Where are our memories? Where is the bustling, changing world of
our experience?
Those configurations of the Universe for which the probability mist
has a high density, and
so are likely to be experienced, must have within them an
appearance of history-a set of
mutually consistent records that suggests we have a past. I call
these configurations "time
capsules".
Present past
An arbitrary matter distribution, like dots distributed at random,
will not have any meaning.
It will not tell a story. Almost all imaginable matter
distributions are of this kind; only the
tiniest fraction seem to carry meaningful information.
One of the most remarkable facts about our Universe is that it does
have a meaningful
structure. All the matter we can observe in any way is found to
contain records of a past.
The first scientists to realise this were geologists. Examining the
structure of rocks and
fossils, they constructed a long history of the Earth. Modern
cosmology has extended this
to a history of the Universe right back to the big bang.
What is more, we are somehow directly aware of the passing of time,
and we see
motion-a change of position over time. You may feel these are such
powerful sensations
that any attempt to deny them is ridiculous. But imagine yourself
frozen in time. You are
simply a static arrangement of matter, yet all your memories and
experience are still
there, represented by physical patterns within your brain-probably
as the strengths of the
synapse connections between neurons. Just as the structure of
geological strata and
fossils seem to be evidence of a past, our brains contain physical
structures consistent
with the appearance of recent and distant events. These structures
could surely lead to
the impression of time passing. Even the direct perception of
motion could arise through
the presence in the brain of information about several different
positions of the objects we
see in motion.
And that is the essence of my proposal. There is no history laid
out along a path, there are
only records contained within Nows. This timeless vision may seem
perverse. But it turns
out to have one great potential strength: it could explain the
arrow of time.
We are so accustomed to history that we forget how peculiar it is.
According to
conventional cosmology, our Universe must have started out in an
extraordinarily special
state to give rise to the highly ordered Universe we find around
us, with its arrow of time
and records of a past. All matter and energy must have originated
at a single point, and
had an almost perfectly uniform distribution immediately after the
big bang.
Hitherto, the only explanation that science has provided is the
anthropic argument: we
experience configurations of the Universe that seem to have a
history because only these
configurations have the characteristics to produce beings who can
experience anything. I
believe that timeless quantum cosmology provides a far more
satisfying explanation.
In Platonia, there are no initial conditions. Only two factors
determine where the
probability mist is dense: the form of some equation (like the
Wheeler-DeWitt equation)
and the shape of Platonia. And by sheer logical necessity, Platonia
is profoundly
asymmetric. Like Triangle Land, it is a lopsided continent with a
special point Alpha
corresponding to the configuration in which every particle is at
the same place.
From this singular point, the timeless landscape opens out,
flower-like, to points that
represent configurations of the Universe of arbitrary size and
complexity. My conjecture
is that the shape of Platonia cannot fail to influence the
distribution of the quantum
probability mist. It could funnel the mist onto time capsules,
those meaningful
arrangements that seem to contain records of a past that began at
Alpha.
This is, of course, only speculation, but quantum mechanics
supports it. In 1929, the
British physicist Nevill Mott and Werner Heisenberg from Germany
explained how alpha
particles, emitted by radioactive nuclei, form straight tracks in
cloud chambers. Mott
pointed out that, quantum mechanically, the emitted alpha particle
is a spherical wave
which slowly leaks out of the nucleus. It is difficult to picture
how it is that an outgoing
spherical wave can produce a straight line," he argued. We think
intuitively that it should
ionise atoms at random throughout space.
Mott noted that we think this way because we imagine that quantum
processes take place
in ordinary three-dimensional space. In fact, the possible
configurations of the alpha
particle and the particles in the detecting chamber must be
regarded as the points of a
hugely multidimensional configuration space, a miniature Platonia,
with the position of the
radioactive nucleus playing the role of Alpha.
Ageless creation
When Mott viewed the chamber from this perspective, his equations
predicted the
existence of the tracks. The basic fact that quantum mechanics
treats configurations as
whole entities leads to track formation. And a track is just a
point in configuration
space-but one that creates the appearance of a past, just like our
own memories.
There is one more reason to embrace the timeless view. Many
theoretical physicists now
recognise that the usual notions of time and space must break down
near the big bang.
They find themselves forced to seek a timeless description of the
"beginning" of the
Universe, even though they use time elsewhere. It seems more
consistent and economical
to use an entirely timeless description. But for these ideas to be
more than speculation,
they should have concrete, measurable results. Fortunately, Stephen
Hawking and other
theorists have shown that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can lead to
verifiable predictions.
For example, established physical theories cannot predict a value
for the cosmological
constant, which measures the gravitational repulsion of empty
space. But calculations
based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation suggest that it should have a
very small value. It
should soon be possible to measure the cosmological constant,
either by taking the
brightness of far-off supernovae and using that to track the
expansion of the Universe, or
by analysing the shape of humps and bumps in the cosmic microwave
background. And a
definitive equation of quantum cosmology should give us a precise
prediction for the value
of the constant. It is a distant prospect, but the nonexistence of
time could be confirmed
by experiment.
The notion of time as an invisible framework that contains and
constrains the Universe is
not unlike the crystal spheres invented centuries ago to carry the
planets. After the
spheres had been shattered by Tycho Brahe's observations, Kepler
said: "We must
philosophise about these things differently." Much of modern
physics stems from this
insight. We need a new notion of time.
###
PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND,
IF PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO :
http://www.newscientist.com
The author of this article, Julian Barbour is an independent
theoretical physicist who lives
near Oxford, UK.
Further reading: Julian Barbour's The End of Time is published by
Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, ú20
In article <380cf7a1...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
> We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
> and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>
> The statement above has always been assumed circular, however, because
> 'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
> meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to itself.
>
> So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
>
> Not space! That's for sure!
>
> So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
> previously never been considered or discovered.
>
> Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
> Let's call it T1 and the Time of which we are directly conscious, T2.
>
> Our clocks are calibrated to 'tick' at a rate, dT2/dT1. The hands move
> continually to indicate the sum this rate over a T1 time interval.
> Clocks show the integral of dT2/dT1 wrt T1.
>
> T1 is a kind of fixed but not absolute scale that doesn't flow. All
> past events have T1 coordinates just as they possess spatial ones.
> T2 has been 'psychologically calibrated' to have the same intervals as
> T1, hence our inability to readily distinguish between the two.
> However our recollection and interpretation of historical Time bears
> no similarity to our awareness of the constantly moving 'present'.
>
> Clocks read either a T1 or T2 coordinate, taken from an arbitrary
> zero. Biological clocks also crudely estimate T2 but 'tick' at varying
> rates depending on what we are doing.
>
> Whilst T1 is used as an index for describing the states of everything
> in the physical world, T2 is associated with the life process.
>
> Now the theory becomes a bit rudimentary. Let's just say that, by
> arranging T2 coordinates in a manner determined by entropy
> considerations, we get an ordered scale, like a calibrated measuring
> tape.
>
> The explanation of why T2 only flows one way boils down to essentially
> the same reason for the numbers on a tape to appear in numerical order
> and not at random. The very alignment in numerical ascedancy IS one
> way flow. After being conceived at a point in T1, each life is
> associated with the numerical ordering of a short section of the T2
> 'axis',
>
> Now we are faced with another problem.
> Because of the apparent free will of living things, T1 can never exist
> beyond or 'AFTER' a certain coordinate. However, 'After' is circular.
>
> To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time dimension
> (T3) which really IS absolute.
> And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
>
> Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
>
> PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
> Rabbo
Jac.m.a.m. Oppers
<lhma...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>[... snipped ...]
>The problem is really that of quantizing geometrodynamics.
Not only physicists seem to do something with space to kill time
...<smile>... a lot of other people simply feel a need to go away on
one's holiday ...
Jac.
jac.o...@philips.com (replaces j...@natlab.research.philips.com)
j.m.a.m...@hccnet.nl
Robert Delecki
>We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
>and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
>Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
I have to disagree right here. Time doesn't change relative to
anything. It's a dimension. What changes is our perception of time. If
humans didn't have memory, time could be conveniently ignored.
At any particular moment, you can perceive time only as a point. Only
upon reflection you come to realize that time is a line. Whether this
line is straight, cyclic or some other function that's another
discussion.
I often compare the perceivable world as a "cross-section" of a 4D
world (3D space + 1D time). Any one of these "slices" is just as real
as any other.
B. Reed
Rabbo <Rabbo@large..> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 1999 16:59:50 GMT, bwr...@u.washington.edu (B. Reed) wrote:
>>
>>This is not a new idea. And it doesn't solve anything, it just makes the
>>model more complex and causes exactly the same difficulty to arise one
>>level down.
>>
>It just makes the model more realistic, you mean. You cannot deny the
>fact that the well known entity we call time appears to be 'passing'
>at a constant rate. A 'Rate' can only occur relative to something
>else. What is that something? It has to be another Time dimension.
>
No, it can be brain biochemistry.
>I don't know why anyone should find the notion of more than one Time
>dimension at all unusual. To me, it is incredibly strange that there
>is even one.!!
Your brain state is a function of some coordinate t such that, for a given
t0, only information from events with t<t0 can affect the state at t0.
Thus a sense of flow, of the unknown future possibilities being
concretized in an ever-progressing now. Adding an extra dimension to
reality, one that we can't even in principle measure any properties of,
doesn't seem to have much explanatory power here.
(It's more complex than that, of course. As I understand the psychology
literature, the high-level sensation of the passing of time as a linear,
non-overlapping sequences of discrete events is an after-the-fact
reconstruction. But in the above paragraph I'm talking low-level
microstates, not high-level consciousness.)
>>And so ad infinitum. The "turtles all the way down" hypothesis isn't very
>>helpful.
>No, three are enough.
With any finite number, the subjective sense of "passing" is still just as
odd and, if you approach it the way you're approaching it, hard to
explain.
To explain why your subjective experience is as it is, the place to look
is the brain.
Have fun,
Bryan
Rabbo
Delecki) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:38:06 GMT, Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
>
>>We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
>>and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
>>Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>
>I have to disagree right here. Time doesn't change relative to
>anything. It's a dimension. What changes is our perception of time. If
>humans didn't have memory, time could be conveniently ignored.
That's T1 you're talking about.
T2 is the Time dimension we feel moving at a constant rate.
Other animals don't have have the memory to perceive or recall T1.
>
>At any particular moment, you can perceive time only as a point.
Whatever our T2 coordinate is always our 'present', by definition.
For each individual, T2 zero was the day we were conceived.
>only
>upon reflection you come to realize that time is a line. Whether this
>line is straight, cyclic or some other function that's another
>discussion.
I would say that time is an index, a scalar. Time subdimensions can be
added arithmetically, which explains their apparent
indistinguishability.
>
>I often compare the perceivable world as a "cross-section" of a 4D
>world (3D space + 1D time). Any one of these "slices" is just as real
>as any other.
>
Yes. By cross-section you mean holding one dimension constant so that
your world is 3D. Whether you choose 2 space and one time or three
space doesn't matter.
I say that there are three Time and three Mass dimensions as well.
Comments from people like you are helping me clarify this notion of
extra dimensions. What I really want to do is use the theory to
achieve a result.
Rabbo
Marcel LeBel
Rabbo wrote in message <381257d9...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...
considering what consciousness is about. We know that the universe is is
made of space-time. The question is then; how do we transform the
information from this space-time universe into a 3-d reality perceived in
moment slices.
I believe we should work with time in the same way as we do with space.
point moment of time; speed or rate of time; change of rate or acceleration
of time; time length or duration.
In a gravitational field, time slows down. The strength of the field vary
vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies vertically.
Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time will
move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do so,
whether I measure it or not. From this I would tend to believe that a
difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate of
time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist in
the absence of it.
That is the common denominator after all in the experiment of Galileo; all
the different masses took the same time to travel the same distance
between the same difference of rate of time.).
