Pages: 1, 2

Zephir
http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html

The two time Universe should manifest itself as a bifurcation: the very single reason should lead to the pair of less or more mutually independent consequences. We can met a similar behavior in local systems with hysteresis, but not in macroscopic scale. For example the magnetic pendulum with three magnets can be considered as the system with local three time dimensions.

While the real vacuum appears like the 4D space-time with many degenerated time dimensions, which manifests itself as a quantum uncertainty. By AWT they're forming the residuum of the pre-inflationary phase of Universe, which was formed by chaotic graviton phase, characterized by highly symmetric space time metric with many poorly separated spatial and time dimensions.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Zephir+May 15 2007, 11:44 PM)
By AWT ...

Funny how every new idea gets subsummed into AWT Zephir. Funny how you never predict these things before hand, you just have to say "Oh, AWT can do that" after someone else comes up with an idea.
QUOTE (Zephir+May 15 2007, 11:44 PM)
they're forming the residuum of the pre-inflationary phase of Universe, which was formed by chaotic graviton phase, characterized by highly symmetric space time metric with many poorly separated spatial and time dimensions.
Funny how you resort to just as many buzzwords you don't understand as Mott.Carl.

IAMoraes
Close but no cigar: time is 3d when matter is 3d, for a total of 2 complete dimensions of 3 subdimensions each. If he wants an extra spacial dimension too, then he is dealing with 4d time and 4d space. And the time dimensions are asymmetric.

If mr. Bars wants to model both momentum and position simultaneously tell him to come to me. It's conceivable that he will get there, perfectly, but not without my input.
Jim Chappell
I was very interested to see an article concerning the notion of 2-D 'time'. Quite some time ago I worked out a "physics" using an analogous notion of 2-D time wherein the conventional time parameter t is replaced with the complex 'number' a+bi with the norm of a+bi being 't'. The ramifications of 'complexifying' time produces very interesting results, especially in QM. I am going to investigate Barr's work - I suspect (but do not know) that his 2-D time could very well be the same as my 'gadget'.
Nick
THERE'S ONLY ONE TIME DIMENSION.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
ARtone
Who has yet proven that time is a dimension at all. Ive never read any. This is as daft as the first article this evening. NO PROOF just speculation and theory.

AR
PsySciGuy
"But quantum physics says you can never know those two properties precisely at the same time.

"Bars alters the laws describing motion even more, postulating that position and momentum are not distinguishable at a given instant of time. "
...
"In ordinary physics, position and momentum differ because the equation for momentum involves velocity. Since velocity is distance divided by time*, it requires the notion of a time dimension. If swapping the equations for position and momentum really doesn’t change anything, then position needs a time dimension too. "

* this "time" is not an absolute time but a time difference.

Velocity is determined by observing an object at position 1 then again at position 2, measuring the time difference and the position difference.

If one wants to talk about the momentum at position 2 at any particular instant of time then the idea of time difference and time absolute must be resolved.

One is implicitly using the instant of time for position 2 in the above example. The only way to resolve/de-convolute these two different kinds of time (difference and absolute) is to change the time difference back into time absolute. That requires that the absolute time associated with position 1 be inserted into the descriptive equation.

His theory allows for such an adjustment. However, this isn't a "real" dimension is it?
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (ARtone+May 16 2007, 12:38 AM)
Who has yet proven that time is a dimension at all. Ive never read any. This is as daft as the first article this evening. NO PROOF just speculation and theory.

When people say it is the 4th dimension, they are not saying it actually exists as a physical construct like the x,y,z spatial dimensions do. They are saying it as a purely human-made construct, which is like a guide, to help us understand 'events', like A to B.

However, a small minority has taken this human construct made by us simply to help us as a guide, and they have given Time proper dimensional status, as something which can even be manipulated as a tangible thing.

It's really up to you whatever one you believe, since Time is still a mystery in science today.
E.L.Earnhardt
There are as many dimensions of "time" as is necessary to create the illusions we now work with. "Infinity" is one left unexplored. "Cause To Effect" is another. "Zero Time" precedes "Creation"! Etc., Etc.,Etc, THEOLOGY is the only science that deals with an elapsing sequence, and we avoid THAT in fear! There can be no "elapsing sequence" without a "Zero Time" base!
E.L.Earnhardt
James Shokouhi
When the timing is right for humanity, somebody will find the forth dimension
Guest_John
They're just making this stuff up now. Why stop at 2 time dimensions? Someone will come out with something just a bizzare and they expect us to believe it. I expect that "the 2 time dimensions" will be taught in our schools one day, funded by tax payers money!

For a refreshing reality check ... check this out;
"www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm"
mott.carl
alphanumeric,i can wrong more than you.but surely i have more imaginations.with
knpwledge.of cause.
respond in silence the large topics what i have.
einstein is correctness.is sure.more you need know best the STR and GTR,and stay
not parroting einstein,m.green and others.

you only know the how much the music of mozart( the dr.green requated to you
listen?).when the people advance in the knowledge of its musicval structure and forms
best the invention,that stay parroting....
Stevo
He thinks we need to add a second time dimension when we actually probably need to remove the first one. Time probably doesn't exist.
Jack Burston
What was it Einstein said about imagination? How true that was.
LearmSceince
I found this passage instructional for those who want to create their own "theories" of physics:

QUOTE
Then, the math with four space and two time dimensions reproduces the standard equations describing the basic particles and forces, a finding Bars described partially last year in the journal Physical Review D and has expanded upon in his more recent work.

This is the real way it is done. Any valid theory has to reproduce all the correct results from existing theories that have been shown experimentally to be correct.

It's amazing how some subjects can really bring out the crackpots. Instead of seeing one of your own ("see, he wants to shake things up too, and he gets press!"), use this as an example of the difference between crackpotness and real work.

3) show that it gives the correct results for things that are already known.
Turya
QUOTE (ARtone+May 16 2007, 12:38 AM)
Who has yet proven that time is a dimension at all. Ive never read any.

The main problem is how to "prove" something which is "invention", a mathematical tool in bottom line.

Question is about mathematical representation of "reality", but what time has to do with "it"? On the other hand, it is very interesting, even on this forum, to see how many authors from different reasons, and in different perspective, "investigate" time.

Might be, it is "time" to do that.

Regards
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 16 2007, 02:20 AM)
When people say it is the 4th dimension, they are not saying it actually exists as a physical construct like the x,y,z spatial dimensions do. They are saying it as a purely human-made construct, which is like a guide, to help us understand 'events', like A to B.

However, a small minority has taken this human construct made by us simply to help us as a guide, and they have given Time proper dimensional status, as something which can even be manipulated as a tangible thing.

No, no, no!

You refuse to believe that time is a dimension. Established physics shows that time is on an equal footing with 3 spacial dimensions, and "mixes" with them via rotation. Time is merely an axis chosen in a 4D construct, and the direction of this axis will vary with observer.

You are equating "I don't understand" or "I don't like it" with "Everyone else must be wrong, and delusional or lying for seeing the experimental results." Please, learn something about science.

QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 16 2007, 02:20 AM)

It's really up to you whatever one you believe, since Time is still a mystery in science today.

