Time has many definitions but it is typically used as a reference variable to measure the interval between changes of state. But there is an affect that suggests time is a also thing, sort of like a potential.
The affect is called motion blur. For example, if we took a picture of a ball in flight, if the shutter speed is too slow, we get motion blur. Although the still picture has stopped time, i.e., clock has stopped, we still get the affect of motion or change of state. The reason this occurs is the difference between the shutter speed (time-1) and the motion (time-2), results in time left in the photo. This extra time creates the affect of motion, without reference time.
What the blur represents is an indeterminacy in distance. The ball appears to occupy a range of distance at the same time. The time potential left in the photo is expressed through a distortion or indeterminacy in the distance variable. In normal motion, space-time has a ratio. But what we see is what happens when space-time is out of proportion.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle creates a similar affect. As an analogy, the motion blur makes distance indeterminate, but it gives us the affect of motion or momentum. If we know the shutter speed and blur, we can calculate momentum. If we adjust the shutter speed to stop the motion, we know distance, but we lose all feel for motion since it is a still photo. At that point we don't know if it is levitating or moving. It is not the experiments, rather the electron has space-time out of whack.
Quantum jumps can also be explained with time potential. It is very simple, but requires the assumption time is a potential. Here is the experiment. We use our camera again with only one film frame we will use twice. We adjust the shutter speed to stop motion. This gives us a sharp picture of the ball. There will be a time delay before the shutter can reset. After it does it takes a second picture. What we get is a quantum jump or one photo of the same ball in two distinct spots.
In this case, instead of extra time potential in the photo to get motion blur, there is less time potential between the jumps. In other words, while the shutter was resetting it lost some of the time in the photo.
The electron exists with space-time out of whack either having more or less time potential than normal proportions. It is indeterminate when it has extra time potential and quantum jumps when it doesn't have enough. When the electron doesn't have enough time (potential) to take the "normal" slow path, it uses a path that takes less time.
User posted image: User posted image
Time is a measure. It measures motion,Space and the energy of a system. Take the effect of time on a system...Nothing. Motion affects it .Deterioration affects it . But time itself can do nothing and so is a great tool of our making.
You can measure the "time it takes". But time plays no part as a physical entity.
Cheers
Iseason
You can measure the "time it takes". But time plays no part as a physical entity.
Cheers
Iseason
I understand the time convention within science. Based on that assumption, things are derived. It that respect, it is a closed loop since all theory has the deck stacked. I am not trying to change that base assumption. Reference time is still being used.
Putting aside my definition of time potential, why does motion blur conceptually explain Hiesenberg Uncertainty and why is only time difference needed to create the parallel? The same question can be asked of why are only time differences needed to explain quantum jumps? I am not trying to change time tradition, just adding to it.
It is not simply time differences. The affect appears to be due to adding or subtracting time potential from space-time. Reference time works under the assumption that space-time is a fixed thing. We keep that reference as zero. Just sometimes it is easier to tweak time potential to plus or minus to explain things.
The space-time convention reflects the flow of time to the future, in terms of the averages that we see. It is zero only by convention. Negative time potential is not negative time except relative to this human convention. A quantum jump can't use the human convention since it doesn't have that much time potential. It is still going forward in time just it is not doing this based on human convention.
Putting aside my definition of time potential, why does motion blur conceptually explain Hiesenberg Uncertainty and why is only time difference needed to create the parallel? The same question can be asked of why are only time differences needed to explain quantum jumps? I am not trying to change time tradition, just adding to it.
It is not simply time differences. The affect appears to be due to adding or subtracting time potential from space-time. Reference time works under the assumption that space-time is a fixed thing. We keep that reference as zero. Just sometimes it is easier to tweak time potential to plus or minus to explain things.
The space-time convention reflects the flow of time to the future, in terms of the averages that we see. It is zero only by convention. Negative time potential is not negative time except relative to this human convention. A quantum jump can't use the human convention since it doesn't have that much time potential. It is still going forward in time just it is not doing this based on human convention.