Marcel,
Robert Delecki
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:04:39 GMT, ek...@freenet.carleton.ca (Robert
>Delecki) wrote:
>>
>>At any particular moment, you can perceive time only as a point.
>
>Whatever our T2 coordinate is always our 'present', by definition.
>For each individual, T2 zero was the day we were conceived.
I think I know what you mean. I'm generally very suspicious when
people start assuming that another time dimension exists. However
since you're willing to agree that T2 is constant (or T2=0) I can't
see a big problem with this assumption.
>>I often compare the perceivable world as a "cross-section" of a 4D
>>world (3D space + 1D time). Any one of these "slices" is just as real
>>as any other.
>>
>Yes. By cross-section you mean holding one dimension constant so that
>your world is 3D. Whether you choose 2 space and one time or three
>space doesn't matter.
>I say that there are three Time and three Mass dimensions as well.
Hmmm, 3 time and mass dimensions? How would these dimensions exihibit
themselves in our perceivable world? I agree that our human perception
may be imperfect but there has to be some practical way to demonstrate
your theory. Do you have any examples?
Robert Delecki
<marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In a gravitational field, time slows down. The strength of the field vary
>vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies vertically.
>Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time will
>move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
>This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do so,
>whether I measure it or not. From this I would tend to believe that a
>difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
>duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate of
>time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist in
>the absence of it.
Hmm, interesting. I wonder what are you thoughts on gravity between
objects separated by time rather than space. Since time and space
dimensions are equivalent, gravity should also affect past and future
objects.
Rabbo
>>>
>>>>We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
>>>>and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
>>>>Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
>>>
>>Rabbo
> It is a very interesting subject. But it is impossible adress it without
>considering what consciousness is about. We know that the universe is is
>made of space-time. The question is then; how do we transform the
>information from this space-time universe into a 3-d reality perceived in
>moment slices.
>
> I believe we should work with time in the same way as we do with space.
>point moment of time; speed or rate of time; change of rate or acceleration
>of time; time length or duration.
Except that we can go backwards and forwards in space but not time. I
agree, consciousness may have something to do with that.
>
> In a gravitational field, time slows down. The strength of the field vary
>vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies vertically.
>Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time will
>move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
>This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do so,
>whether I measure it or not. From this I would tend to believe that a
>difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
>duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate of
>time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist in
>the absence of it.
Interesting???
Certainly if there were no motion, Time would be irrelevant.
But if there was no motion there wouldn't be life.
>
> That is the common denominator after all in the experiment of Galileo; all
>the different masses took the same time to travel the same distance
> between the same difference of rate of time.).
There is a lot of argument as to whether Time actually slows down or
the clocks that measure it do!
I'm not sure what to believe.
>
>Marcel,
>
>
>
>
Rabbo
Herbetaa Glazier
Marcel LeBel
Robert Delecki wrote in message <38141eb4...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:27:59 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
><marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In a gravitational field, time slows down. The strength of the field
vary
>>vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies vertically.
>>Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time will
>>move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
>>This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do so,
>>whether I measure it or not. From this I would tend to believe that a
>>difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
>>duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate of
>>time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist
in
>>the absence of it.
>
>objects separated by time rather than space. Since time and space
>dimensions are equivalent, gravity should also affect past and future
>objects.
instantaneous concept proper to consciousness, and the observer status. In
order to see or even think of space, or a simple line, you must consider all
the points as being at the same exact moment....
which is not possible. The points are so, in the (your) perception of the
moment, but are not at the same moment relative to each other.
So, your objects ARE separated in time. I can almost say that no laws of
physics would (or could) apply between the two "objects" if they really were
at the same moment!
I am afraid I don't believe in past our futur as a general condition or
state. But I believe that there is such thing as past and futur for single
events. If time duration develops as part of the motion of a body between
two surfaces of different rate of time, then we could consider, for
example, the Earth and everything on it in some kind of past with respect
(or relative) to outer space or any object about to fall on it. The same
time direction would apply to the fall (single event) of an object as with
enthropy. They are both events that can happen spontaneously because of a
difference in the rate (or speed) of time;
in one case it is a surface, in the other, (enthropy) it is a statistical
difference in a very large number of individual events (molecules etc.
Marcel,
Marcel LeBel
Rabbo wrote in message <3814ca7...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...>Rabbo wrote:
>There is a lot of argument as to whether Time actually slows down or
>the clocks that measure it do!
>I'm not sure what to believe.
Rabbo,
I believe that measuring time is to make a relative comparison between two
events; one you observe, and one that is your clock. Because it is relative
and both are events, one name could be switched for the other without
changing the relation. But if the clock slows down, the relative difference
in the rate of time between the two moving objects is "real". That you can
understand better if you know that a universal time doesn't exist; each and
every moving object has it's own rate of time. And even if two objects move
at exactly the same speed and same direction, they will have the same
(measured) rate of time ...... but they still have each their own time,
because it is a specific dimension of their motion ( and not of the other
object).
Life itself is an un-interrupted event that started millions of years ago.
We are an arrow of time; we have "past and futur". But the rock in your
garden has no time ......
>>Marcel,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Rabbo
>
Rabbo
'dimensions' at all, is far more fantastic than the notion that there
might be nine!
There could be hundreds, After all, WHAT IS A DIMENSION?
The trouble is, if we aren't psychologically equipped to detect
information about other dimensions, we cannot know what to look for.
Also, if both Mass and Time are scalars, their sub-dimensions might
add arithmetically and not vectorily and so might be virtually
indistinguishable.
I speculated previously that the other mass dimensions might explain
fields, being the 'medium' through which they operate. There has to be
some property of fields that differentiates them from 'nothingness'.
That's pretty vague, though.
We tend to view 'mass' in terms of solid material, but matter is, in
essence, nearly 100% vacuum. When we collide with an object, we feel
the collective momentum of point sized masses, exerted via force
fields. Maybe there is no such thing as 'matter'.
A second mass dimension (M2) should also have an equivalent of
momentum and should obey E=M2.C^2. Maybe that's somehow related to
nuclear packing fraction and energy release.
All our known physical quantities use units of M,L and T, where L can
be L's 1,2 or 3 corresponding to the three space sub-dimensions. How
many more physical entities can we manufacture if we include
combinations of M1, M2 amd M3 as well as T1, T2 and T3?
The possibilities are enormous.
For instance, if time is like space, we might ask the significance of
'time area' or 'time volume', a product or cube of two or three
orthogonal times.
Time probably presents the most difficult philosophical question of
all but I think I can now conceive a clear difference between
'historical' time and the time we experience as the moving present. I
can also vaguely see the need for a third time dimension, which is
somehow associated with one-way directionality and with life, itself.
Further input to this fascinating subject, most welcome. Two minds are
usually far better than twice one!
Rabbo
B. Reed
>There is a lot of argument as to whether Time actually slows down or
>the clocks that measure it do!
The empirical difference being . . . ?
Have fun,
Bryan
Rabbo
(Herbetaa Glazier) wrote:
>Hi Rabbo I'll study your post again.To answer who gets the Nobel
>prize,knowing the ego of this group you are last in line after me.I
>would say the one that types best has the best chance.As long as there
>are two objects in motion at different speeds there is a measurement and
>that is what time is nothing more. Regards Herb G=EMC^2
>
Oh! Damn, Bugger!!!! Why didn't I think of that!
Rabbo
Marcel LeBel
Robert Delecki wrote in message <38141eb4...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
vary
>>vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies vertically.
>>Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time will
>>move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
>>This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do so,
>>whether I measure it or not. From this I would tend to believe that a
>>difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
>>duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate of
>>time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist
in
>>the absence of it.
>
>Hmm, interesting. I wonder what are you thoughts on gravity between
>objects separated by time rather than space. Since time and space
>dimensions are equivalent, gravity should also affect past and future
>objects.
>the clocks that measure it do!
Robert,
Rabbo
<marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Robert Delecki wrote in message <38141eb4...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
>>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:27:59 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
>><marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In a gravitational field, time slows down. The strength of the field
>vary
>>>vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies vertically.
>>>Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time will
>>>move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
>>>This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do so,
>>>whether I measure it or not.
There, you said it yourself. Can't you see that the second TIME you
referred to is not the same as the first.
> From this I would tend to believe that a
>>>difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
>>>duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate of
>>>time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist
>in
>>>the absence of it.
Don't like that argument. Nah!
>>Hmm, interesting. I wonder what are you thoughts on gravity between
>>objects separated by time rather than space. Since time and space
>>dimensions are equivalent, gravity should also affect past and future
>>objects.
>You are right, you know. The fact is that space doesn't exist, exept as an
>instantaneous concept proper to consciousness, and the observer status. In
>order to see or even think of space, or a simple line, you must consider all
>the points as being at the same exact moment....
>which is not possible. The points are so, in the (your) perception of the
>moment, but are not at the same moment relative to each other.
>So, your objects ARE separated in time. I can almost say that no laws of
>physics would (or could) apply between the two "objects" if they really were
>at the same moment!
Agreed.
It is significant that we use 'light.years' as a unit of length, when
it is actually a unit of time. I have said somewhere else, we could
use 'light.nanoseconds', etc, instead of kilometres and miles.
The quantity we know as distance, is really an indication of time
interval between something and ourselves.
3D space is sufficient to graph all the time differences between all
the bodies that exist. That's essentially what space is! A mental
picture of the time relationships of everything we detect.
>
Rabbo
Marcel LeBel
Rabbo wrote in message <3818cad7...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...
>On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:54:16 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
><marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Robert Delecki wrote in message
<38141eb4...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
>>>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:27:59 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
>>><marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a gravitational field, time slows down. The strength of the field
>>vary
>>>>vertically above Earth. Therfore the rate of time also varies
vertically.
>>>>Strange thing is that an object in that field of varying rate of time
will
>>>>move spontaneously from the faster rate of time to the slower one.
>>>>This object will fall spontaneously and will take a certain time to do
so,
>>>>whether I measure it or not.
>There, you said it yourself. Can't you see that the second TIME you
>referred to is not the same as the first.
I'm sorry RaBBo, what first TIME ?
>> From this I would tend to believe that a
>>>>difference in time rate IS gravitation and cause for motion. Also, time
>>>>duration appears only when mass "moves" accross that difference of rate
of
>>>>time. Meaning, time duration developps only by motion, and doesn't exist
>>in
>>>>the absence of it.
>Don't like that argument. Nah!
Well ... why ? If nothing else happens but the ticking of your clock ...
well, only your clock "event" displays a motion and time.
>>>Hmm, interesting. I wonder what are you thoughts on gravity between
>>>objects separated by time rather than space. Since time and space
>>>dimensions are equivalent, gravity should also affect past and future
>>>objects.
>>You are right, you know. The fact is that space doesn't exist, exept as an
>>instantaneous concept proper to consciousness, and the observer status. In
>>order to see or even think of space, or a simple line, you must consider
all
>>the points as being at the same exact moment....
>>which is not possible. The points are so, in the (your) perception of the
>>moment, but are not at the same moment relative to each other.
>>So, your objects ARE separated in time. I can almost say that no laws of
>>physics would (or could) apply between the two "objects" if they really
were
>>at the same moment!
>Agreed.
>It is significant that we use 'light.years' as a unit of length, when
>it is actually a unit of time. I have said somewhere else, we could
>use 'light.nanoseconds', etc, instead of kilometres and miles.
>The quantity we know as distance, is really an indication of time
>interval between something and ourselves.
Right! Our perception is one of coincidence. We can see the stars and the
light of a candle in the same field of view; all part of the image are
connected by coincidence of detection (perception) but have nothing to do
with being at the same moment. Must I stress again that a distance is a
knowledge concept, proper to consciousness; things in the universe have no
use for it. For objects in the universe, distance becomes when crossed; not
before, not after.