But the universe doesn't care what you or anyone else believes. Time is not a mystery is science today. In philosophy maybe, but not in the laws of physics.
Guest_Mathew
A very simple yet significant thing has been overlooked by every physicist trying to discover the hidden dimensions of gravity and other surprises of the universe;forces.

Forces create all movements of the universe and gravity being a force can not be a product of mass.Forces are created or generated.

Elementary education lacking in the world of Physics!
Bryn Richards
QUOTE

You refuse to believe that time is a dimension.  Established physics shows that time is on an equal footing with 3 spacial dimensions, and "mixes" with them via rotation.  Time is merely an axis chosen in a 4D construct, and the direction of this axis will vary with observer.

There is no evidence for it, there's only speculation, as it is wholly theoretical. It is simply a matter of whether you believe it or not, and as you have pointed out, I do not believe in it. It is therefore the task of those who 'do' believe it, to try and prove it, so that I may believe it, but until that time, I shall continue to not believe it.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You refuse to believe that time is a dimension.  Established physics shows that time is on an equal footing with 3 spacial dimensions, and "mixes" with them via rotation.  Time is merely an axis chosen in a 4D construct, and the direction of this axis will vary with observer.

There is no evidence for it, there's only speculation, as it is wholly theoretical. It is simply a matter of whether you believe it or not, and as you have pointed out, I do not believe in it. It is therefore the task of those who 'do' believe it, to try and prove it, so that I may believe it, but until that time, I shall continue to not believe it.

You are equating "I don't understand" or "I don't like it" with "Everyone else must be wrong, and delusional or lying for seeing the experimental results."  Please, learn something about science.

Don't you mean 'learm' something about science?

Seriously, if you're going to take that tone with me, then you can sod straight off, because I do not tolerate condescending little gits like you.

And finally..

QUOTE

But the universe doesn't care what you or anyone else believes.  Time is not a mystery is science today. In philosophy maybe, but not in the laws of physics.

"Care"?? - The universe is not a sentient being, so stop treating it as one. Beliefs are perfectly acceptable things to have, as much of science is simply down to whether one believes in a theory or does not.

Time IS a mystery in science today. Sure, we can calculate motion and events, but science today, does not know the true reason behind it. The 4d 'dimension' you mentioned, is just one of MANY theories. Hence it is still a mystery, regardless of the lies that you purport to the contrary.
Guest_damien
two-timing barstard
MLewis
He's on the right path, he just needs to add a 3rd time dimension. It's all explained here: www.physorg.com/news96027669.html

EJ
If a point (singularity) is 1D, & time moves from point to point (past to future), then time is (at least) 2D. Past-ness & future-ness?
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (EJ+May 16 2007, 05:49 PM)
If a point (singularity) is 1D, & time moves from point to point (past to future), then time is (at least) 2D. Past-ness & future-ness?

Well, events can be determined, by referring to the time they took to enact the event.
To understand whether time can operate in 1d space, would require you to demonstrate an example of an event without any movement involved. I cannot think of any events which do not involve movement, hence I shall assume, just as you have, that 2d is the least which is required for events to take place. However, we exist in 3d, and so the question as to whether time applies to 1d or 2d, is irrelevant really..
Zephir
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 16 2007, 02:15 AM)
Funny how every new idea gets subsumed into AWT

Which idea? The AWT has nothing to do with two time Universe concept - on the contrary, I don't see any evidence for such concept in AWT.

Concerning the many time dimensions remnant of inflation in the form of quantum uncertainty, I disputed it here already manytimes, for example here or here.
Guest_Thatcherite
QUOTE
They're just making this stuff up now. Why stop at 2 time dimensions? Someone will come out with something just a bizzare and they expect us to believe it. I expect that "the 2 time dimensions" will be taught in our schools one day, funded by tax payers money!

For a refreshing reality check ... check this out;
"www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm"

That isn't a refreshing reality check. It is religious apologetics masquerading as science. A webpage entirely aimed at the ignorant.
Harvey Dent
Good article. I was reading a story which briefly explains how to possibly make time travel a reality. The guy's site is www.asiko.org/?p=40

Do you think it is possible? Everyone that I ask seems to think it is one of the best time travel ideas ever.[SIZE=7]
Lanesolo
HUH?
Guest_Dan
QUOTE (Harvey Dent+May 16 2007, 11:15 PM)
Good article. I was reading a story which briefly explains how to possibly make time travel a reality. The guy's site is www.asiko.org/?p=40

Do you think it is possible? Everyone that I ask seems to think it is one of the best time travel ideas ever.[SIZE=7]

I think what you are referring to is the story on www.asiko.org/?p=40.

I agree, it's one of the best time travel theories I have ever heard. I would love for Asiko to become a reality some day.

EJ
QUOTE
However, we exist in 3d, and so the question as to whether time applies to 1d or 2d, is irrelevant really..

Point noted. However, electrons (appear to?) exist in either multiple spaces, simultaneously, or multiple times, simultaneously. So...

would we be after...

{(L+T),(W+T),(H+T)}

rather than...

{(L,W,H)+T} or {(L,W,H,T)}

?

Note: we recognise each space as a line (graph charts!), so they're also point-to-point. Therefore, each require, also, an exclusive 2D for an event/movement.

As a whole...
This would solve any need for Time (or each space) be coupled to at least one extra dimension, explicitly & exclusively. This would allow for the QT 'electron ghosting' problem. Each spatial dimension could be registered at separate (exclusive) point-times, rather than having to all be fixed to the one time as an 'altogether-in-time' version of space. The only problem I can see, quickly(!), with this method, is some sort of spatial decoherence. Though, it's this spatial decoherence (at a subatomic level, only?) which may allow electrons to do what they do.
ARtone
Well said Bryn

if LS (I cant spell learn science like he does)believes that time is a dimension he surely must be able to tell us how long "NOW" (the present) is. In other words he must a definitive time period for the difference between the immediate future and the immediate past. A single dimension will do.

The only time that exists is "now" however the passing of "now" can be apparently shortened or lengthened by interest or otherwise of a persons current activity and their observance of "now". For instance in sleep 8 hours can seem like a moment but reading one of his discourses takes forever. For the individual who believes in time travel: you would also need to know at what point the future becomes present and past otherwise you would not know the point at which us humans are existing at. Finding your way back requires that you know where back is and as the present is undefinable minimal time point finding the present would be impossible.

AR

There is also the problem of creating an infinite time loop- take one step backward in time and as your current (back in time) time moved forward you would step back again and again and again forever.

Perhaps EJ could explain how electrons appear to exist in multiple times and the impiric evidence for this
OnTheEJ
QUOTE
Perhaps EJ could explain how electrons appear to exist in multiple times and the impiric evidence for this

I'll presume that you're being serious! ;)

Just, quickly, brushing up on my QT (Wikipedia's good enough, in this instance).