Like I originally tried to show, motion blur in a photo creates the impression of motion, even with the clock stopped. Compare the exact same event, one with motion blur and the other where the shutter speed is fast enough to eliminate it. Only the motion blur picture allows one to tell the difference between motion or just a pose. The question is how can we tell there is motion even if the actual clock in the pictured has stopped? With the clock stopped in the photo the impression of motion can linger forever. We captured time. This is physically captured on the film emulsion or digital media as an actual energy induction affect. One could bring this picture to a million people and they will also see it, so it is repeatable.
This is an interesting affect to ponder.
This is an interesting affect to ponder.
Your premise is simply an illusion. Time and light are still doing "what they do". The only thing you have is a representation which requires the observer to use new "time related tools" to see your snapshot.
In a true snapshot in time, there would be one unit of all the energy in the universe. I see this as a singular value,not repeatable and indivisible. others a content to see energy everywhere and their snapshot simply freezes what motion and energy we were perceiving when we stopped the clock.
But truthfully, your eyes could not even process the value in the photons actually touching your iris's. So your picture is an illusion.
True motion IS track able. But the method described is the reason the uncertainty exists. The next jump in the time/motion step is occurring a long way away from the event where time was stopped.
Cheers
Iseason
In a true snapshot in time, there would be one unit of all the energy in the universe. I see this as a singular value,not repeatable and indivisible. others a content to see energy everywhere and their snapshot simply freezes what motion and energy we were perceiving when we stopped the clock.
But truthfully, your eyes could not even process the value in the photons actually touching your iris's. So your picture is an illusion.
True motion IS track able. But the method described is the reason the uncertainty exists. The next jump in the time/motion step is occurring a long way away from the event where time was stopped.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi MDT, iseason, et al
iseason has stated it quite well... the blurred image due to motion in the photograph has simply recorded a time interval, as related to an action, much as a stopwatch would have done. The difference is that the photo has recorded the action/time-lapse for future reference when accessed. Other non recorded events are available for future scrutiny, only once usually, due to limitations imposed by light speed. Time, as a sentient construct to measure relative motion, does not in any conceivable manner, affect that motion.
Time as a construct can only measure intervals of motion. Any point in time, regardless of duration, can only be fixed by the parameters allowing or limiting that intervals' existence.
Jack
iseason has stated it quite well... the blurred image due to motion in the photograph has simply recorded a time interval, as related to an action, much as a stopwatch would have done. The difference is that the photo has recorded the action/time-lapse for future reference when accessed. Other non recorded events are available for future scrutiny, only once usually, due to limitations imposed by light speed. Time, as a sentient construct to measure relative motion, does not in any conceivable manner, affect that motion.
Time as a construct can only measure intervals of motion. Any point in time, regardless of duration, can only be fixed by the parameters allowing or limiting that intervals' existence.
Jack
I understand what you are saying. Let me give another example. Say we had a group of cheerleaders all in pose, except the one in the center twirling a baton. Based on motion blur we can tell where the motion was in this group picture. Anyone can point to the motion. This affect may have a connection as to how brain interprets time data. This same brain also defines convention.
Let me give an example of saving time, in a bottle, to be used later. We will start with a clock like radioactive decay. We take this material and chop it in half. One half we will keep on earth and the other half we will use SR. To make the numbers easy, 1 year in the moving reference equals 10 years on the earth. Next, we bring the material back to the earth and compare. The material from the former SR reference will last an extra 9 years.
The SR essentially placed that half's time potential in a deep freeze. Once thawed back on earth, we get back the time that was preserved. In the SR reference, the rate at which the time potential can be used up is slowed because of the energy added to achieve the velocity. The laws of physics are adjusted to burn through time potential slower. The two references merge back on earth, with only half having more time potential. There is an actual physical difference in terms of how they will relate to the reference time.
Say we wished to go back into time, this can be done, but only in a limited way. It takes energy to preserve the time potential from the past. It is the same experiment above. We start with a group of friends in a room. One friend leaves the room and all the rest get their time potential preserved by SR. To use numbers 10 years in stationary reference equals 10 minutes in the moving reference. We bring them back to earth to merge reference. The person who aged 10 years goes back into the room to see his friends exactly as they were ten years ago plus 10 minutes. There is still that cold slice of pizza and the beer is on the same ice. Time is a thing that we can preserve like frozen peas. Being a thing we can process time in new ways to make pea soup. The time reference is still useful.