>
>3D space is sufficient to graph all the time differences between all
>the bodies that exist. That's essentially what space is! A mental
>picture of the time relationships of everything we detect.
in other words, the geometry of the observer-spectator, the state of being
at the center of a sphere of coincidence, at a single point of view, and
nowhere else, or not everywhere else.
>>
>
>Rabbo
>
Robert Delecki
<marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Life itself is an un-interrupted event that started millions of years ago.
>We are an arrow of time; we have "past and futur". But the rock in your
>garden has no time ......
The rock in my garden has no time because it cannot perceive time, as
far as we know it. Perception seems to be critical in all of this
discussion. It's even more important than measuring time.
Two observers in different frames of references can disagree when a
certain event took place, but can they also disagree about the
sequence of events? The sequence of events follows the 'cause and
effect' principle, or causality. This is the true 'time arrow'.
My question is if causality is something inherent in nature or is it a
product of our human brain? The best analogy I can think of is the
"Sleeping Giant" mountain in Thunder Bay. Does the mountain really
look like a giant, or is the observer necessary to make such a
connection? Causality may be the same phenomenon.
If causality is just a human way of looking at the Universe, then the
implications might be enormous. For example, the concept of time
travel wouldn't be burdened by the paradoxes anymore. I could go back
in time to kill my grandfather, return to the future and everything
would still make perfect sense.
Jeff
ek...@freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Delecki) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:35:32 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
> <marcel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Life itself is an un-interrupted event that started millions of
> years ago.
> >We are an arrow of time; we have "past and futur". But the rock
> in your
> >garden has no time ......
> The rock in my garden has no time because it cannot perceive time,
> as
> far as we know it.
> look like a giant, or is the observer necessary to make such a
> connection? Causality may be the same phenomenon.
> If causality is just a human way of looking at the Universe, then
> the
> implications might be enormous. For example, the concept of time
> travel wouldn't be burdened by the paradoxes anymore. I could go
> back
> in time to kill my grandfather, return to the future and everything
> would still make perfect sense.
Just because the rock in your garden has no perception of time that
doesn't mean it is not affected by the passing of time. A mountain is a
large pile of rocks that has no perception of time, but given millions
of years it can errode completely away. So the passing of time DOES
affect inanimate matter (as well as anamate matter - us). However, the
passing of time DOES NOT need us around to measure it for it to pass,
since time obviously continued to pass in the universe for the billions
of years before we appeared. We might imagine that we are the only life
in the universe and (God forbid) a large meteor hits the Earth and
completely destroys all life. Would that cause time to stop passing
just because we are not here to measure it? Absolute time, like
absolute space, is REAL, and we won't be able to really understand the
basic nature of the universe until that concept is generally known
throughout the scientific community. All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Rabbo
<JLeeCforR...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <38197976...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
>ek...@freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Delecki) wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:35:32 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
>Just because the rock in your garden has no perception of time that
>doesn't mean it is not affected by the passing of time. A mountain is a
>large pile of rocks that has no perception of time, but given millions
>of years it can errode completely away. So the passing of time DOES
>affect inanimate matter (as well as anamate matter - us). However, the
>passing of time DOES NOT need us around to measure it for it to pass,
>since time obviously continued to pass in the universe for the billions
>of years before we appeared. We might imagine that we are the only life
>in the universe and (God forbid) a large meteor hits the Earth and
>completely destroys all life. Would that cause time to stop passing
>just because we are not here to measure it? Absolute time, like
>absolute space, is REAL, and we won't be able to really understand the
>basic nature of the universe until that concept is generally known
>throughout the scientific community. All the best,
>
>Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>
The absolute time you refer to is what I call T1. It doesn't flow. The
position of every particle in the universe, including the rock, can be
defined in terms of a coordinate of T1.
e.g. When T1=3059094054690 x 10^3868, x=..,y=..,z=.... (for the rock)
T2 is the time we feel moving. It is what permits life, motion and
thermodynamics (don't ask me how). It's rate, dT2/dT1 is what our
clocks are calibrated to measure, although their reading indicates the
integral of that rate of change.
There might be another time dimension T3, which is somehow needed to
explain why T1 cannot exist beyond a certain value, the 'present'. I'm
still a but vague about T3.
>
>
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Rabbo
Marcel LeBel
Rabbo wrote in message <381a2718...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:50:03 -0700, Jeff
><JLeeCforR...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <38197976...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
>>ek...@freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Delecki) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:35:32 -0400, "Marcel LeBel"
>
>>Just because the rock in your garden has no perception of time that
>>doesn't mean it is not affected by the passing of time. A mountain is a
>>large pile of rocks that has no perception of time, but given millions
>>of years it can errode completely away. So the passing of time DOES
>>affect inanimate matter (as well as anamate matter - us).
Marcel Lebel (ml) agreed
However, the
>>passing of time DOES NOT need us around to measure it for it to pass,
>>since time obviously continued to pass in the universe for the billions
(ml) Nop. Millions of years in term of fossil sequence ? or rock decay.? or
.... This means that you believe in a universal time ... and there is no
such thing. Life is an uninterrupted event, still happening, and is our best
clock....generations etc. Anything else stops and go; each event has its own
"time" or displays its own set of changes. Your "millions of years" is a
synthesis of the cummulative changes observed spreaded over astronomical
changes (Earth around Sun event/change= indication of time). It is the
relative comparison of two sets of changes, and assuming that it is so for
everything, and universal!
>>of years before we appeared. We might imagine that we are the only life
>>in the universe and (God forbid) a large meteor hits the Earth and
>>completely destroys all life. Would that cause time to stop passing
>>just because we are not here to measure it? Absolute time, like
>>absolute space, is REAL, and we won't be able to really understand the
>>basic nature of the universe until that concept is generally known
>>throughout the scientific community. All the best,
>>
>>Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>>
>The absolute time you refer to is what I call T1. It doesn't flow. The
>position of every particle in the universe, including the rock, can be
>defined in terms of a coordinate of T1.
>e.g. When T1=3059094054690 x 10^3868, x=..,y=..,z=.... (for the rock)
>
>T2 is the time we feel moving. It is what permits life, motion and
>thermodynamics (don't ask me how). It's rate, dT2/dT1 is what our
>clocks are calibrated to measure, although their reading indicates the
>integral of that rate of change.
>
>There might be another time dimension T3, which is somehow needed to
>explain why T1 cannot exist beyond a certain value, the 'present'. I'm
>still a but vague about T3.
>>
(ml) Without changes or motion, can you tell the difference between past and
present ? In an operational way, you can't ! THat is why I don't think there
is a past or futur.. just now. Your past could be described as the third
previous change in a set of states which you compare with an unrelated
independant regularily happenning set of changes that you call a clock. That
is the immense hurdle that our biological ( and finite) existence prevent us
from understanding, as we are some form of clock too. Also, we have a
vantage point of view; we are spectators in a universe of actors. To
understand the workings of nature you must think about it in terms of how it
is acted, not how it looks like. Oh yes ! You will still have to describe it
eventually in terms of observations (observationals). But you will
understand what you are saying.
ca31...@bestweb.net
Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
> The absolute time you refer to is what I call T1. It doesn't flow. The
> position of every particle in the universe, including the rock, can be
> defined in terms of a coordinate of T1.
> e.g. When T1=3059094054690 x 10^3868, x=..,y=..,z=.... (for the rock)
>
> T2 is the time we feel moving. It is what permits life, motion and
> thermodynamics (don't ask me how). It's rate, dT2/dT1 is what our
> clocks are calibrated to measure, although their reading indicates the
> integral of that rate of change.
>
> There might be another time dimension T3, which is somehow needed to
> explain why T1 cannot exist beyond a certain value, the 'present'. I'm
> still a but vague about T3.
If T1 is an (effectively) infinite window on some time series,
and T2 a far less than infinite window on some time-series,
then wavelettes and wavelette packets produce a multitude of
windows on a time-series while a window size of unity is only
one sample and not a spectrum.
Then T1 is an infinite temporal context, and T2 is a
less than infinite context on the time-series, and wavelettes
offer a multiresolution tomographic view of the time-series
which might be said to be a 'holographic' view of a historical
time series ?
But adaptive techniques on non-historical time-series
probably offer an even different picture of dynamic "time"
than the static historical recordings ?
Rabbo
Good one, ca!
Could you explain that in english instead of mongolian?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Rabbo
Fricke
If you control events you control the time
Travel machines = frozen and defrozen machines
Cold = Put all frictions of the particle out and freeze
atoms, you'll have atoms like in photo, and you want them to
be alive, just give them a little warm
Cryogenesis science
=)
see you friends!
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
John Hopkins
Just wanted to put a thought in on Time.
Is it not possible that Time is just something built into everything?
The example I used before was a computer. A computer has a timing chip
in it. A software program doesn't have to be coded to take 30 seconds
recalculate a spreadsheet. It just takes that long.
Maybe Time is the same way. All things in the universe can only operate
so fast. Taken on the smallest level, that has an effect on everything
"built on top of it". I wish I knew how to better explain what I'm
trying to say, but hopefully you'll get the gist.
John
Rabbo wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:04:39 GMT, ek...@freenet.carleton.ca (Robert
> Delecki) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:38:06 GMT, Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
> >
> >>We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows' -
> >>and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> >>Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
> >
> >I have to disagree right here. Time doesn't change relative to
> >anything. It's a dimension. What changes is our perception of time. If
> >humans didn't have memory, time could be conveniently ignored.
> That's T1 you're talking about.
> T2 is the Time dimension we feel moving at a constant rate.
> Other animals don't have have the memory to perceive or recall T1.
> >
> >At any particular moment, you can perceive time only as a point.
> Whatever our T2 coordinate is always our 'present', by definition.
> For each individual, T2 zero was the day we were conceived.
> >only
> >upon reflection you come to realize that time is a line. Whether this
> >line is straight, cyclic or some other function that's another
> >discussion.
> I would say that time is an index, a scalar. Time subdimensions can be
> added arithmetically, which explains their apparent
> indistinguishability.
> >
> >I often compare the perceivable world as a "cross-section" of a 4D
> >world (3D space + 1D time). Any one of these "slices" is just as real
> >as any other.
> >
> Yes. By cross-section you mean holding one dimension constant so that
> your world is 3D. Whether you choose 2 space and one time or three
> space doesn't matter.
> I say that there are three Time and three Mass dimensions as well.
>
Robert Cain
science news weekly "Science Today" about a theory being developed by
Julian Barbour whom they refer to as an "independent theoretical
physicist" (have you ever met one who wasn't? :-) This mag usually
reports on good solid science so maybe he is on to something. His
notion is that time does not even exist per se. He utilizes a type of
"configuration space" where only the kind of observables that Mach would
consider are mapped and that doesn't include time. I did like the quote
from Ernst Mach at the front of the article.
"It is utterly beyond our power
to measure the changes of things by time.
Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction
at which we arrive by the means of the
changes of things."
Given the seriousness Einstien gave to Mach's ideas and that my own have
been stumbling around inadequtely in this direction for some time I've
decided to follow this one a bit. Not much meat in the article so I've
ordered Barbour's book "The End if Time" to see if he fleshes it out a
bit more. Won't be out until the end of Nov. according to my local
flesh and blood book seller.
Peace,
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstien
John Stepp
Time is pretty complicated, duration could be thought of as being
moderated by the local speed of light, but. . .
Chemical clocks, such as the one that makes us older by the minute are
mediated more by temperature of the environment.
Atomic clocks (not the fancy cesium decay thingys that measure every
lost pico second), are moderated by weak and strong force.
Computer clocks are largely junk chips, I regularly have to go to
www.time.gov to set mine correctly, my pocket watch keeps better time
(but I built that sucker out of junk, sadly it's not Y2K compliant and
must be _put down_ at years end.)