Wiki - Uncertainty_principle
Wiki - Wave-particle_duality

You can either measure space (position) or momentum (time), but not both, together.
i.e. You can achieve knowledge of a particle's position, but it's time will be variable (a superposition in time). Else, you can know when a particle exists, but the where will be variable (a superposition in space). Catch-22!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Perhaps EJ could explain how electrons appear to exist in multiple times and the impiric evidence for this

I'll presume that you're being serious! ;)

Just, quickly, brushing up on my QT (Wikipedia's good enough, in this instance).

Wiki - Uncertainty_principle
Wiki - Wave-particle_duality

You can either measure space (position) or momentum (time), but not both, together.
i.e. You can achieve knowledge of a particle's position, but it's time will be variable (a superposition in time). Else, you can know when a particle exists, but the where will be variable (a superposition in space). Catch-22!

if LS...believes that time is a dimension he surely must be able to tell us how long "NOW" (the present) is

Only if you have lengthtime - i.e. 2D! Otherwise, time, 'now', is a point/singularity. In order to give time any length, you will require multiple times.

Astrophysician
Guys, this guy's a professor of physics and astronomy. That is to say, he's been through a hell of a lot of schooling.

He's also been studying time for over a decade, and he's been at the problem for a while now.

I don't think you're going to "give him any input" or help him out any. Chances are, this guy's one of the best in the field - you're not telling him anything he doesn't already know.

xoloriib
I think Itzhak Bars nay be confused by the backwash of time.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (mott.carl+May 16 2007, 11:17 AM)
but surely i have more imaginations.with
knpwledge.of cause.
respond in silence the large topics what i have.

Because all you post is BS and when I do reply, you ignore my comments. You don't want to enter a discussion because you know you're a fraud.
mott.carl
since the experiences made in brookhaven,until recent experience has demonstrated that mesonk decay in two pions,being that the positive pions
and the negative pions has different velocities.This demonstrates a asymmetry
between the particles and ant´particles,in the case.therefore occur a breakdown
of equivalence to the spacetime.then occur the appearing of other time-parameter
that is part of ordinary time,splitted.then the space is encurved by these two times
that generate multiples continuos spacetime,that are"bifurcateds",as probabilistics
states that occur between the relative past and the relative future depending of
observer.then with that time-parametrized by opposite direction rotations,does
that in that continuum spacetime exist multiples states in superposition,one of these states are regulated by that double-time,where the so as the past is known,also the future also is.then there are multiples spacetime( quantic states,it is wavefunctions) that are bifurcated in parallel spacetimes...but that open mathematical solutions to several spacetime continuos,contiguos,with superluminal
speeds,without violate causality,or at the two relativistic postulates.
zephir returns
I just want to reiterate...

Bacically it means, the AWT is rooted in commongly used mainstream science concepts... So, where's the hoax problem? I'm just explaining the common science...

The AWT uses the only one very new idea, the substitution of energy into mass of string in solution of wave equation. Such concept wasn't never used (try to correct me, if I'm wrong), although it's a quite trivial, I admit. The better for theory.

The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:

1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle

These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iterations can be done even on normal PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:

At the first glance, the AWT predicts, for example:

1. The Universe can be described by substitution of mass density of vibrating string by the energy density by E=mc2
2. The gravity field is manifestation of Aether density, the gravity force is tendency of Aether to level the energy density via diffusion of Aether
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR
4. The vacuum has a 6D spongy structure composed from 3D bubbles recursively
5. The Universe is highly, if not infinitesimally recursive
6. The Universe is formed by black hole interior, filled by such spongy matter
7. The Universe collapses, instead of expansion with increasing speed like common gravity bounded objects without need of dark energy postulate
8. The supermassive black holes inside of gallaxies are the rest of quasars and these quasars were created by collisions of newly created vacuum mass during inflation
9. The observable mass was created from secondary condensation of energy radiated from quasars by adiabatic cooling
10. The dark matter was formed from non-condensed portions of such energy as the zone of more dense Aether surrounding the quasars and secondarily all the observable mass
11. The dark matter gradient is responsible for so called Pioneer spacecraft anomaly and the Galaxy shape anomaly
12. The particles are created by dense aggregates of Aether foam by phase transition process
13. The spin of particles is formed by mutual composition of motion on the phase interface inside of Aether foam
14. The charge of particle is the result of helicity of such motion.
15. The photon is the result of interference of light wave with Planck size wave pockets, forming our vacuum.
16. The wave function is the Aether mass/energy density profile formed by the internal motion inside the particle, forming an wave pocket confined by the dense vacuum like by gravitational lens (blob).
17. The "hidden variable" responsible for quantum entanglement is the phase shift of wave forming particle with respect of the center of gravity of such blob.

Some of the points have some backup in older concepts. Most of them is solely new, though, at least the mechanism, by which they're explained.
jeremy
will this grow my hair back?
ARtone
In response to "OnTheEJ" the the point singularity he defines as Now:

This is exactly my argument time is a DIMENSIONLESS pinpoint singularity it doesn't have one dimension let alone two. AS for measuring between multiple time points only the one we exist in exists, all the rest would be either the past or the future and unusable as a "now" time calculation.

Each and every one of us exists at the center of our own universe, our own "now" and the illusion of the present is really the past as far as everything else is concerned because every event has a visual or audible travel time so that when we perceive it as "now" it actually happened previously at a time/distance calculation between initiator and receiver. This fact would also add problems for any time traveler's return to what everyone else would call "Now".

in response to Astrophysician:

Of course his qualifications are impeccable, unfortunately that doesn't prove that anything he says is correct or otherwise. Many greater men have been proved or have admitted being wrong. One of the major problems is the tunnel vision approach of such theories where the individual convinces himself that a theory has to be correct and that it is the new answer. I'm quite sure that every weather forecaster believes their forecast will be correct. We all have ideas which at the time seem plausible otherwise forums such as this would be very boring and uninspiring. What I believe comments here do is to make the proposer of such theories stand back and re-examine the work based on sensible comments(assuming of course they are not too arrogant to read such comments, which a lot will be).
mottacarl
thanks zephir

is very hard remove of the people the common sense of the things of world as perceive.then the ideas of two times,or space up of 3,create troubles with
ours mental relations generated by the sensations.as the time have a direction only one.but how understand the 3-dimension of the space,if not by the our perceptions obtained by repeated experiences? as is hard understand the space
made of points and having correspondence with the time,that is movement.
then the motion only can be originated by two opposite directions;these lines
that running in contrary directions,and whether intercept,then future and past
already as informations,as segments of curve lines that whether connect,in the
present,then the space;left-right,is measure by the time( that is the spins-opposed
interne rotations,that transform the helicity of spin in the fourth-dimension,as two
opposed torsions,that are comjugates in the spacetime,but these transformations
only are possibles if right-left handneess are asymmetric,that the speed of light
as metric to reversion of these spins,left-handed to right handed and vice-versa,by
the breakdown of pt,but C being conserved in the disticts continuities of spacetime,
limiteds by c.
spizmar
QUOTE
AS for measuring between multiple time points only the one we exist in exists, all the rest would be either the past or the future and unusable as a "now" time calculation.