Let me give an example of saving time, in a bottle, to be used later. We will start with a clock like radioactive decay. We take this material and chop it in half. One half we will keep on earth and the other half we will use SR. To make the numbers easy, 1 year in the moving reference equals 10 years on the earth. Next, we bring the material back to the earth and compare. The material from the former SR reference will last an extra 9 years.
The SR essentially placed that half's time potential in a deep freeze. Once thawed back on earth, we get back the time that was preserved. In the SR reference, the rate at which the time potential can be used up is slowed because of the energy added to achieve the velocity. The laws of physics are adjusted to burn through time potential slower. The two references merge back on earth, with only half having more time potential. There is an actual physical difference in terms of how they will relate to the reference time.
Say we wished to go back into time, this can be done, but only in a limited way. It takes energy to preserve the time potential from the past. It is the same experiment above. We start with a group of friends in a room. One friend leaves the room and all the rest get their time potential preserved by SR. To use numbers 10 years in stationary reference equals 10 minutes in the moving reference. We bring them back to earth to merge reference. The person who aged 10 years goes back into the room to see his friends exactly as they were ten years ago plus 10 minutes. There is still that cold slice of pizza and the beer is on the same ice. Time is a thing that we can preserve like frozen peas. Being a thing we can process time in new ways to make pea soup. The time reference is still useful.
Once again liberties lay in the interpretation. "IF" is a big word , when we use it in the right way. If we could go back in time USING our current physical make up and IF we could return in the same way.
theoretically 'all things are possible' but the reality is that we are made of the stuff which governs time ITSELF (according to theory) once we reach the required speed (if that were indeed possible) we actually become stationary in space. This is because light is relative to light. Whatever is around you when you are travelling at light speed remains relative to you ALWAYS.....
Cheers
Iseason
theoretically 'all things are possible' but the reality is that we are made of the stuff which governs time ITSELF (according to theory) once we reach the required speed (if that were indeed possible) we actually become stationary in space. This is because light is relative to light. Whatever is around you when you are travelling at light speed remains relative to you ALWAYS.....
Cheers
Iseason
Hi MDT
I think the point you intend is comprehended, but my belief is you are confusing the construct of time, as a measure of relative motion, with time perception locally, which is a totally different thing. Altering the perception of time physchologically, biologically, or by manipulating physical processes, might possibly bear more inverstigation?
Any instant in time can be compared to a snapshot or freezeframe of relative position to all matter and energy in the universe at that instant. Since everything in the universe is in relative motion, it can be concluded that no tick of the master clock may ever be repeated, since nothing can ever be in the same relative position again.
These opinions are based on a presumption of causality.
Jack
QUOTE (amrit+Jun 15 2008, 11:18 PM)
about time see
http://atemporaluniverse.blogspot.com/
just to refine my point of view. It is very dependent on "what time" you are trying to measure.
If you are using the entire universe as a snapshot, Each pixel within the 'photo' has an order of reference which is unique to it. But this order is dependent on balance. The balance is dependent on "all time" , not just your snapshot.
Why?
Because your 'snapshot' contains images from differing 'times' . The distance across the universe may be the order of occurrence, but doesn't relate well chronologically. In order for a distant 'pixel' to enter your photo, it must travel 'through time' to be equal to local time.
Cheers
Iseason
http://atemporaluniverse.blogspot.com/
just to refine my point of view. It is very dependent on "what time" you are trying to measure.
If you are using the entire universe as a snapshot, Each pixel within the 'photo' has an order of reference which is unique to it. But this order is dependent on balance. The balance is dependent on "all time" , not just your snapshot.
Why?
Because your 'snapshot' contains images from differing 'times' . The distance across the universe may be the order of occurrence, but doesn't relate well chronologically. In order for a distant 'pixel' to enter your photo, it must travel 'through time' to be equal to local time.