Time does seem to be local, deeper into a gravity well you drop, slower
it flows, what else could affect time?
Charge, charging an ion may change the molecular time (but not the
atomic time).
Velocity, pushing something up around 99.5 C (and you won't notice many
effects before this) will slow down molecular time, atomic time, speed
of aging in general.
Dielectric effects, speed of light through glass, mica, water, diamond
drops, set your clock on a star seen through a shot glass darkly?
So, times little measurement could change drastically acrossed the width
of an atom, personally, I got pissed off at the entire concept about 15
years ago (more or less) and threw it out as being unprovable.
I begin to think that our perception of time is a neurosis caused by our
developing intelligence, and that the amoebae may have a better idea.
Or then again, maybe it is the alcohol, which should be moderated by the
coffee.
JFS
Rabbo
wrote:
>Actually I hate myself after I post, but I drink a lot so that's ok.
I have found that it is always best not to post immediately but to
reread a drunken article next morning when sober. It saves making a
real fool of oneself and may even avoid a defamation case!
On wasting time you mean! hahaha
No. There are a number of time dimensions. Time flow is simply
dT2/dT1. It has a spatial analogy in dy/dx. Same thing basically!
>>
>> Is it not possible that Time is just something built into everything?
>> The example I used before was a computer. A computer has a timing chip
>> in it. A software program doesn't have to be coded to take 30 seconds
>> recalculate a spreadsheet. It just takes that long.
>> Maybe Time is the same way. All things in the universe can only operate
>> so fast. Taken on the smallest level, that has an effect on everything
>> "built on top of it". I wish I knew how to better explain what I'm
>> trying to say, but hopefully you'll get the gist.
no
Rabbo
John Stepp
>
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:35:49 -0500, John Stepp <jfs...@aye.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually I hate myself after I post, but I drink a lot so that's ok.
> I have found that it is always best not to post immediately but to
> reread a drunken article next morning when sober. It saves making a
> real fool of oneself and may even avoid a defamation case!
> Rabbo
>
I am always drunk, it comes with the territory.
(actually there is a reason, I get so damn mean when I get sober. . .)
Never mind, I will make the statement that _Time does not exist_ as a
dimension, there is _no_ evidence that it exists.
Time travel has less evidence than ghosts, but many people believe.
Mythology is strong in this dogma, I do think.
Besides, if I didn't drink, I wouldn't post.
(found that out by being sober for a month.)
(I wouldn't say that usenet is boring while sober. . .)
But then, I have had about 12 ounces of vodka, and you people are
interesting as hell.
JFS
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
this discussion to consider the possibility as implied in Shadows
http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm that time is only a measure of
the sequential ordering of the casualty of events.
Jeff
Gerry Quinn
>On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:35:49 -0500, John Stepp <jfs...@aye.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually I hate myself after I post, but I drink a lot so that's ok.
>I have found that it is always best not to post immediately but to
>reread a drunken article next morning when sober. It saves making a
>real fool of oneself and may even avoid a defamation case!
Also it takes too long to get the spelling right...
- Gerry Quinn
Rabbo
wrote:
>Rabbo wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:35:49 -0500, John Stepp <jfs...@aye.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually I hate myself after I post, but I drink a lot so that's ok.
>> I have found that it is always best not to post immediately but to
>> reread a drunken article next morning when sober. It saves making a
>> real fool of oneself and may even avoid a defamation case!
>
>> Rabbo
>>
>I am always drunk, it comes with the territory.
>(actually there is a reason, I get so damn mean when I get sober. . .)
>Never mind, I will make the statement that _Time does not exist_ as a
>dimension, there is _no_ evidence that it exists.
>Time travel has less evidence than ghosts, but many people believe.
>Mythology is strong in this dogma, I do think.
>
>Besides, if I didn't drink, I wouldn't post.
>(found that out by being sober for a month.)
>(I wouldn't say that usenet is boring while sober. . .)
>
>But then, I have had about 12 ounces of vodka, and you people are
>interesting as hell.
>
> JFS
I'd recommend good Australian red wine if you want to tune up those
brain cells. It's good for your arteries, too!
Rabbo
Rabbo
Ordering wrt what? Time?
Your argument is circular.
I repeat. There are three Time sub-dimensions. Timeflow is dT2/dT1.
What is so difficult about this?
Rabbo
John Stepp
what an off topic thread).
In all seriousness, I drink a lot because I metabolize alcohol at a fast
rate. I seem to be subject to micro events, and a combination of
alcohol and caffeine helps a bit.
(of course, we all know that alcoholics have some damn good excuses.)
Getting back to the subject of hard science (as opposed to the other
hard stuff) your experiment with the magnetic pendulum is intriguing, if
a reciprocating engine was built that pulled a electomagneticly
generated field towards the engine and pushed the _dead_ coil away on
the next cycle, I would expect a nice (but noisy) thrust mechanism.
Ideally, it would run in a vacuum (of course that leads to lubrication
problems).
Now, from that, it should be possible to design the same thing with no
moving parts, here the problem becomes dissipating the magnetic field as
it would be easiest to move the field with misner effect.
I have been _really_ trying to work out the problems involved with going
electrically into orbit, the final solution may well be a very long and
light extension cord. Really, what is the cost of two pieces of wire as
opposed to building a ramp up the side of some mountain in equidor?
JFS
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
I don't understand how it you could consider it a circular definition.
If you define time as relativity does as I believe you have as having
physical properties it is defiantly circular. Two object or entities
according to relativity should be able to occupy the same space at the
same time. According to relativity time is retaliative therefore two
different observes can view two different objects at same point in
space time because each views that specific point in space time
differently. However if you view time as the a measure of the
sequential ordering of the causality of an event each point it space
will have its own unique and unambiguous set of coordinate in space.
No two entities can ever have the different ordering of casualty and
be at the same point in space.
Jeff
>
Rabbo
wrote:
What was it this time? Gin? Whisky?
Stick to the red, mate, I say. You'll be surprised at the number of
times you wake in the middle of the night with a really creative idea!
Rabbo
Rabbo
O'Callaghan) wrote:
I agree entirely with that.
I regard relativity as a purely observational phenomenon.
I also regard the 'form' of space/time as being psychological.
Your idea that time is an index is also in comformity with the notion
of an absolute universe, in which the position of every particle can
be described by an equation of the form, "if T=a then x=b,y=c,z=d".
Theoretically, everything in the universe could be recorded, for all
time, in terms of that type of equation for every particle.
I am not prepared to state categorically that there is an absolute
universe even though I consider that there could be.
Correct me if I have misinterpreted your message but I think you are
effectively saying what time does. I'm am trying to say what it
actually is.
Rabbo
G=EMC^2 Glazier
John Stepp
but unpretensious.
Personally, rereading the bit on the extension cord (which was pretty
well straight Bartons) I think I might have an idea.
Kmart goes into orbit.
Todays blue light special is a LEO machine that will (almost) fit your
shopping cart.
I have to do some figureing here, 10 pound transponder, weight per foot
of extension cord (why, oh why didn't I go metric?), explosive plug.
I think we may not need the laser monicle ship after all.
I'll get back to you.
JFS
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
O'Callaghan) wrote:
> Shadows http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm
>examines time from a different perspective that may help us to
>understand what time "is" or "does".
>
>
>Also this definition of time is not depended on existence of an
>absolute universe.. The logical arguments for this conclusion are
>presented primarily in Chapter 19 "The Experimental Verification of
>Shadows". These arguments can be found at
>http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter19.htm if one is interested in this
>aspect of time
>
>
>Jeff
Rabbo
I'd like to express my sincerest apologize for these somewhat
misleading statements that I made here. Unfortunately, due to an
oversight, Shadows does not yet directly address the issue of time.
It defines time indirectly in terms of the existence of the
matterenergy fields and IMPLIES that it is may be only a measure of
the sequential ordering of events. I will shortly add a section
detailing this concept of time to the original file.
Again my apologizes for misleading you.
Jeff
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
>I agree entirely with that.
>I regard relativity as a purely observational phenomenon.
>I also regard the 'form' of space/time as being psychological.
>
>Your idea that time is an index is also in comformity with the notion
>of an absolute universe, in which the position of every particle can
>be described by an equation of the form, "if T=a then x=b,y=c,z=d".
>Theoretically, everything in the universe could be recorded, for all
>time, in terms of that type of equation for every particle.
>I am not prepared to state categorically that there is an absolute
>universe even though I consider that there could be.
>
>Correct me if I have misinterpreted your message but I think you are
>effectively saying what time does. I'm am trying to say what it
>actually is.
>
Yes I am effectively saying what time does. However what if time does
not possess and physical attributes as relativity suggest or
contribute to the causality of events? One of the basic postulates
of Relativity the curvature of space-time is the "Causality" of the
force of gravity and defines the force of gravity in these terms.
Shadows, on the other hand, does not assign causality to the dimension
of time but defines it ONLY as the measure of the sequential ordering
of the "causality" of events. If time does not posses physical
properties then it cannot be defined in terms of what it is only what
it "does" Shadows defines the force of gravity in terms of a physical
process and mechanism with respect to four spatial dimension instead
of space-time. Relativity has been the dominate theory regarding how
we view and define time. Shadows http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm
Rabbo
O'Callaghan) wrote:
Look. I regard relativity as a step in the right direction but a
totally inadequate theory, as far as explaining how, why and when.
There is obviously some connection between the force field called
gravity and time. What it is, is a mystery as far as I am concerned.
We know very little about space/time.
I have read your web page and was not particularly impressed, not
because of the content but because you really haven't moved far away
from conventional thinking.
Physics need a complete change of direction. That's my opinion.
Rabbo
Rabbo
wrote:
I would guess that this post indicates about ten whiskies, twenty
beers and a bottle or two of rather cheap wine.
Have you seen the doctor recently about your liver?
I must admit to being pretty pissed myself tonight but I drove home so
I couldn't be all that far gone.
The good thing is, My mind functions much more efficiently when I
drink even if my girlfriend just hung up on me. Faaarrrrrk!
Rabbo
Rabbo
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>
>--WebTV-Mail-31271-3458
>Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
>hi Rabbo There is a book I got "Mapping Time" by E.G. Richards.it just
>came out.I think you will like it. Regards Herb
Thanks. Where do I get it? I'm in sunny Australia. I'll look around.
Is it on the 'net?
I really do want to find out what time is before it catches up with
me!
>
>
>--WebTV-Mail-31271-3458
>Content-Description: signature
>Content-Disposition: Inline
>Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
><html>
><imgsrc="http./www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/7447/lgpkrose.gif'height=116width=242<html>
>
>
>--WebTV-Mail-31271-3458--
Rabbo
John Stepp
'psychic' healing last year, got the arthritis under control (actually
learned how to drop someone at 20 feet, damn good party trick.)
In this PC world, I have gotten extremely wary about DUI, even though I
know damn well that being pulled over while riding a 'bike and suspected
of drinking is rare (the police will not believe that someone gets
plastered and rides home on a big bike)
Too damn many kids on the streets, too much chance of hitting one.
Now as to back on topic,(as a meower, I see too many of these off topic
posts, and I guess I create a few), the extension cord thing is not a
cop out, if we get some electrically powered thrust it would work.
A good extension cord could cost 10000 bucks, as opposed to 10 million
for a launching ramp.
The monocle ship, (laser boosted solid) may well be more expensive.
We just need lighter cord.
JFS
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
>On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:05:54 GMT, jeff...@idt.net (Jeffrey
>O'Callaghan) wrote:
>
>>Yes I am effectively saying what time does. However what if time does
>>not possess and physical attributes as relativity suggest or
>>contribute to the causality of events? One of the basic postulates
>>of Relativity the curvature of space-time is the "Causality" of the
>>force of gravity and defines the force of gravity in these terms.