I'll give you benefit of the doubt and believe you are being sophomoric, and thinking yourself clever.
I'm pretty sure that you can think about what will happen after diner, just like you can imagine what is around the corner or up the road. ;^)
Does any other location than your current (3-space) location exist? How do you know?
AS for measuring between multiple (3-space) points only the one we exist in exists, all the rest would be either left or right, forward or behind, above or below, and unusable in a "here" space calculation.
Your self centered universe is also centered in space, not just time. All you complaints about measuring time are real, but also exist in measuring space, and as you point out, distance ends up being time, _you_ just abstract it out.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE AS for measuring between multiple time points only the one we exist in exists, all the rest would be either the past or the future and unusable as a "now" time calculation.

I'll give you benefit of the doubt and believe you are being sophomoric, and thinking yourself clever.
I'm pretty sure that you can think about what will happen after diner, just like you can imagine what is around the corner or up the road. ;^)
Does any other location than your current (3-space) location exist? How do you know?
AS for measuring between multiple (3-space) points only the one we exist in exists, all the rest would be either left or right, forward or behind, above or below, and unusable in a "here" space calculation.
Your self centered universe is also centered in space, not just time. All you complaints about measuring time are real, but also exist in measuring space, and as you point out, distance ends up being time, _you_ just abstract it out.

This is exactly my argument time is a DIMENSIONLESS pinpoint singularity it doesn't have one dimension let alone two.

You asked about how big "now" is, and then here you translate it to make a statement about the size of "time".
Can you tell me exactly how big (2,15,8) is?
Any point in space-time has no size dimensions associated with it, or it wouldn't be a point.
Does that make all of three space a "dimensionless pinpoint singularity"?
Now" is a point in the time dimension, not an amount of time.

So lets look at time:
"Time", like "length" or "mass", is a measure.
Time has the same attributes of the other dimensions:

position:
22N35'15.256"
2007.05.18 19:20:00 PDT

delta:
+2 cm in X
+5 minutes

Rate of change:
5 meters/second
1 second per 300,000Km (roughly)

change in rate of change:
5 meters per second per second
(1/Refractive index) changes from (1/1.6) to (1/1.0) from here to here

"Now" is a point in time that happens to move through time with a "V" of 1 second per second.
As far as how big it is, "now" was exactly the same size the universe occupied back when you asked the question.
It is no different than describing the cross section of a shape at a certain Z value.
Since we are moving in the +"t" direction, "now" has changed it's size. Darn, it did it again.
Dooouuuuuu Stupid Space-Time.

You still do not believe time is a dimension?
Well, if you don't believe in quarks, someone can drop a nuke on you.
ARtone
Spizmar

I try not to be abusive in response to ill thought comments but as you started it: do you really believe that garbage. Of course our personal universe exists both in space and time but as we were discussing time I preferred not to confuse the issue. Of course it is possible to imagine what will happen in the future but that is exactly what it is, the future, not NOW. I don’t believe in the singularity concept either but that is the definition used by the person I was responding to.

As for the numbers, yes, I can tell you exactly what size they are because they are not dimensions; they are in fact the attributes which define quantities making up a larger structure comprising more than a single object. Lets take an object you will understand lets consider a village idiot. If he stands alone he is one (1) but a clack (group of people heckling) of them will be any value other than one say 2 or 15 or 8.

However many there are greater than one, will all exist at the centre of their own time and I omit space as the thinking/observing part of the idiot is in his head usually in close proximity to his body which does not think (it does, however, have auto-responsive touch sensors, not dependent solely on the brain). BUT nothing they see or hear will be the “present FOR THAT PERSON OR OBJECT” although the perception to the idiot will be that he/she is witnessing current events. This is because of the signal travel time both through the intervening space and body receptor to brain travel time. The nearest object that can be perceived is the front of the eyeball.

Any idiot who was to suggest numeric figures as a counter argument should really go back to his village. In truth there is no simile to represent what we call “time” otherwise a measure of NOW would be possible. In fact I would stick my neck out and say there is no such thing as time at all. We expect there to be a future and we know that in our lifetime there has been a past for all current objects in the universe but the time relationship between these is far more complex than a spatial multi body problem.

We all agree that space has three fundamental directions left/right, up/down, forward and back but no one would say that space has other multiple dimensions because there are other angles other than xyz at which one can travel. The point I was trying to get across was that we as individuals (and all other objects) don’t exist in the future or the past we live in this single point, knife edge we call “Now” or the “Present” which should not be defined as a dimension as it has no attributes which define it as such.

Distance is NOT time, in this respect time can only be the timed sequence of events between any state of an object in the past and the perception of that state by other objects.

You obviously consider the passing of time as in the moving along a time line where we will get to a specified future instance and have instances in the past which we could return to so you probably believe in time travel too, Most VI’s probably would.

As for quarks as individual parts of particles you are quite correct in that I don’t like that definition either, there is too much evidence from their attributes that they are not so. A quark is a facet of a particle that has a definitive shape, which is why they cant be separated and why a pentaquark state was previously observed when the detector was at the back and front of the target. Take a cube and look how many sides can be seen at any one viewing point (only three) but place a mirror behind and five can observed (penta quark)

A Village idiot would then say “but how can nature produce cubes” easy, if our universe is a matrix of closely packed particles or even foam (in any packing formation) which can have both an energetic and static state , then energy fed via a single point and spread equally to adjacent particles will always form a non spherical shape, often a cube. A 2 dimensional test of this can be done on any computer.

Considering your calculations, what you are talking of is SPEED, NOT time. A second isn’t time, it’s a measure that an event took, i.e. a measure of time passing. Like many you confuse what others consider as time with periodicity. Even the article isn’t considering a MEASURE of time as a dimension. Time is not a measure and it doesn’t have attributes if it did this discussion would not be taking place.

AR
Kenny
QUOTE (Guest_John+May 16 2007, 05:00 AM)
They're just making this stuff up now. Why stop at 2 time dimensions? Someone will come out with something just a bizzare and they expect us to believe it. I expect that "the 2 time dimensions" will be taught in our schools one day, funded by tax payers money!

For a refreshing reality check ... check this out;
"www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm"

I doubt there's anything like 'time' dimensions. If there's other dimensions, it's just going to be something like another system with different things going on at the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub whatever level. That we can't see or measure yet, because our detectors aren't sensitive enough.
spizmar
ARtone,
I apologize. I really thought you knew EJ and were joking around. This is going to take a couple of posts

QUOTE
I try not to be abusive in response to ill thought comments but as you started it: do you really believe that garbage.

LOL You sure don't try very hard!
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I try not to be abusive in response to ill thought comments but as you started it: do you really believe that garbage.

LOL You sure don't try very hard!
Of course our personal universe exists both in space and time but as we were discussing time I preferred not to confuse the issue. Of course it is possible to imagine what will happen in the future but that is exactly what it is, the future, not NOW.