Cheers
Iseason
Interesting idea, but time (& causality) is purely subjective, in that it is a mental form under which sense experience is ordered by the mind. Our minds evolved functionally to process sense experience in the macroscopic realm, not in the quantum, where the fuzzy edge between (the necessarily subjective) phenomenal reality and noumenal reality strains our a-prior conceptual forms of understanding. Whats going on behind the 'probabilities' we are not constructed to know.
Like the number 5, Time is not discoverable 'out there' as a thing, independently of its subjective use. Reality is subjected to conditions necessary for a physical mind to operate on it, .. to order it, and so it is made to conform, resulting in the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds.
Like the number 5, Time is not discoverable 'out there' as a thing, independently of its subjective use. Reality is subjected to conditions necessary for a physical mind to operate on it, .. to order it, and so it is made to conform, resulting in the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds.
If you look at chaos theory, it is random leading to deterministic. It has a goal or final change of state in mind with respect to time. Based on what I was saying, the random is simply due to time potential being out of proportion to reference or zeroed space-time. If you look at time as a potential than loss or gain is a fluctuation in energy-reference. In the case of motion blur, there is the indeterminacy in distance which now appears random until the fluctuation is done. Then with space-time zeroed, the final cause and affect appears. Random is a state of mind with respect to a fixed space-time reference.
One possible way to prove this would be to take a photon and alter the proportion between wavelength and frequency. In fixed space-time reference the product stays at the speed of light. This affect occurs in refraction where light is bent. The incoming light causes charge to align with the energy's electric field. A "time delay" causes the waves to add to form a composite wave where the product of frequency-wavelength don't have to equal C. It is the composite that does this. We get a bending relative to the fixed space-time reference. It now takes longer to exit the material with C remaining constant, i.e., time delay.
If we go back to random there is a time delay in determinacy. This extra time is expressed by things needing to become more haphazard. Things can not go directly because they need to use up the time potential. If you look in terms of probability and time, throwing a coin will average equal heads and tails over time, but not all the time. There is a determinant steady state but there is also a fluctuating time delay to reach it.
One possible way to prove this would be to take a photon and alter the proportion between wavelength and frequency. In fixed space-time reference the product stays at the speed of light. This affect occurs in refraction where light is bent. The incoming light causes charge to align with the energy's electric field. A "time delay" causes the waves to add to form a composite wave where the product of frequency-wavelength don't have to equal C. It is the composite that does this. We get a bending relative to the fixed space-time reference. It now takes longer to exit the material with C remaining constant, i.e., time delay.
If we go back to random there is a time delay in determinacy. This extra time is expressed by things needing to become more haphazard. Things can not go directly because they need to use up the time potential. If you look in terms of probability and time, throwing a coin will average equal heads and tails over time, but not all the time. There is a determinant steady state but there is also a fluctuating time delay to reach it.
Perhaps another view may help.
To give myself relativity, I take all the occurrences which are used to make me 'real' and compare that to every other occurrence of energy within the snapshot. Within the snapshot,mine and the universes 'pixels have occurred in a predetermined order. The balance that I spoke of earlier.
With motion, the reviewing of the balance is not instant , but orderly. Not only must your snapshot be changed , but every snapshot that will ever be. This is simply because the "now" has affect on the future. So messages travel as in "action at a distance " in order to ensure that the universe never gets out of true balance .
Cheers
Iseason
To give myself relativity, I take all the occurrences which are used to make me 'real' and compare that to every other occurrence of energy within the snapshot. Within the snapshot,mine and the universes 'pixels have occurred in a predetermined order. The balance that I spoke of earlier.
With motion, the reviewing of the balance is not instant , but orderly. Not only must your snapshot be changed , but every snapshot that will ever be. This is simply because the "now" has affect on the future. So messages travel as in "action at a distance " in order to ensure that the universe never gets out of true balance .
Cheers
Iseason
An affect occurring now, has an affect on the future. But with SR, we are adding energy to the affect, so it is not the same affect we started with, but affect plus energy. The energy is used to preserve the time potential within the affect.