>>Shadows, on the other hand, does not assign causality to the dimension
>>of time but defines it ONLY as the measure of the sequential ordering
>>of the "causality" of events. If time does not posses physical
>>properties then it cannot be defined in terms of what it is only what
>>it "does" Shadows defines the force of gravity in terms of a physical
>>process and mechanism with respect to four spatial dimension instead
>>of space-time. Relativity has been the dominate theory regarding how
>>we view and define time. Shadows http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm
>>examines time from a different perspective that may help us to
>>understand what time "is" or "does".
>>
" I'd like to express my sincerest apologize for these somewhat
misleading statements that I made here. Unfortunately, due to
an oversight, Shadows does not yet directly address the issue of
time. It defines time indirectly in terms of the existence of the
matterenergy fields and IMPLIES that it is may be only a measure of
the sequential ordering of events. I will shortly add a section
detailing this concept of time to the original file.
Again my apologizes for misleading you."
>Look. I regard relativity as a step in the right direction but a
>totally inadequate theory, as far as explaining how, why and when.
>There is obviously some connection between the force field called
>gravity and time. What it is, is a mystery as far as I am concerned.
>We know very little about space/time.
>
>I have read your web page and was not particularly impressed, not
>because of the content but because you really haven't moved far away
>from conventional thinking.
>
>Physics need a complete change of direction. That's my opinion
As I said in the a follow up article this issue will be addressed
shortly
Jeff
Sean McLeod
beyond that ? I imagine it's impossible for anyone to actually understand or
realize any dimension above ours, so then how many dimensions are there ?
What if there are an infinate number of dimensions between two poles: the
final of which being Time (time effects and "understands" all dimensions
below it.. which would be ALL dimensions.)
Not sure what the first pole would be ? Energy, gravity, or good old fashion
"Chi" ^_^'
If this would be true, then maybe we could also exsist on more then just
this one dimention.
Perhaps our souls exsist on a higher dimention. If so, then we can exsist
without our 3 Dimensional bodies.
Also, Could light be considered "1 Dimensional" ? It certainly doesn't take
up 3 dimensional space, ne ? But it does take up a single point.
Maybe then color could then be considered 2 dimentional ? Maybe not.. but oh
well ^_^
Anyways.
Ja ne !
--Kayin.Angel--
John Stepp
confined to 3. On the psychic level, I don't know, never saw more than
three, but maybe I'm not that damned good as a psychic(1).
Existence puts us in a box, I have no more idea than you as to what
happens when we die, most of the really strange crap I've run into could
very well have been some kind of shared psychosis (I see it, the cats
see it, Debbie sees it, I run it off with a Hunter Killer Tulpa.(2))
From a real world view, be happy, live your life as if the phone company
really matters, hope for some kind of afterlife. As to light, be aware
that light is just a manifestation of radio waves made very small, and
any competent electronics tech understands radio waves.
(the math does change at some point, it becomes strange.)
(1) Never won the lottery, don't know where the lost dutchman mine is,
loosing on the stock market.
(2) The Viet-Nam war changes your perspective, any other 'vets out there
seeing strange crap? You too can learn psychic warfare.
JFS
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
O'Callaghan) wrote:
Below is an updated table of contents for Shadows followed by ROUGH
DRAFT of Chapter 13 "Time and Causality"
http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter13.htm which directly address the
Shadows concept of time. Your comment and criticisms will be greatly
appreciated.
Again my apologies for overlooking this topic in the original
publication
Jeff
SHADOWS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/introduction.htm
Chapter One...........Matterenergy
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter1.htm
Chapter Two .........The Matterfields
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter2.htm
Chapter Three .......The Energyfield
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm
Chapter Four .........Photons
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter4.htm
Chapter Five ..........Atoms
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter5.htm
Chapter Six.............Electrons
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter6.htm
Chapter Seven .......The Dimensional Interface
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter7.htm
Chapter Eight .........Magnetism
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter8.htm
Chapter Nine ..........Gravity
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter9.htm
Chapter Ten ...........Electrical Forces
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter10.htm
Chapter Eleven ......Gravity and Electricity Linked
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter11.htm
Chapter Twelve ......Relativity
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter12.htm
Chapter Thirteen .....Time and causality
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter13.htm
Chapter Fourteen ....Gravitational Kinetic Energies Linked
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter14.htm
Chapter Fifteen .......Dimensional Buoyancy
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter15.htm
Chapter Sixteen ......The Principle of Equivalence
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter16.htm
Chapter Seventeen...Quarks
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter17.htm
Chapter Eighteen ....The origins of the positron
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter18.htm
Chapter Nineteen ......Dimensional Technology
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter19.htm
Chapter Twenty.........Experimental Verification of Shadows
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter20.htm
Conclusion
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/conclusion.htm
Glossary
*** http://idt.net/~jeffocal/glossary.htm
Return to Shadows......Table of contents......Previous
chapter......Next chapter
Chapter Thirteen
Time and causality
Einstein's concepts of space-time contained in his theory of
Relativity have provided a definition of time that has been generally
accepted for most of the 19th century. Relativity attributes physical
properties and causality to the dimension of time. The curvature of
space time is the causality of the force of gravity and defines the
force of gravity in these terms. This relativistic model has had
remarkable success in explaining and predicting many experiment
observations. It predicted the expansion of the Universe and solved
the problem of the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury that
Newtonian gravity could not explain. However it has also has some
remarkable failures. Notable, it's inability to accurately predict
explain the quantum nature of energy and the electromagnetic
properties of light.
For the past century many physicist have spent a vast majority of
their time researching the ideas of relativity in an attempt to
advance our understanding of our universe with little or no success.
The same problems Relativity had when was first published still exist.
It still cannot account for the quantum nature of energy nor how EM
radiation is transmitted through space. How much more time must one
spend researching Relativity before one decides to look to other ideas
to help us advance our understanding of our universe.
Shadows on the other hand does not attribute physical properties or
causality to the dimension of time. Instead Shadows defines time as
only as a measure of the sequential ordering of the causality of
events. Unlike Relativity, it defines the force of gravity, in
Chapter nine ,as being the result of a curvature in a third spatial
dimension with respect to a fourth spatial dimension and not as a
result of a curvature in space time. In changing ones perspective of
the dimension of time from one that generates causality to one that
defines it as a reference, Shadows has been able to define a common
physical process and mechanism responsible for all experimental
observed properties of the universe. Shadows demonstrates a common
physical bond between the quantization of energy, the electromagnetic
nature of EM radiation, gravitational force, magnetism, and electrical
energy.
There also are several other advantages to defining the dimension of
time as the reference for the causality of events instead of actually
being physically responsible for causality as Relativity does.
Relativity has difficulty unambiguously defining the concept of the
"present" or "now" with respect to time. Both Relativity and Shadows,
Chapter 16 ,demonstrate that an absolute reference frame does not and
cannot exit, therefore how can Relativity define a present" or "now"
with respect to a specific point in space or time. According to
relativity The "now" in one reference frame would not be the same
"now" in another reference frame that was in relative motion to it.
Shouldn't one consider a specific "now" in relation to time as a
relativistic concept and variable just as one considers the rate at
which time moves as a variable between two reference frames that are
in relative motion.
In the absence of an absolute reference frame one possible unambiguous
working definition of time may be to define it as a measure of the
sequential ordering of the causality of events as Shadows does. Since
this would define time in terms the of the before and after of an
event it is not depended on the existence of a absolute reference
frame because the causality of events are occurring relative to and
referenced to each other.
However it is necessary to define a present or "now" to from a
complete description of reality. If you view the kinetic energy as
the causality of their movement, as Shadows does in Chapter 12,then
one could consider the kinetic energy to be the causality of the event
of the movement of objects or entities through space. Then the "now"
or the specific location of a entity in dimensional space would be
defined as the area of space between where measurements were taken of
the sequential order of the kinetic energy of those entities The
smaller the time interval the more accurate the "now" would become.
This gives one a physically process and mechanism for defining "now"
in terms of time and dimensional space which would not be depended on
an absolute reference frame.
orton
Rabbo@large..(Rabbo) wrote:
> We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it 'flows'
> -
> and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
<snip>
Rabbo,
the direction is outward. to see the mystery (indisputably) solved:
................................................
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/knobelecke/k_unified2.htm
................................................
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified.htm
................................................
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm#orton_quantum
theory
................................................
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/index.html
................................................
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/knobelecke/k_action.htm
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ewan Sinclair
exsist
> beyond that ? I imagine it's impossible for anyone to actually understand
or
> realize any dimension above ours, so then how many dimensions are there ?
being a bit bored recently, tried to visualise a hypersphere, first,
imagine you are on the 3d "surface" of it, holding onto a pole: the pole
stretches intot he distance and after a while, you can see yourself from
behind where you are looking. this is true for any direction you look in.
the pole joins itself, yet is of finite length and is not bent.
no imagine a hypershere being described while you sir at a point on the 3d
"surface"; i first thought of the same for someone on a 3d sphere, they can
only partially see the 3rd dimension, so when something moves into the 3d,
it simply fades the further it goes away for them. they see a point, which
expands into a circle surrounding them, fading as it does, then it begins to
close in on them, still fading, coming back to a faded point. what has
happened here is that the point has followed the sphere's surface, expanding
until it comes to the middle, then contractiing again until it becomes a
point again at the other pole, further away from the observer.
scale this up one dimension, the hypersphere should be described like this:
a point expands to a sphere surrounding you, fading as it goes. the
expansion stops after a time, leaving you surrounded by a faded sphere. it
then begins to contract, still fading, until it comes back to the same
point, but is faded.
this is the best way i have been able to visualise another dimension so far,
what's anyone think?
ewan
au...@detroit.freenet.org
stuff exists on 6 dimensions.
modern (1999) science does not acknowledge it,
but there are either
three space + three time dimensions,
or
three space dimensions + plus clocks in different (three) dimensions.
abian is right,
time is manifestation of space because it takes time to traverse space.
thus 3 time dimensions accord with the 3 spatial (space) dimensions,
and it's all x, y, z, (dimensions) literally.
this includes hyper-light calculations
under unified field dynamics/parallel physics security-universe reality
as transposed to this (lesser) time.
in summary the universe can, and will, be translated
into six elemental dimensions: the optimal all-inclusive minimal number:
otherwise it's like transposing the three space dimensions
into 12 or 24 or 336:
the other "dimensions"
are in fact subset of three dimensions,
whether or not
x-y-z- (90 degrees on the protractor)
or polar (straight up for reference, degrees down, degrees around,
plus length of the vector)
are used.
the universe is six-dimensional,
the science of the day, 1999 versus 90,000+ and onward: a.d. equivalently
does not in fact recognize this truth.
really honorable,
really good
telepaths can understand and know the meanng of this stuff
better than the n.s.a.:
better than the section eight-16-24-32-etc.,
better than anyone else,
the meaning tends to congeal quickly and
coalesce rightly,
felons and the dishonest don't comprehend. (it)
3-space,
3-time, the time of travel (traversal) CORRESPONDING TO
THE CONSTANT-VELOCITY time of travel between absolute dimensions,
\
Minimal Number To Represent The Whole Universe:
[( minimal number of dimensions (optimalO to include everythin')]
[(everythin' = everything)]
this is the way of the unified field dynamics/parallel physics
security-universe
summary
master science,
the definition of the real world,
indeed,
the definition of the real universe,
a science so advanced we here,
millions of years less advanced
in fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers
have but a glimpse of,
a short view,
a brief summary,
in a time and space no one sane wants to be (nor worse) in.
\see that.
\it's true!
eot
end of transmission.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
mark...@thepentagon.com "all is meow when said in kitten"
mark...@cheerful.com perfect peace be upon you forever salami/salam
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
George Bajszar
mathematically describe the Universe. Mathematics already exist for
calculating space and time.