OK, good. If time is part of our universe, how do you characterize it?
Can you measure it? Is it static, like mass? Do you use it to specify where things are, relatively?
Of course "now" has no measure in time, just like "here" has no measure in length.
So, if time has no measure, than neither do the other dimensions.
A second is a measure of delta time (not subjective time, which varies by hormonal levels).
A meter is a measure of distance (not subjective distance, which varies by the weight of your ruck).
The slope of a line in a plane describes the way Y varies with relation to X.
The velocity of a thing describes how it's location (x,y,z) changes in relation to T.
Something is in "the future", right up until it is "now", and then it is in "the past". Just like imagine you are approaching a turn on a roller coaster, it is ahead , it becomes "here", and than it is past.
In the same way that only "now" is "now", only "here" is "here".
You are being prejudicial towards time because you do not have the capability to accelerate in that dimension.
QUOTE
I don’t believe in the singularity concept either but that is the definition used by the person I was responding to.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I don’t believe in the singularity concept either but that is the definition used by the person I was responding to.

As for the numbers, yes, I can tell you exactly what size they are because they are not dimensions; they are in fact the attributes which define quantities making up a larger structure comprising more than a single object. Lets take an object you will understand lets consider a village idiot.  If he stands alone he is one (1) but a clack (group of people heckling) of them will be any value other than one say 2 or 15 or 8.

Sorry, it took me two reads to understand that you did not get my question.
I was not asking the size of the numbers 2, 15 and 8. I was asking the length, width and height of the 3-space point at the location [2,15,8]. I will let you choose frame of reference, but the units must be in SI length.
You could say that the lengths of each dimension of the point are the planck length, and I could say "now" is one planck time long.
Of course, we would both be lying. In reality, the definition of a point precludes it having a dimensional measure other than 0.
If you do not frame your equations correctly, you can end up with a divide by zero, and so any point can be a singularity, not just a black hole.

QUOTE
However many there are greater than one, will all exist at the centre of their own time and I omit space as the thinking/observing part of the idiot is in his head usually in close proximity to his body which does not think (it does, however, have auto-responsive touch sensors, not dependent solely on the brain). BUT nothing they see or hear will be the “present FOR THAT PERSON OR OBJECT” although the perception to the idiot will be that he/she is witnessing current events.

You are right, things in the "future" are not "now", but then, things that are "over there"' are not "here", as your clack of VIs could tell you.
Anything you state about the difference between "now" versus "before" or "after" is directly applicable to "here" versus "further ahead" or "further behind".
I think this comes down to the problem that you are defining a ever moving frame of reference (now), and than complaining that nothing ever stays in one spot.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE However many there are greater than one, will all exist at the centre of their own time and I omit space as the thinking/observing part of the idiot is in his head usually in close proximity to his body which does not think (it does, however, have auto-responsive touch sensors, not dependent solely on the brain). BUT nothing they see or hear will be the “present FOR THAT PERSON OR OBJECT” although the perception to the idiot will be that he/she is witnessing current events.

You are right, things in the "future" are not "now", but then, things that are "over there"' are not "here", as your clack of VIs could tell you.
Anything you state about the difference between "now" versus "before" or "after" is directly applicable to "here" versus "further ahead" or "further behind".
I think this comes down to the problem that you are defining a ever moving frame of reference (now), and than complaining that nothing ever stays in one spot.
This is because of the signal travel time both through the intervening space and body receptor to brain travel time.  The nearest object that can be perceived is the front of the eyeball.

Nearest to what? To my retina? To my consciousness? And by what measure? Do you mean the nearest thing in time? What about all the time for the signal travel along the optic nerve, for the processing that takes place before it rises up in my mind as an abstracted object?
I think the real closest thing in time is smell, as it goes right through the limbic system, but it could be a touch to point closest to a nerve in the base of the skull.
But this is all just a semi interesting aside, let me get one with this in the next post.
Spiz
spizmar
QUOTE
Any idiot who was to suggest numeric figures as a counter argument should really go back to his village.

As should any VI who does not recognize how they are correctly used!
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Any idiot who was to suggest numeric figures as a counter argument should really go back to his village.

As should any VI who does not recognize how they are correctly used!
In truth there is no simile to represent what we call “time” otherwise a measure of NOW would be possible.

You can't measure the dimensions of a point in space, but length is still a dimension. Get over "now", it is a point in time or not:
....If it is a point, you can't measure it (by definition), and
....if it isn't, then for me, Now has lasted roughly 48 years, minus a few blackout dates.
QUOTE
In fact I would stick my neck out and say there is no such thing as time at all.

All of mankind bows at your courage, especially since you immediately try to use the complexity of this "no such thing" to bolster your argument.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE In fact I would stick my neck out and say there is no such thing as time at all.

All of mankind bows at your courage, especially since you immediately try to use the complexity of this "no such thing" to bolster your argument.

We expect there to be a future and we know that in our lifetime there has been a past for all current objects in the universe

While OT, I'll go there.
You think you have a memory of a past. You postulate that means there was one. You remember typing that email, thinking "VI references are so cute", and don't remember the email you will type tomorrow (the good Lord willing that we live that long).
But it is all an illusion.
There are a specific set of things in your mind that are your perception of "now".
Part of that perception is that there was a past, but the perception may not be reality. The perception itself may be stuck in an instant in time, and _you_ may be forever stuck in that particular perception of this particular time (Just think, me on your mind for all eternity LOL). But, since you perception is that time is going by, you believe it is, and it's no biggy.
But, perception is the lying, stealing, illegitimate son of a cheap, sick prostitute.
Perception is what stands between mind and reality, and you must do everything you can to staple it in one spot and beat the truth out of it, and man can that thing squirm.
Trying to drag truth, kicking and screaming, out of perception is what the scientific method is all about, and is what this dialog is about.

QUOTE
but the time relationship between these is far more complex than a spatial multi body problem.

But wait, how can there be a time relationship between things in time if time can't be measured? And how can it be so complex if, as you said before, it does not exist?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE but the time relationship between these is far more complex than a spatial multi body problem.

But wait, how can there be a time relationship between things in time if time can't be measured? And how can it be so complex if, as you said before, it does not exist?

We all agree that space has three fundamental directions left/right, up/down, forward and back but no one would say that space has other multiple dimensions because there are other angles other than xyz at which one can travel.

??
I thought the whole point of this thread is that there _are_ people who say there are more than three (four) dimensions to space (time.) Personally, I have a strong perception (lying SOB that it is) of 4, since translation in time is orthogonal to translation in space. The post is about some who says there are 5 or 6, I don't remember., and string theory talks about 11, I think. I am open minded to theories with more (or fewer(shrug)) dimensions. But any theory that changes the number must account for all the things that are explained by the current theories that use 4 dimensions. (Oops, did I say 4 out loud? Is this mike on? Hello?)

QUOTE
The point I was trying to get across was that we as individuals (and all other objects) don’t exist in the future or the past we live in this single point, knife edge we call “Now” or the “Present” which should not be defined as a dimension as it has no attributes which define it as such.

You continue to use "now" to represent a segment of time. Now is a non-dimensional point in time.
If I said "we are always "here", so no other location exists", you would think I was foolish (I hope)(actually, you probably do anyway, so never mind).
Your perception of past and future is different from your perception of left and right, but no less real.
The same way like people and things have a measure of extent (5'11" height) at the current time, you also have a measure of time related to location ("in the room for 5 minutes", "under the wheel of the bus for a second", "in the universe for 57.2456 years" (the extreme extent))

Only one left
spizmar
QUOTE
Distance is NOT time, in this respect time can only be the timed sequence of events between any state of an object in the past and the perception of that state by other objects.