Where the confusion might be, is within the concept of relative reference and SR. References are not necessarily relative. The reason this is so; SR has three equations, one each for T, D, and M. Relative reference only works is we use two out of three. Relative reference violates the conservation of energy if we use all three and include relativistic mass.
Here is a simple mind experiment to prove this. We start with three equal references at stationary reference. We add energy to only one, to give it relativistic velocity such that the mass appears to double. The other two stationary references we spread apart so they will appear separate yet remain stationary. If we use relative reference, the moving reference will see both distinct stationary references the same, both appearing to double their mass for a total of 4M, using only enough energy for 2M. That is perpetual motion and violate energy conservation. Even if we saw or calculated this, we know it can not real, due to energy conservation. Only the two stationary references will see the calculated mass-energy add up.
By adding energy to the experiments, we place it in a reference where the flow of time slows based on the relativistic mass-energy; time dilation. We place time in a bottle. We can get it back, if we shift reference back to stationary. We need to shed energy. If you use only space and time, it looks relative so there is no feel for energy conservation.
The SR and time in a bottle implies time potential acts like a thing. The forces of nature are each designed to process time potential in their own ways. The sum is the flow of time. This takes into consideration any force summation such as GR. But sometimes the time potential gets out of whack for a particular processing step. It is still conserved. It just goes down the wrong pipe creating too much or too little elsewhere.
Where the confusion might be, is within the concept of relative reference and SR. References are not necessarily relative. The reason this is so; SR has three equations, one each for T, D, and M. Relative reference only works is we use two out of three. Relative reference violates the conservation of energy if we use all three and include relativistic mass.
Here is a simple mind experiment to prove this. We start with three equal references at stationary reference. We add energy to only one, to give it relativistic velocity such that the mass appears to double. The other two stationary references we spread apart so they will appear separate yet remain stationary. If we use relative reference, the moving reference will see both distinct stationary references the same, both appearing to double their mass for a total of 4M, using only enough energy for 2M. That is perpetual motion and violate energy conservation. Even if we saw or calculated this, we know it can not real, due to energy conservation. Only the two stationary references will see the calculated mass-energy add up.
By adding energy to the experiments, we place it in a reference where the flow of time slows based on the relativistic mass-energy; time dilation. We place time in a bottle. We can get it back, if we shift reference back to stationary. We need to shed energy. If you use only space and time, it looks relative so there is no feel for energy conservation.
The SR and time in a bottle implies time potential acts like a thing. The forces of nature are each designed to process time potential in their own ways. The sum is the flow of time. This takes into consideration any force summation such as GR. But sometimes the time potential gets out of whack for a particular processing step. It is still conserved. It just goes down the wrong pipe creating too much or too little elsewhere.
QUOTE (MDT+Jun 18 2008, 05:34 AM)
An affect occurring now, has an affect on the future. But with SR, we are adding energy to the affect, so it is not the same affect we started with, but affect plus energy. The energy is used to preserve the time potential within the affect.
Where the confusion might be, is within the concept of relative reference and SR. References are not necessarily relative. The reason this is so; SR has three equations, one each for T, D, and M. Relative reference only works is we use two out of three. Relative reference violates the conservation of energy if we use all three and include relativistic mass.
Here is a simple mind experiment to prove this. We start with three equal references at stationary reference. We add energy to only one, to give it relativistic velocity such that the mass appears to double. The other two stationary references we spread apart so they will appear separate yet remain stationary. If we use relative reference, the moving reference will see both distinct stationary references the same, both appearing to double their mass for a total of 4M, using only enough energy for 2M. That is perpetual motion and violate energy conservation. Even if we saw or calculated this, we know it can not real, due to energy conservation. Only the two stationary references will see the calculated mass-energy add up.
By adding energy to the experiments, we place it in a reference where the flow of time slows based on the relativistic mass-energy; time dilation. We place time in a bottle. We can get it back, if we shift reference back to stationary. We need to shed energy. If you use only space and time, it looks relative so there is no feel for energy conservation.