George Bajszar
In article <80f325$bav$1...@news2.acs.oakland.edu>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mimus
wrote:
>We exsist (or believe we exsist) in 3 Dimensional space. But maybe we exsist
>beyond that ? I imagine it's impossible for anyone to actually understand or
>realize any dimension above ours, so then how many dimensions are there ?
>
>What if there are an infinate number of dimensions between two poles: the
>final of which being Time (time effects and "understands" all dimensions
>below it.. which would be ALL dimensions.)
>Not sure what the first pole would be ? Energy, gravity, or good old fashion
>"Chi" ^_^'
>
>If this would be true, then maybe we could also exsist on more then just
>this one dimention.
>Perhaps our souls exsist on a higher dimention. If so, then we can exsist
>without our 3 Dimensional bodies.
>
>Also, Could light be considered "1 Dimensional" ? It certainly doesn't take
>up 3 dimensional space, ne ? But it does take up a single point.
>Maybe then color could then be considered 2 dimentional ? Maybe not.. but oh
>well ^_^
>
>Anyways.
>Ja ne !
Back in the early 1900s, the minimum number of dimensions required to
support known physical phenomena was calculated by topologists to be
no less than eleven, and I'm pretty sure the number of kinds of
independent phenomena observed and to be accounted for has increased
since then . . .
HTH.
---
tinmi...@hotmail.com
.sigzip*
Rabbo
wrote:
>Maybe the concept of 3 spacial dimensions were invented so we can
>mathematically describe the Universe. Mathematics already exist for
>calculating space and time.
>
>George Bajszar
>
Precisely.
All the information needed to specify the relative physical distances
between all particles in the universe can be illustrated graphically,
in 3D space.
For instance if a,b,c,d,e,,,,,, are particles and the distance between
them are known, eg., a-b=l, a-c=m, a-d=n, b-c=o, b-d=p, etc, etc, then
no more than 3 dimensions are needed to plot all of that data.
If there are many alternative configurations for these distances, a
fourth dimension is required. That is what we call Time.
Other dimensions are necessary to accommodate the non-physical aspects
of the universe.
Rabbo
Slavek Krepelka
way to do dynamic topology of behaviour of matter. How wrong one can be.
Regards Slavek.
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
>>jeff...@idt.net (Jeffrey O'Callaghan)
>
>wrote>
>>Dimensions are a math device to keep within the measurable
>
>> Imagine a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a
>>piece of paper.
>
>Hi Jeff:
>The problem is there is no dimension to fulfill the requirement for substance
>in two dimensions. Nothing is holding them together. Two dimensions lead to
>existence or substance, but without the third, there's nothing there. Just a
>mathematical tool.
John
The problem is there is no mathematics that can fulfill the
requirements to physically cause movement. Nothing in mathematics can
account for the energy of associated with movement. Mathematics does
not exist as a substance since there is nothing there. Just a tool
help describe the physical universe. :)
I agree that math is a very valuable tool helping us describe the
physical universe. However Shadows
http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm attempts to define the forces of
nature not in terms of what they are but in terms of a the physical
process and mechanism responsible for their generation. The fourth
spatial dimension is physical in nature and plays a major roll in the
process that is responsible for generation of these forces. The point
I was trying to make in my original article was that we can measure
and analysis the properties of the a fourth spatial dimension in a
qualitative non mathematical fashion in terms of its physical
interaction with three dimensional space. Then we MUST also use
mathematics as a TOOL to verify the validity of these physical
interactions. Shadows has provided numerous opportunities for
mathematical verification by mathematically predicting the outcome of
many of the physical interactions and processes that it describes.
Jeff
Adrian
Sean McLeod <ka...@interhop.net> wrote in message
news:80dcqs$41r$1...@news.auracom.net...
> We exsist (or believe we exsist) in 3 Dimensional space. But maybe we
exsist
> beyond that ? I imagine it's impossible for anyone to actually understand
or
> realize any dimension above ours, so then how many dimensions are there ?
>
> What if there are an infinate number of dimensions between two poles: the
> final of which being Time (time effects and "understands" all dimensions
> below it.. which would be ALL dimensions.)
> Not sure what the first pole would be ? Energy, gravity, or good old
fashion
> "Chi" ^_^'
>
> If this would be true, then maybe we could also exsist on more then just
> this one dimention.
> Perhaps our souls exsist on a higher dimention. If so, then we can exsist
> without our 3 Dimensional bodies.
>
> Also, Could light be considered "1 Dimensional" ? It certainly doesn't
take
> up 3 dimensional space, ne ? But it does take up a single point.
> Maybe then color could then be considered 2 dimentional ? Maybe not.. but
oh
Dimensions are a math device to keep within the measurable. Outside of our
senses Space and Time do not apply and thus our awareness can access
different dimensions and it works in much the same way as our mind can
manage both our senses, externally, our feelings internally and that pair
again in relation to whatever it is. IFF so we have to include
consciousness.
Adrian
>
>
Jeffrey O'Callaghan
>
>Sean McLeod <ka...@interhop.net> wrote in message
>news:80dcqs$41r$1...@news.auracom.net...
>> We exsist (or believe we exsist) in 3 Dimensional space. But maybe we
>exsist
>> beyond that ? I imagine it's impossible for anyone to actually understand
>or
>> realize any dimension above ours, so then how many dimensions are there ?
>> Not sure what the first pole would be ? Energy, gravity, or
>>
>
>Dimensions are a math device to keep within the measurable. Outside of our
>senses Space and Time do not apply and thus our awareness can access
>different dimensions and it works in much the same way as our mind can
>manage both our senses, externally, our feelings internally and that pair
>again in relation to whatever it is. IFF so we have to include
>consciousness.
>
One does not have to "see" or "touch" a dimension to demonstrate or
accept its existence just as one does not have to "see" or "touch" an
electron or photon to accept its existence. Since no one can "see" or
"touch" either a electron or photon our acceptance of their physical
existence is based primarily on the experimental observations of their
effects on our physical universe, not on mathematical devices.
Similarly Shadows http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm demonstrates
the physical existence of the fourth spatial dimension based on
experimental observations of its effects on our physical universe.
Jeff
Return to Shadows......Table of contents......Previous
chapter......Next Chapter
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Dimensional Interface
The three dimensions of length, width, and height are familiar to us.
However, the idea of energy level or depth to these dimensions may not
be. Imagine a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a
piece of paper. His field of vision would be limited to length and
width of the paper. He would not be aware of the dimension of height
because he could not "look" in that direction. The idea that his
world of the paper exists in a three-dimensional world would be
difficult for him to understand. The reason the idea of energydepth
or level to our universe may be difficult to understand is because our
field of vision is limited to the three dimensions of length, width,
and height. We would have "no idea" that the fourth spatial dimension
or energydepth exists because we can not "look" in that direction.
The orientation of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimension with
respect to three dimensional space may also be a bit difficult to
visualize. It is parallel and co-terminal or parallel and
perpendicular simultaneously to the three dimensions of length, width
and height of the three dimensional universe. Again we can use the
analogy a two dimensional creature on the surface of a piece of paper
to illustrate this. If a light was shining on the surface of the
paper he would perceive it to be parallel and co-terminal to the
length and width of his world. This is because it would shine over
the entire surface of the paper along it's length and width. He would
perceive it to be parallel and perpendicular if and only if it was
shining directly down on the paper. In a similar manner, the
energydepth of the fourth spacial dimension "shines" on the "surface"
of the three dimensional posiverse resulting in it being parallel and
co-terminal to it. Three dimensional beings would perceive the
effects of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimension to parallel and
perpendicular if an only if the W axis were perfectly aligned with the
axis of length, width, and height of three dimensional space. Also
since the two-dimensional creature can only see in the directions of
length and width, he could not perceive it as light because light has
the properties of three dimensional space. Instead he may perceive
light as heat. Since we can only look in the directions of length
width and height we cannot directly perceive what the W axis of the
fourth spatial dimension is. Instead we perceive it a energy.
Another way of understanding the fact that W axis of the fourth
spatial is parallel and perpendicular simultaneously to the three
dimensions of length, width and height of the three dimensional
universe is by comparing it to the pressure air exerts on the surface
of water. The pressure of the air will represent the W axis of the
fourth spatial dimension. The surface of the water will represent the
dimensional boundary between the fourth spatial dimension and the axis
of the three dimensions of length, width, and height of three
dimensional space. If the surface of the water is undisturbed, the
pressure the air exerts on it will be perpendicular to it along its
entire surface. Similarly the pressure the W axis exerts on the
surface of the three dimensions of length width and height will be
perpendicular to them along their entire "length". Since the pressure
that the W axis of the fourth spatial dimension exerts on the
dimensional boundary of length width and height of three dimensional
space follows the exact line of the dimensional axis it is also
parallel to them. Multi linear algebra demonstrates the fourth
spatial dimension must be orthogonal (perpendicular) to each dimension
of our three dimensional universe. Since the pressure that W axis
exerts on each of the dimensions of length width and height is
parallel and perpendicular to each individual axis it must be
simultaneously parallel and perpendicular to all three.
The same argument applies to the fact that the W axis of the fourth
spatial dimension is parallel and co terminal simultaneously to the
three dimensions of length, width and height of the three dimensional
universe. Multi linear algebra demonstrates that the W axis of the
fourth spatial dimension must be orthogonal (perpendicular) to each
dimension of our three dimensional universe along the entire "length"
of the three dimensions of length width and height. Therefore
termination of the W axis is also present along the entire "length" of
each dimensions. This results in it termination being parallel to
each of the dimension of the 3D universe. If the W axis of the fourth
spatial dimension must be orthogonal (perpendicular) simultaneously to
each dimension of our three dimensional universe them it must also be
simultaneously co-terminal to them.
The analogy of the paper can also illustrate the relationships between
the orientation of the dimensional axises and forces in four spatial
dimensions. The two dimensions of the x and y planes on the surface
of the paper are always perpendicular to each other because they are
rigidly fixed to the surface of the paper. However, they are not
always perpendicular to the third dimension of height or z axis
because the paper can be pick up and rotated in the third dimensional
plane. If the paper is curled resulting in its surface being curved
with respect to the third dimension, then the force of gravity will
have tangential components relative to different points on the
surface. The points would move along the surface of the paper, if
they could, due to this tangential force.
Similar to the two dimensional surface, of the paper the three
dimensions of length width and height x, y, and z planes are always
perpendicular to each other because they are rigidly fixed to the
volume of space. However, they are not always perpendicular to the
fourth spatial dimension because they can be rotated or curled with
respect to it, similar to the way the two dimensional surface of a
piece of paper can be rotated with respect to three dimensional
space. This results in tangential forces being produced along the
"surface" of three dimensional space and the movement of objects in
three dimensional space. Chapter nine
http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chapter9.htm demonstrated that this
curvature of dimensional space and the resulting tangential forces is
reasonable of the force and accelerations we associate with gravity.
This curvature is somewhat analogous to the space time curvature of
relativity.
This curvature in three dimensional space is also reasonable for
forces and accelerations associated with velocities. As demonstrated
in Chapter five,< http://idt.net/`jeffocal/chapter5.htm > all
subatomic entities are a result of the rotational properties of the
matterenergy fields with respect to the fourth spatial dimension.
These rotational properties of the matterenergy fields were compared
to those of our atmosphere.
High and low pressure areas are a result of pressure differentials in
our atmosphere. They are three dimensional in nature and yet they
effect the two dimensional surface of the earth. This is demonstrated
by the varying levels of liquid in a liquid barometer. In areas of
high atmospheric pressure the surface of the liquid sinks or becomes
depressed because the pressure is directed downward. In areas of a
low atmospheric pressure the surface of the liquid rises or becomes
elevated because the pressure is oppositely directed form that of high
pressure area. This is a result of the transfer of the energy
associated with the three dimensional high or low atmospheric pressure
areas to the two dimensional surface of the fluid. A similar effect
occurs in matterenergy fields of space.