You obviously consider the passing of time as in the moving along a time line where we will get to a specified future instance and have instances in the past which we could return to  so you probably believe in time travel too, Most VI’s probably would.

I'm sorry that was your perception (it lied to you), I was just trying to make the concepts straight forward.
I understand time to be a dimension, like length. I have a perception (LB) of the passage of time, and I have some understanding of the difference in the passage of time in different locations in the universe, based on gravitational and relative velocity effects.
I understand that there are theories that seem to indicate time travel is a possibility, but even they are pretty explicit that the energy requirements (or negative energy requirements) are unreasonable for even sub-atomic particles. I understand there are theories that indicate that the universe will not allow a paradox to occur in time travel, if time travel is possible. But it is all theory to me.
Are you actively ruling time travel out just because it sounds strange to you?
I'm impressed. You have a very high grade of VI where you come from, thinking about time travel. Where I com from, the VIs don't even think time is real.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Distance is NOT time, in this respect time can only be the timed sequence of events between any state of an object in the past and the perception of that state by other objects.You obviously consider the passing of time as in the moving along a time line where we will get to a specified future instance and have instances in the past which we could return to  so you probably believe in time travel too, Most VI’s probably would.

I'm sorry that was your perception (it lied to you), I was just trying to make the concepts straight forward.
I understand time to be a dimension, like length. I have a perception (LB) of the passage of time, and I have some understanding of the difference in the passage of time in different locations in the universe, based on gravitational and relative velocity effects.
I understand that there are theories that seem to indicate time travel is a possibility, but even they are pretty explicit that the energy requirements (or negative energy requirements) are unreasonable for even sub-atomic particles. I understand there are theories that indicate that the universe will not allow a paradox to occur in time travel, if time travel is possible. But it is all theory to me.
Are you actively ruling time travel out just because it sounds strange to you?
I'm impressed. You have a very high grade of VI where you come from, thinking about time travel. Where I com from, the VIs don't even think time is real.
As for quarks as individual parts of particles you are quite correct in that I don’t like that definition either,

Again, the world applauds your courage.
Do you have a better explanation, one the describes more accurately what happens in the world, and which even a poor VI from a physics lab can understand? In this case, simple _is_ better!
QUOTE
there is too much evidence from their attributes that they are not so.  A quark is a facet of a particle that has a definitive shape, which is why they cant be separated and why a pentaquark state was previously observed when the detector was at the back and front of the target. Take a cube and look how many sides can be seen at any one viewing point (only three) but place a mirror behind and five can observed (penta quark)

I know perception is an LB, but when I try that, I perceive six sides. Should we be looking for a hexa-quark?
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE there is too much evidence from their attributes that they are not so.  A quark is a facet of a particle that has a definitive shape, which is why they cant be separated and why a pentaquark state was previously observed when the detector was at the back and front of the target. Take a cube and look how many sides can be seen at any one viewing point (only three) but place a mirror behind and five can observed (penta quark)

I know perception is an LB, but when I try that, I perceive six sides. Should we be looking for a hexa-quark?
A Village idiot would then say “but how can nature produce cubes”

In these paragraphs, it looks like you are saying that;
....penta-quarks make you doubt quark theory, and
....penta-quarks are like cubes and
....who but a VI would doubt the existence of a cube?
I must be missing what you mean.
QUOTE
easy, if our universe is a matrix of closely packed particles or even foam (in any packing formation) which can have both an energetic and static state , then energy fed via a single point and spread equally to adjacent particles will always form a non spherical shape, often a cube.  A 2 dimensional test of this can be done on any computer.

Yeah. If. Lets say our universe is defined by a matrix with elements of size "Planck length" (or whatever your favorite minimum size is) )in three of it's dimensions, we could add a forth measured in Planck time, and I don't know what in any others we might add, but for now, let's hold it to 3, X, Y and Z.
Now, the hard part: define what a sphere is. Is it all matrix elements that fall within a certain radius of the center? Is it the matrix elements that are on the 'skin' of that shape?
Is it matrix elements that are "exactly" R distance from the center? Wait, the center itself is not know to better than the Planck length.
Is it matrix elements that are distance R plus or minus the Planck length from the center?
Hey, if you use the last definition (or the first), a 3x3x3 cube fits the definition of a R=1.5 sphere, so I can have your sphere and you can have my cube.
Your argument just means that your definition of a sphere is wrong, since I just showed how a cube can "be" a sphere in a quantum space.
If you want to play at the level where the quanta show in the fabric of space time, expect there to be rough spots.
And in this case, we have no certainty that our matrix elements are regular, that they stay near each other, that they stay the same size, you name it, at this level it is pretty much unknown.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE easy, if our universe is a matrix of closely packed particles or even foam (in any packing formation) which can have both an energetic and static state , then energy fed via a single point and spread equally to adjacent particles will always form a non spherical shape, often a cube.  A 2 dimensional test of this can be done on any computer.

Yeah. If. Lets say our universe is defined by a matrix with elements of size "Planck length" (or whatever your favorite minimum size is) )in three of it's dimensions, we could add a forth measured in Planck time, and I don't know what in any others we might add, but for now, let's hold it to 3, X, Y and Z.
Now, the hard part: define what a sphere is. Is it all matrix elements that fall within a certain radius of the center? Is it the matrix elements that are on the 'skin' of that shape?
Is it matrix elements that are "exactly" R distance from the center? Wait, the center itself is not know to better than the Planck length.
Is it matrix elements that are distance R plus or minus the Planck length from the center?
Hey, if you use the last definition (or the first), a 3x3x3 cube fits the definition of a R=1.5 sphere, so I can have your sphere and you can have my cube.
Your argument just means that your definition of a sphere is wrong, since I just showed how a cube can "be" a sphere in a quantum space.
If you want to play at the level where the quanta show in the fabric of space time, expect there to be rough spots.
And in this case, we have no certainty that our matrix elements are regular, that they stay near each other, that they stay the same size, you name it, at this level it is pretty much unknown.

Considering your calculations, what you are talking of is SPEED, NOT time.  A second isn’t time, it’s a measure that an event took, i.e. a measure of time passing.  Like many you confuse what others consider as time with periodicity.  Even the article isn’t considering a MEASURE of time as a dimension.  Time is not a measure and it doesn’t have attributes if it did this discussion would not be taking place.

Sorry for the delay, I needed to build a better VI to help me explain it.
What you mistakenly took to be me talking about speed (which is length over time, not time over length) was me talking about the rate of change of time over distance: delta T = L/C.
A second is a measure of time, like a meter is a measure of distance.
A second is not a dimension, like a meter is not a dimension.
Time is a dimensional "thing", like distance, and orthogonal to distance (as far as we know).
The same way we are able to measure distance in three orthogonal directions, we can measure time in one.
The article contends that we may be able to measure time in more than one orthogonal dimension, and space in more than three.