The SR and time in a bottle implies time potential acts like a thing. The forces of nature are each designed to process time potential in their own ways. The sum is the flow of time. This takes into consideration any force summation such as GR. But sometimes the time potential gets out of whack for a particular processing step. It is still conserved. It just goes down the wrong pipe creating too much or too little elsewhere.
MTD
Very good post
I don't know how (or if ) you've followed the reason I propose this way of spreading energy/time occurrences. If not you may have some fun looking them up.
By adding energy to make the behavior work , I think violates conservation anyway. One thing that has been neglected is capping the available time/energy limitations. The reason I think it needs to be done is for a couple of other peculiarities that are sidestepped by the usual time/energy way of thinking.
Infinity is certainly one of these. Where no limit is placed on time/space there lurks infinity. not only in time, but in energy potential as well. this defies thermodynamics and conservation, making both sciences incorrect. A finite view has a narrower allowance for mistakes and simply states that a beginning and an end are likely. Once that is said , the natural logic is towards a singular quantity of energy which is all that exists at any "snapshot".
This does not mean that we would measure 'the universe ' as we see it in a photo. more likely the 'snapshot would be the smallest measure of energy that can occur. because time/motion/space/mass are an illusion which is created by the measuring of the occurrences(in order), when we remove any of the measuring factors, the universe always adds up to one.
the reason I am happy to keep stating this is that I have been talking this through for a while and there hasn't been a well reasoned opposition to it so far. There have been differing points of view , but none of the 'convincing argument ' that I have encountered on the way to this way of thinking.
One side road that has been most encouraging is that of infinity. In most cases there is only circumstantial evidence that it may or may not exist. But this has been largely supported as "mathematical infinity". I am convinced that infinity is proven false because we can measure it's parts...and that is all the proof you need to say that this reality and any other starts and ends. No extra ,separated infinities,they would suck us into an unmeasurable 'evenness', that would be unable to support variation of any sort.
Cheers
Iseason
Where the confusion might be, is within the concept of relative reference and SR. References are not necessarily relative. The reason this is so; SR has three equations, one each for T, D, and M. Relative reference only works is we use two out of three. Relative reference violates the conservation of energy if we use all three and include relativistic mass.
Here is a simple mind experiment to prove this. We start with three equal references at stationary reference. We add energy to only one, to give it relativistic velocity such that the mass appears to double. The other two stationary references we spread apart so they will appear separate yet remain stationary. If we use relative reference, the moving reference will see both distinct stationary references the same, both appearing to double their mass for a total of 4M, using only enough energy for 2M. That is perpetual motion and violate energy conservation. Even if we saw or calculated this, we know it can not real, due to energy conservation. Only the two stationary references will see the calculated mass-energy add up.
By adding energy to the experiments, we place it in a reference where the flow of time slows based on the relativistic mass-energy; time dilation. We place time in a bottle. We can get it back, if we shift reference back to stationary. We need to shed energy. If you use only space and time, it looks relative so there is no feel for energy conservation.
The SR and time in a bottle implies time potential acts like a thing. The forces of nature are each designed to process time potential in their own ways. The sum is the flow of time. This takes into consideration any force summation such as GR. But sometimes the time potential gets out of whack for a particular processing step. It is still conserved. It just goes down the wrong pipe creating too much or too little elsewhere.
MTD
Very good post
I don't know how (or if ) you've followed the reason I propose this way of spreading energy/time occurrences. If not you may have some fun looking them up.
By adding energy to make the behavior work , I think violates conservation anyway. One thing that has been neglected is capping the available time/energy limitations. The reason I think it needs to be done is for a couple of other peculiarities that are sidestepped by the usual time/energy way of thinking.
Infinity is certainly one of these. Where no limit is placed on time/space there lurks infinity. not only in time, but in energy potential as well. this defies thermodynamics and conservation, making both sciences incorrect. A finite view has a narrower allowance for mistakes and simply states that a beginning and an end are likely. Once that is said , the natural logic is towards a singular quantity of energy which is all that exists at any "snapshot".