The rotation of the matterenergy fields of space results in "high' and
"low" pressure differentials in dimensional space similar to the way
atmospheric rotation results in high and low pressure areas in the
atmosphere. These four dimensional "high" and "low" pressure areas
effect the three dimensional "surface" of the three dimensional
universe similar to the way high and low pressure areas effect the
liquid in a barometer. In a fourth dimensional high "pressure" areas
the "surface" of three dimensional space "sinks" or becomes
"depressed" because the "pressure" is directed downward. While in a
fourth dimensional low "pressure" the "surface" of three dimensional
space "rises" or becomes "elevated" because the "pressure" is
oppositely directed form that of high "pressure" area. In Chapter
five it was demonstrated that the resulting depression or elevation of
the surface of three dimensional space is responsible for the
generation of all subatomic entities.
One might wonder how the pressure of four dimensional space can be
altered from the three dimensional universe to allow it to cause the
forces and accelerations associated with velocities. It has been
demonstrated thoughout Shadows that dimensional space is composed of a
balance between matter and energy in the form of matterenergy fields.
It has also been demonstrated that the forms of matter and energy can
be converted according to the equations E=mc^2. When one converts
mass to energy it increases the "pressure" on surface of three
dimensional space because the mass in the form of energy expands
towards the fourth spatial dimension. This would be analogous to what
would happen if the liquid in a barometer were allowed to boil. It
would increase the pressure on the two dimensional surface of the
liquid because the boiling liquid in the form of vapor would expand
towards the three dimensional volume above the surface. This would
increase the pressure on the surface of the liquid, causing it to move
down or become depressed. Similarly, the expansion of mass in the
form of energy towards the fourth spatial dimension increases the
"pressure" on the surface of three dimensional space causing it to
become depressed. The "pressure" on the surface of three dimensional
space would increase because mass has expanded in the form or energy
towards the "volume" of four dimensional space. If the expansion of
mass to energy is directed along only one of the three axis of
dimensional space, the "pressure" and the resulting "depression" that
this "pressure" causes will be directed primally along that
dimensional axis. As demonstrated earlier, a depression along one
axis of three dimensional space results in the orientation of that
axis to no longer be perpendicular to the W axis of the four spatial
dimension. This results, as describe earlier, in a tangential force
to be generated along the surface of the dimensional axis that the
this depression is associated with. It is possible to generate motion
and velocity in three dimensional space because mass can be expanded
into energy and effect the orientation of the axis of three
dimensional space with respect to the W axis of the fourth spatial
dimension. This also demonstrates the connection between the forces
and accelerations associated with gravity and velocities. Chapter
nine demonstrated that the forces and accelerations associated with
gravity are a result of a depression in the surface of dimensional
space that closely resembles the one described above for velocities.
One might now ask " How can three dimensional objects make changes
that have consequence in the four spatial dimension?" It was
mentioned earlier that motion in three dimensional space is caused by
the expansion of mass to energy. The mechanism that generates the
force and power to alter the geometry of dimensional space to cause
motion is very similar to the mechanisms that generates the force and
power in a steam engine.
In a steam engine the water expands in the form of steam from the two
dimensional surface of water. This expanding steam generates a force
on the surface of a piston that causes it to move in downward with
respect to the dimension that is perpendicular to the surface of the
piston. In other words the geometry of the piston is effected by the
pressure or force of the expanding water in the form of steam from the
surface of the liquid causing the surface of the piston to move
thought three dimensional space.
Similarly mass expands in the form of energy from the three
dimensional "surface" of the mass. The expanding mass in the form of
energy generates a force on the three dimensional "surface" of space
that causes it to move downward with respect to the fourth spatial
dimensional. This is analogous to how steam generates a force that
results the surface of a piston to move through three dimensional
space.
It must be remembered that mass and all three dimensional objects have
properties of four dimensional space. They have volume in the form of
length width and height. But all object have mass which means also
they posses energy which is a property of fourth dimensional space.
Again one can use the analogy of a two dimensional creature living on
the surface of the boiling the water to understand how a three
dimensional object interacts with the fourth spatial dimension. As
demonstrated earlier, a two dimensional creature living on the surface
of the water could not "look" down to see the volume of water where
the steam was originating from because he could not "look" in that
direction. Also a two dimensional creature living on the surface of
the piston could not directly tell that the geometry of the surface of
the piston had change because he could "look" in the direction that it
was moving. Since he can only "look" along the surface of the piston
he could not "see" that it was moving in relation to three dimensional
space. However the two dimensional creature could indirectly tell
that the geometry of the surface of the piston had moved by looking
along the surface to a reference point on the wall of the piston. If
there were marks drawn on the wall of the piston, he could tell that
the surface of the piston was on was moving downward because he could
"see" and count these marks as the surface of the piston passed. The
two dimensional creature would then have way of determine the relative
distance that the surface of the piston had moved with respect to
three dimensional space.
Just as two dimensional creature cannot "look" down to see the volume
of water below the surface where the steam originates from, we as
three dimensional beings cannot look down to see the "volume" of
energy below the surface of mass in three dimensional space where the
energy originates from. Also three dimensional beings could not
directly tell that the geometry of his three dimensional surface was
changing with respect to the fourth spatial dimension because three
dimensional beings cannot look in the direction of the forth spatial
dimension. When mass expands to energy it generates a force on the
"surface' of three dimensional space which result in it moving with
respect to the fourth spatial dimension. This is similar to how
expanding steam generates a force on the two dimensional surface of a
piston that cause it to move in downward with respect to three
dimension space. It has also been demonstrated throughout Shadows
that three dimensional being perceive the fourth spatial dimension in
terms of energy. Therefore three dimensional beings can determine
relative "distance" that two object are apart with respect to the
forth spatial dimension by the relative energy differences between
them. What we, as three dimensional beings, perceive as energy are
analogous to marks draw on the wall of the piston for the two
dimensional creature. The two dimensional creature could by counting
the marks on the wall of the piston as the surface passed them tell
how far down the surface had moved with respect to three dimension
space. By determining the number of units of energy that an object or
mass has with respect to other objects it gives us a indication of how
they are apart with respect to the fourth spatial dimension.
Three dimensional objects make changes that have consequence in the
four spatial dimension because of the expansion of mass to energy
generates forces that acts on the surface of three dimensional space
causing to move with respect to the fourth spatial dimension
We return to our discussion of the properties of four dimensional
space by examining how we as three dimensional beings perceive the
fourth spatial dimension or negaverse. The posiverse or the universe
of length, width and height is one of volume we discover that the
energy component of space is not necessary to define the posiverse.
What is perceive as energy is a result of interaction of the posiverse
and negaverse or the fourth spatial dimension.
The effects the four-dimensional negaverse has on the
three-dimensional posiverse could be described as an energydepth to
the length, width, and height that. One method of understanding this
depth would be to look at the example of the submarine as was done in
Chapter fifteen http://idt.net/~jeffocal/chatper15.htm . The depth
under the surface of the water is what determines the pressure on the
hull of a submarine. The deeper that it goes the greater the pressure
becomes. The deeper an entity goes in the energydepth the greater the
energy that the entity possesses.
Energydepth is what three dimensional beings perceive the effects of
the fourth spatial dimension to be. The energydepth is related to the
energy of motion. The greater the relative velocity between two
entities the greater they are apart in the energydepth.
The energydepth of the negaverse is responsible for inertia and
momentum. The energydepth of an entity in uniform motion is constant.
An example would be the motion of a planet around a star. When these
entities are viewed in relation to energydepth or fourth spatial
dimension, they are not moving because their energy levels are
remaining constant. Newton's first law of motion, no external forces
act on a body or if the sum of the external forces is zero the body
remains at rest or in a state of uniform rectilinear motion.
RandaMinor
wrote>
>Dimensions are a math device to keep within the measurable
> Imagine a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a
>piece of paper.
Hi Jeff:
The problem is there is no dimension to fulfill the requirement for substance
in two dimensions. Nothing is holding them together. Two dimensions lead to
existence or substance, but without the third, there's nothing there. Just a
mathematical tool.
johnreed
Rabbo
O'Callaghan) wrote:
>On 18 Nov 1999 00:31:31 GMT, randa...@aol.com (RandaMinor) wrote:
>
>>>jeff...@idt.net (Jeffrey O'Callaghan)
>>
>>wrote>
>>>Dimensions are a math device to keep within the measurable
>>
>>> Imagine a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a
>>>piece of paper.
snip
>The problem is there is no mathematics that can fulfill the
>requirements to physically cause movement. Nothing in mathematics can
>account for the energy of associated with movement. Mathematics does
>not exist as a substance since there is nothing there. Just a tool
>help describe the physical universe. :)
>
>I agree that math is a very valuable tool helping us describe the
>physical universe. However Shadows
>http://idt.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm attempts to define the forces of
>nature not in terms of what they are but in terms of a the physical
>process and mechanism responsible for their generation. The fourth
>spatial dimension is physical in nature and plays a major roll in the
>process that is responsible for generation of these forces. The point
>I was trying to make in my original article was that we can measure
>and analysis the properties of the a fourth spatial dimension in a
>qualitative non mathematical fashion in terms of its physical
>interaction with three dimensional space. Then we MUST also use
>mathematics as a TOOL to verify the validity of these physical
>interactions. Shadows has provided numerous opportunities for
>mathematical verification by mathematically predicting the outcome of
>many of the physical interactions and processes that it describes.
>
>Jeff
I think your fourth spatial dimension is just one of the three time
sub-dimensions.
Rabbo
Shiguang
Sean McLeod <ka...@interhop.net> wrote in article
<80dcqs$41r$1...@news.auracom.net>...
> We exsist (or believe we exsist) in 3 Dimensional space. But maybe we
exsist
> beyond that ? I imagine it's impossible for anyone to actually understand
or
> realize any dimension above ours, so then how many dimensions are there ?
>
Jim Carr
>
>First of all, should we question what a dimension is?
Second, do we have the time to do so?
Note seemingly appropriate followups.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Jeff
You are right - TIME is "ACTIVE" Two-Dimensional. Please see website:
> www.realityphysics.com. < . All comments and opinions appreciated.
Thanks.
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
Tom Potter
news:01bf2f54$cfe96100$LocalHost@default...
> First of all, should we question what a dimension is?
Dimensions are qualities of reality that are related orthogonally.
That is, each dimension is unique and contains no part of the
othogonal
dimensions.
Factors of orthogonal dimensions have other names even though they can
be reduced to fundamental dimensions. For example, length times height
is called area, and length times height times width is called volume.
When you examine all the qualities of reality to the finest detail,
you end up with three or so fundamental dimensions, from which
all other dimensions and qualities arise.
These are charge, baryon number and strangeness. If you examine each
of these qualities in detail, they appear to be bi-polar, orthogonal
loops.
( Clockwise and counter-clockwise loops )
The fundamental primitives of reality are closed loops and events.
The loops are combining exponentially. ( Entropy ) ( The exponential
function occurs when the rate of change in a population is a function
of
the population. ) Events are loop combinations and disassociations.
Loops driven by entropy ( Events ) are observed as cycles.
Time is the ratio of cycles, one is a reference,
and the other the measured quality. The time or cycle reference
can be any cycle we choose, the rotation of the Earth on its' axis,
the rotation of the Moon about the Earth, the rotation of the Earth
about the Sun, the swing of a pendulum, the vibration of an
electronic circuit, etc.
time(X) = cycle count(reference) / cycle count(X)
Events are ordered along the exponential combining ( Decay )
of the loops in the universe. Preceding events are called cause
and succeeding events are called effects. The separation
between cause and effect is called an interval.
Space is the interval between cause and effect,
and it is quantized using the same reference as time.
space(X) = cycle count(reference) / interval(X)
Note that space is a fundamentally a time interval.