Spiz
Spizmar
ARtone,

I would like to apologize for two comments, since I did not mean them they way they come across::
QUOTE
Well, if you don't believe in quarks, someone can drop a nuke on you.

it was supposed to be more like this:

"Well, if you don't believe in quarks, someone can still drop a nuke on you."

or this

"Just because you don't believe in premarital sex doesn't mean others are not having it."

not a directed attack at you.
The comment:
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Well, if you don't believe in quarks, someone can drop a nuke on you.

it was supposed to be more like this:

"Well, if you don't believe in quarks, someone can still drop a nuke on you."

or this

"Just because you don't believe in premarital sex doesn't mean others are not having it."

not a directed attack at you.
The comment:
Your self centered universe is also centered in space, not just time

was referring to how you talked about the universe being centered on the individual, not the more obvious meaning of saying that you are self centered.
We are all self-centered, that is why it is so hard to fight out of the "here" and "now" to look at the bigger picture.

The rest you should take at face value (shrug)

Spiz
Kenny
According to me, if a system has moving things and stationary things, then that's all it is......moving things, and stationary things. Time is really nothing more than something we, ourselves, define just so that we can talk about the system, or predict things about it. That's all there is to it.
ARtone
Hi Spizmar

I have read some of your posts but its now 2.30am here and I must get some sleep, you youngsters probably need less. I think we are for the most part in agreement some of your comments I will reply to tomorrow. Yes it is very difficult to discuss such concepts without seeming to contradict oneself.

AR

PS not sure what LOL means or ruck.

spizmar
QUOTE (ARtone+May 20 2007, 01:44 AM)
Hi Spizmar

I have read some of your posts but its now 2.30am here and I must get some sleep, you youngsters probably need less. I think we are for the most part in agreement some of your comments I will reply to tomorrow. Yes it is very difficult to discuss such concepts without seeming to contradict oneself.

AR

PS not sure what LOL means or ruck.

AR,
LOL is laugh out loud, and a ruck is a backpack (rucksack, carryall) that you put your stuff in, on your back, when walking.
It's only 1930 here, so I haven't put my youngsters to bed yet, but soon.

Have a good nights sleep.
Spiz
ARtone
Hi Spitz

When I mentioned youngsters I meant you, I am a bit older . Having read the latter part of you post on time as a dimension I would only agree with this if by dimension you mean that time is measurable as discrete periods as it passes i.e. a measurement started in the past with the belief that the future will exist for that measurement to be completed. I do not consider this the same as a physical dimension in which objects can be measured and exist for multiple discrete time periods. Time is our perception of its passing and as far as each individual is concerned time only exists in their lifetime. What you are talking of is the measurement of time not time as an indescribable entity.

what I was trying to get across re what we consider as "now" is that what we each perceive and sense as now is not the same as any other persons in that specific moment due to signal travel period. If we consider sight the closest we see i.e. the closest another objects "now" is to the viewer, is the front of the eyeball as in extreme circumstances it is possible to see minute particles moving as the eyeball moves. All perceptions happened in the past and at varying past points depending upon the distance the signal has to travel. This means that we never see the present that exists for others.

As for quarks, yes, a hexaquark state should be observable as should a quad-quark state, the problem is these two need much greater accuracy of the target particle orientation than the so called pentaquark state (these multi quark definitions are only used for understanding and not my acceptance of them as individual entities).

This is not to say that I believe that particles are not composed of other entities because for them to have a definitive shape formed by nature, they must comprise thousands ,maybe millions, of smaller entities. these numbers must be values that define their size to great accuracy, not allowing odd additions or subtractions without consequence. I would suggest therefore that they comprise very large but exact cubic values of the entities.

Nature must be simple else how could it have evolved.

All for Now AR

Nick
QUOTE (ARtone+May 21 2007, 01:34 AM)

When  I mentioned youngsters I meant you, I am a bit older .  Having read the latter part of you post on time as a dimension I would only agree with this if by dimension you mean that time is measurable as discrete periods as it passes i.e. a measurement started in the past with the belief that the future will exist for that measurement to be completed.  I do not consider this the same as a physical

IF TIME IS NOT OF THIS PHYSICAL DIMENSION THEN WHY DOES IT BELONG TO THE REALM OF PHYSICS ARt?

QUOTE (Art+)
what I was trying to get across re what we consider as "now" is that what we each perceive and sense as now is not the same as any other persons in that specific moment due to signal travel period.  If we consider sight the closest we see i.e. the closest another objects "now" is to the viewer, is the front of the eyeball as in extreme circumstances it is possible to see minute particles moving as the eyeball moves. All perceptions happened in the past and at varying past points depending upon the distance the signal has to travel.  This means that we never see the present that exists for others.

NOW IS EVERYWHERE IN THE SPACE-TIME OF THE UNIVERSE. THE PAST IS NOT IN THE DISTANCE. LIGHT IS.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --

Kenny
QUOTE (Nick+May 21 2007, 04:32 AM)
IF TIME IS NOT OF THIS PHYSICAL DIMENSION THEN WHY DOES IT BELONG TO THE REALM OF PHYSICS ARt?

It is not an 'IT'. Time is a definition that humans defined. Without coming up with this 'time' definition, we wouldn't be able to describe things that move and don't move. Same thing as 'length' and 'distance'. We define these things in order to describe size of things and how far away something is relative to something else. Whether we define these things like 'time' and 'distance' is probably meaningless to the universe. It's only meaningful to ourselves because we use these definitions to just do something that help ourselves.
ARtone
Hi Kenny

Well said, you define it a lot better than I have been able to, I agree entirely

AR
ARtone
Hi Nick

Of course "now" exists throughout the universe, but you will never know or see the "now" that any other individual or object would see if it was able to. Look in the sky, the stars are a good example, all are at different distances which means that you don't see their collective "Now" (moment at which its image started its journey through space. What you see is an incredibly complex scene made up of different times in the past depending upon the travel period the signal has taken to when you receive it. This rule applies to all scenes, however, for close scenes it is possible/likely that more than one object could be at the same distance and represent the same moment in the past.

AR
Spizmar
As I understand it (with the most dangerous amount of knowledge - almost none ) time passes (travels?) at different rates under different relativistic conditions.
This goes back to how I defined time before (not my definition, just the one I gave) , where "time passes" at a rate of 1/C.
I understand C to be roughly 300,000 km/sec in a vacuum. So, I understand that when light travels that far, a second has passed.
If time were to march along at a constant pace of one second per objective second (or whatever it should be called), then now would progress the same for everything in the universe, and light would not bend.
You pick any arbitrary "now" to start.
Compare two things with a concept of "now", one in a low gravity situation, and one in a high gravity situation,.
Come back in an "hour", and 59m59s have gone by for low gravity, but 59m47s have gone by for high gravity.
This is not slight-of-hand photon arrival times.
This is actual subjective time (but that it were objective), measured in how fractions of a half-life of some radio-active material have gone by.
Spiz
DoktorSerendipitous
What decides how many dimensions there are? God, nature, mathematics, happenstance? Physicists need dimensions of space and time to describe the universe but that doesn’t mean the universe needs those dimensions in the mathematical sense to exist.