This does not mean that we would measure 'the universe ' as we see it in a photo. more likely the 'snapshot would be the smallest measure of energy that can occur. because time/motion/space/mass are an illusion which is created by the measuring of the occurrences(in order), when we remove any of the measuring factors, the universe always adds up to one.
the reason I am happy to keep stating this is that I have been talking this through for a while and there hasn't been a well reasoned opposition to it so far. There have been differing points of view , but none of the 'convincing argument ' that I have encountered on the way to this way of thinking.
One side road that has been most encouraging is that of infinity. In most cases there is only circumstantial evidence that it may or may not exist. But this has been largely supported as "mathematical infinity". I am convinced that infinity is proven false because we can measure it's parts...and that is all the proof you need to say that this reality and any other starts and ends. No extra ,separated infinities,they would suck us into an unmeasurable 'evenness', that would be unable to support variation of any sort.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 16 2008, 07:50 AM)
just to refine my point of view. It is very dependent on "what time" you are trying to measure.
If you are using the entire universe as a snapshot, Each pixel within the 'photo' has an order of reference which is unique to it. But this order is dependent on balance. The balance is dependent on "all time" , not just your snapshot.
Why?
Because your 'snapshot' contains images from differing 'times' . The distance across the universe may be the order of occurrence, but doesn't relate well chronologically. In order for a distant 'pixel' to enter your photo, it must travel 'through time' to be equal to local time.
Cheers
Iseason
you have no idea about what time is and no idea about what time is not......relax...
watch your mind.............
If you are using the entire universe as a snapshot, Each pixel within the 'photo' has an order of reference which is unique to it. But this order is dependent on balance. The balance is dependent on "all time" , not just your snapshot.
Why?
Because your 'snapshot' contains images from differing 'times' . The distance across the universe may be the order of occurrence, but doesn't relate well chronologically. In order for a distant 'pixel' to enter your photo, it must travel 'through time' to be equal to local time.
Cheers
Iseason
you have no idea about what time is and no idea about what time is not......relax...
watch your mind.............
QUOTE (amrit+Jun 18 2008, 10:10 PM)
you have no idea about what time is and no idea about what time is not......relax...
watch your mind.............
of course!!
What a great counter-argument. I'm totally convinced you are brilliant.
Cheers
Iseason
watch your mind.............
of course!!
What a great counter-argument. I'm totally convinced you are brilliant.
Cheers
Iseason
tell me in 5 sentences what time is !!!!!!
QUOTE (amrit+Jun 19 2008, 09:40 PM)
tell me in 5 sentences what time is !!!!!!
So far you have shouted two rather confrontational statements at me.....Grow up and try the civil route that most reasonable discussions Begin with.
Iseason
So far you have shouted two rather confrontational statements at me.....Grow up and try the civil route that most reasonable discussions Begin with.
Iseason
QUOTE (amrit+Jun 19 2008, 06:40 PM)
tell me in 5 sentences what time is !!!!!!
that's unacceptable, naughty chair
that's unacceptable, naughty chair
OK 10 sentences
time is a relative sequence of events.
PS i would like to clarify...
"your shouting is unacceptable behaviour, sit in the naughty chair"
PS i would like to clarify...
"your shouting is unacceptable behaviour, sit in the naughty chair"
QUOTE (amrit+Jun 19 2008, 10:25 PM)
OK 10 sentences
Actually,
I can't see why Armit is shouting or asking me anything at all. I read his signature and don't disagree with it.?
Cheers
Iseason
Actually,
I can't see why Armit is shouting or asking me anything at all. I read his signature and don't disagree with it.?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
I am convinced that infinity is proven false because we can measure it's parts...and that is all the proof you need to say that this reality and any other starts and ends. No extra ,separated infinities,they would suck us into an unmeasurable 'evenness', that would be unable to support variation of any sort.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 20 2008, 10:39 PM)
g.
? Not like you to be cryptic.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 19 2008, 10:47 PM)
? Not like you to be cryptic.
Nothing cryptic about finding something funny.
g.
Nothing cryptic about finding something funny.
g.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.