Space is commonly multiplied by a constant "C"
in order to differentiate between time periods
( Really time ) and time intervals ( Really space ).
distance(X) = space(X) * C
Aggregates of loops are perceived as objects.
All objects in the universe interact, ( Loops combine ).
One objects mass is another objects media ( Time and space ).
Mass is the combination of time and space.
mass(Sun) * G / C^3 = space(Earth)^3 * time(common)^2
Note that G/C^3 is a universal time per mass constant.
As can be seen, C is just a constant that is used to
differentiate between time periods and time intervals,
and G is just a constant used to differentiate between an
object perceived to be fixed in media ( The Sun )
and a body perceived to be varying in media ( The Earth ).
Note that the fixed object gets the G and the varying object
get the media.
All other physical properties can be derived from
the time, space and mass that I have derived above.
For more details on this visit my
web site and download my Windows based,
graphic-oriented, hyper-text, physics tutorial.
--
Tom Potter http://jump.to/tp
orton
it wasn't ever proven to be scalar, that sounds fishy anyway and was up
for debate about 75 years ago. my vectorial invariant inertial time has
been proven, it measures accelerated (outward) expansion of every
particle including every space particle in our six dimensional plasma
universe. it has no age. it never began nor can it end.
remember:
it is one plasma called everywhere. inside outside smoothside skin
side.we have known this for a very long time.
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/knobelecke/k_unified2.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/knobelecke/k_action.htm
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/index.html
................
your friend,
dave orton
In article <380E62B5...@randomc.com>, rs <r...@randomc.com> wrote:
> Rabbo,
> Another thing that flows is the entire physical universe "space".
> There
> is
> a constant scalar progression in an "outward" direction which also
> translated in our normal 3D space as outward. This is popularly
> interpreted
> as the expansion from the hypothetical big bang. Equally viable is
> that the universe is in more or less a steady state, for practical
> purposes infinite, and that every point can be considered the
> center.
> Now "time" can be considered as a scalar outward motion also and in
> reciprocal relationship with space. So it is "flowing" in exactly
> the
> same
> manner as space. However, our perception of time as duration is
> limited
> to 1 dimension (not 3) -- hence the scalar quantities used to
> describe
> time.
> We tend to think of "time" as an abstract measurement (duration)
> and "space" as a container which holds the universe. This is
> wrong.
> It is more accurate to think of space and time in a reciprocal
> relationship,
> both having 3 dimensions. .Instead of thinking of space as a box
> with
> things
> like galaxies in it, it is more accurate to say that radiation and
> matter
> are
> the border of the box and that that relationship of space and time
> define
> this border (e.g. space on inside, time on outside or vv.) There
> is a
> comprehensive theoretical framework based on this idea which is
> described in some web pages at www.intrepes.cz/sr.
> ..
> Rabbo wrote:
> > We don't know much about time but one thing is certain, it
> 'flows' -
> > and it passes at a constant rate in a one way direction.
> > Nobody will dispute that we all clearly sense a passage of time.
> >
> > The statement above has always been assumed circular, however,
> because
> > 'rates' are normally assumed to be relative to Time itself. It is
> > meaningless to consider Time changing at a rate relative to
> itself.
> >
> > So, RELATIVE TO WHAT IS TIME CHANGING?
> >
> > Not space! That's for sure!
> >
> > So there has to be another variable, another dimension, which has
> > previously never been considered or discovered.
> >
> > Let's assume it is a second Time dimension.
> > Let's call it T1 and the Time of which we are directly
> conscious, T2.
> >
> > Our clocks are calibrated to 'tick' at a rate, dT2/dT1. The
> hands move
> > continually to indicate the sum this rate over a T1 time
> interval.
> > Clocks show the integral of dT2/dT1 wrt T1.
> >
> > T1 is a kind of fixed but not absolute scale that doesn't flow.
> All
> > past events have T1 coordinates just as they possess spatial
> ones.
> > T2 has been 'psychologically calibrated' to have the same
> intervals as
> > T1, hence our inability to readily distinguish between the two.
> > However our recollection and interpretation of historical Time
> bears
> > no similarity to our awareness of the constantly moving
> 'present'.
> >
> > Clocks read either a T1 or T2 coordinate, taken from an arbitrary
> > zero. Biological clocks also crudely estimate T2 but 'tick' at
> varying
> > rates depending on what we are doing.
> >
> > Whilst T1 is used as an index for describing the states of
> everything
> > in the physical world, T2 is associated with the life process.
> >
> > Now the theory becomes a bit rudimentary. Let's just say that, by
> > arranging T2 coordinates in a manner determined by entropy
> > considerations, we get an ordered scale, like a calibrated
> measuring
> > tape.
> >
> > The explanation of why T2 only flows one way boils down to
> essentially
> > the same reason for the numbers on a tape to appear in numerical
> order
> > and not at random. The very alignment in numerical ascedancy IS
> one
> > way flow. After being conceived at a point in T1, each life is
> > associated with the numerical ordering of a short section of the
> T2
> > 'axis',
> >
> > Now we are faced with another problem.
> > Because of the apparent free will of living things, T1 can never
> exist
> > beyond or 'AFTER' a certain coordinate. However, 'After' is
> circular.
> >
> > To avoid that circularity, there has to be yet another Time
> dimension
> > (T3) which really IS absolute.
> > And dT1/dT3 = dT2/dT1
> >
> > Don't try to understand this on the first reading! :-))
> >
> A suggestion - read "Beyond Space and Time" by Dewey B. Larson.
> >
> > PS where does one apply for a Nobel prize?
> > Rabbo
james d. hunter
>
[...]
> that element is memory awareness....without memory there is only an
> ever changing NOW...no past [memory] and no future [projection based
> on memory]...just NOW....energy sliding past and around energy no TIME
> keeping, no TIME to speak of...no one to notice....time is a MENTAL
> CONCEPT and flows in ONE direction ONLY because we are constantly
> ACCUMULATING memories....comparing new pattern changes with prior
> STORED patterns...as the STORE increases TIME seems to flow in only
> one direction...forward....if we were to see everything suddenly start
> reversing around us...as long as our memory continued as normal...we
> would still feel like WE were moving forward....however if all things
> were moving backwards including our brain functioning...I dont know
> how or if things would appear to us at all.
Memory and concepts aren't required for TIME to flow.
Little bodily timers get everything flowing with
no real need for CONCEPTS.
zen_n...@iname.com
you have energetic objects...they react to each other via some rules
which are just there....like electron attracts proton and repells
other electrons....angular momentum and other NATURAL aspects are just
there....a dance of instability ensues...nothing known to cause
stability and stop the motion....these motions create a statistical
RATE OF CHANGE....the larger the pattern of elements the more apparent
its regularity or rate....the more stable the system the more cyclical
its nature....like planets around a star...however one major element
is missing which most fail to include because they dont think of
it...they are trying to be objective.
that element is memory awareness....without memory there is only an
ever changing NOW...no past [memory] and no future [projection based
on memory]...just NOW....energy sliding past and around energy no TIME
keeping, no TIME to speak of...no one to notice....time is a MENTAL
CONCEPT and flows in ONE direction ONLY because we are constantly
ACCUMULATING memories....comparing new pattern changes with prior
STORED patterns...as the STORE increases TIME seems to flow in only
one direction...forward....if we were to see everything suddenly start
reversing around us...as long as our memory continued as normal...we
would still feel like WE were moving forward....however if all things
were moving backwards including our brain functioning...I dont know
how or if things would appear to us at all.
time...basically we are using repeating events which we keep track of
by accumulating cycle counts....clocks...first the stars and
planets...then mechanical devises...many things move at different
rates but we adjust all things to our clocks...example...iron BURNS
[rusts] much slower than paper....glass is a liquid which flows over
centuries rather than minutes.
On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 23:03:55 GMT, John Hopkins <johnn...@home.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Just wanted to put a thought in on Time.
>
>Is it not possible that Time is just something built into everything?
>The example I used before was a computer. A computer has a timing chip
>in it. A software program doesn't have to be coded to take 30 seconds
>recalculate a spreadsheet. It just takes that long.
>Maybe Time is the same way. All things in the universe can only operate
>so fast. Taken on the smallest level, that has an effect on everything
>"built on top of it". I wish I knew how to better explain what I'm
>trying to say, but hopefully you'll get the gist.
>
>John
>
Uncle Al
zen_n...@iname.com wrote:
[merciful snip of profound ignorance]
>glass is a liquid which flows over
> centuries rather than minutes.
[snip]
1) Obsidian knives in Egyptian tombs are still razor sharp. Is
5000 years in desert heat longer than "centuries?" And with a tight
radius of curvature at the start, too.
2) Obsidian cliffs are still up there, under lots of pressure, for
some millions of years. Where's the ooze?
3) But wait! The foregoing is all bullshit because it happens over
such large unobserved periods of time! No problem. Take some
sodalime glass, heat it with a propane torch to soften, stress it but
don't anneal. When returned to room temp, place between crossed
polarizers. You can now QUANTITATIVELY measure the internal strain by
the birefringence evidenced by the colored lines. Take a picture -
it's hundreds of psi. Put it on your keychain for safe keeping, wait
a year, take another photo of the birefringence. No change, bozo.
And that is a lot smaller than flow. Say it softly... TEMPERED
GLASS. So sad.
4) Glass fiberoptic strands don't deform over decades. Their
exquisite sensitivity to geometry, flaws, and stress birefringence is
real time up your nose.
So, man of little dingus, what do you have to counter empirical
reality?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
23Skidooooo
at me:
>
>
>zen_n...@iname.com wrote:
>[merciful snip of profound ignorance]
>
>>glass is a liquid which flows over
>> centuries rather than minutes.
Yes it definitely flows but I wouldn't call it liquid.
>[snip]
>
> 1) Obsidian knives in Egyptian tombs are still razor sharp. Is
>5000 years in desert heat longer than "centuries?" And with a tight
>radius of curvature at the start, too.
Obsidians are much more rock than they are "glass." I think then zen nudist
was referring, based on the snippet of info, to man-made glass and not
glassed formed from lava coming into contact with water.
> 2) Obsidian cliffs are still up there, under lots of pressure, for
>some millions of years. Where's the ooze?
Obsidian is made from magma, not sand. I really doubt it oozes at all.
> 3) But wait! The foregoing is all bullshit because it happens over
>such large unobserved periods of time!
Well, if you've ever looked at the windows on an old (maybe 50-80 years)
barn, you will see very much the warped shape caused by gravity. You can
definitely measure that the bottom is thicker than the top. It really
depends on the glass though, too. Harder glass like Pyrex probably doesn't
flow and if it did then too slow to even consider.
>No problem. Take some
>sodalime glass, heat it with a propane torch to soften, stress it but
>don't anneal. When returned to room temp, place between crossed
>polarizers. You can now QUANTITATIVELY measure the internal strain by
>the birefringence evidenced by the colored lines. Take a picture -
>it's hundreds of psi. Put it on your keychain for safe keeping, wait
>a year, take another photo of the birefringence. No change, bozo.
>And that is a lot smaller than flow. Say it softly... TEMPERED
>GLASS. So sad.
Hmm....
> 4) Glass fiberoptic strands don't deform over decades. Their
>exquisite sensitivity to geometry, flaws, and stress birefringence is
>real time up your nose.
Of course not, it's pliable. It bends and returns over and over if you want
it too. Much different than a larger broader pane which isn't stretched
really thin and long when its hot like fiber-glass. They take on different
properties.
>So, man of little dingus, what do you have to counter empirical
>reality?
I think you were pressing on semantics. There is actually lots of different
types of glass, and the statement was much too broad, "glass is liquid," to
try and prove. Perhaps "manmade broad panes of glass flow" or something to
the like.
-----
Pope Skidoo