Two time dimensions? Why one in the first place? We create time through measurement. Does universe create time by measuring itself also? Or do we just explain time away by saying that it is a “property” of nature, which is invisible, omnipresent, abstract, and non-material? It sounds awfully like God to me.

The incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity that the physicists have been trying to reconcile simply means that as we get closer to the way the nature really runs things our conventional means of describing the nature with orthogonal system of dimensions just might not match the reality. It is the incompatibility of physical assumptions buttressed by mathematics upon which those two theories are based that stands in the way. The issue is far more fundamental than just fitting the puzzle pieces. After all pieces may fit but the whole picture can be wrong.

That’s the danger of relying on mathematical means too heavily. As the String theory physicist Joe Polchinski has put it diplomatically, “This two-time idea seems to have some interesting mathematical properties.” Is there good physics in it? Polchinski did not say. Only time will tell.

Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Kenny+May 21 2007, 11:03 AM)
It is not an 'IT'. Time is a definition that humans defined. Without coming up with this 'time' definition, we wouldn't be able to describe things that move and don't move. Same thing as 'length' and 'distance'. We define these things in order to describe size of things and how far away something is relative to something else. Whether we define these things like 'time' and 'distance' is probably meaningless to the universe. It's only meaningful to ourselves because we use these definitions to just do something that help ourselves.

Exactly
Guest_err
only two? I wonder if there could be more...

Zephir
QUOTE (Guest_err+May 26 2007, 09:57 AM)
only two? I wonder if there could be more...

Yep, the two time model is just an approximation, following the fact, we are living inside of 4D space-time realized by the 2D membranes, which are having (mostly) a two surfaces. While at high energy density conditions the vacuum exhibits the birefrigence, the quantum uncertainty is the perceivable manifestation of many time dimensions.

QUOTE (Guest_err+May 26 2007, 09:57 AM)
That’s the danger of relying on mathematical means too heavily. As the String theory physicist Joe Polchinski has put it diplomatically, “This two-time idea seems to have some interesting mathematical properties.” Is there good physics in it? Polchinski did not say...

Of course, the fully formal math models must be handled with caution. But the string theory is over its own predictability zenith. This doesn't means, the string theory cannot derive the multiple times concept as well less or more lately. In fact, some two-time extensions of string theory are existing already, just the Polchinski doesn't know about it. But here's many theories and concepts, which can enable us to understand thing by more exact and easier way, to compute the more. If you will read my notes about this concept, you'll see, the two-time dimensions concept is in fact very well motivated both theoretically, both experimentally.
Guest_mott.carl
we could to think that in beginning of the universe ,multiuniverses can have appeared,through of the bifurcation proceesses,that want do decrease the
anosotropy and non-homogeneity of matter ,space,time,doing decrease the
entropy of interne processes,restauring the symmetry,based in the connection of space andtime in spacetime,in the principle the operator PT was broken,and does
appear two opposed rotation spinors,that generate the differents spacetime continuos,and does compactify the the dimensions of spacetimes major than 4,
being that in these dimension occur the invisibles between the universal interactions and differents quantic states,that implies high density energy-with speeds near the speed of light.
then the branchings in the multiples states of spacetime,linked each one,to a potential of wavefunctions,that determine that each particles has a spacetime continuos only one.it is,the particles has a retarded potentia to positive spacetime,so as have the same advanced potential to negative spacetime( that is given Green integral functions) that is the spacetime splitted in two opposed directions by the spinors,where the space 3D in encurved by time,with division
by half of spacetime that are conjugateds,that has properties non-commutatives,and has the asymmetry of rotations by 360 degrees generated
by biquaternions,having the quaternions as principal group,that contain both
lorentz transformations,that restaure the broken symmetries.
then there are multiples subuniverses,that are generated by the superstrings,and some lose its symmetries and are curl up,but the conections between its are
linkeds by the fundamental interactions,spacetime continuos,and mass-energy
transformations.
Zephir
QUOTE (Guest_mott.carl+May 26 2007, 02:44 PM)
...&%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%##%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%&&#%*@%##%*@%*@%##%*@%##%*@%#....

AWT in one sentence: The particles of reality are formed by observation of reality through density fluctuations of particles of reality.
Kenny
Look ..... there's no such real thing as time. Time is just a definition based on movement of some (thing). Seriously, you're wasting your 'time' when talking about 'time dimensions', because the time definition just comes from a measurement involving moving things.
J
Brian Fraser has long been building a model of physics in which both space and time are three-dimensional and synchronously expanding in every direction at the speed of light.
Zephir
QUOTE (Kenny+May 26 2007, 03:58 PM)
Seriously, you're wasting your 'time' when talking about 'time dimensions', because the time definition just comes from a measurement involving moving things.

By AWT nothing really exists, just the differently named causality gradients, the ratio of the Aether gradients in the space and time directions (so called the curvature of space time) is serving as the gravitational field as the source of another mater. If the time is not real, then the nearly all the other concepts of contemporary physics based on the time aren't real too (the acceleration, momentum, and so on). Why to consider such stance, after then? The AWT approach is completely constructive: it's not based on the denial, but the explanation of concepts:

"Can some idea appear useful in particular context? Yes? Well, let's try to found the physical representation of it."

Because the explanation of different concept accelerates and streamlines the energy spreading inside of civilization, such explanation becomes a part of reality by the same way, like the another causal gradient. By AWT even the scientific ideas and theories are physically real artifacts fulfilling the gradient driven dynamics and such stance helps to understand/predict the mechanisms of scientific concept evolution and spreading.

Furthermore, by AWT the time is the local artifact, which is serving like spatial dimension in reciprocal (imaginary) space-time, so the time concept is as real, as the space concept. The ratio of space and time (the curvature of space time) can therefore serve as a space for another space-time gradients.

Guest_mott.carl
Zephir

the spac e is endowed of two torsions( traduced mathematically by spinors of left-right handed) and time has two torsions( traduced by the two vortices opposite rotations,that are conjugated).therefore the time with two parametrizations
split the space in two segmentations,encurving it.And generating the curvatures of spacetimes.IS ONLY THIS.
The biquaternions is algebra that in 8-dimensions,deform the space,and also the
time,as in mobius' strip.through of the non-commutative property,the biquaternions
permit the transformations non-symmetric when a object in 4D rotates from left-handed to right-handed ans viceversa,explaining the metrical of time( generated
by two opposite directions),that define the infinities curvatures of spacetimes,each one,with a potential
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+May 26 2007, 07:20 PM)
By AWT nothing really exists

Pretty useless theory then, really Remind us again of what glorious things have resulted from it. The world is waiting.
mott.carl
is possible that the time-coordinates are degenerated to spatial-coordinates,that through of the topologic changes are origins of the temporal dimensions.then
these dimensions of times degenerated,or better wrap up,are hidden variables,
that are associated to hidden symmetries that can unify through of these topologics changes ( that mantain implicits,the symmetrties,that are due the non-linear processes,that is more complicateds-occur there the complexifications of dimensions to transformations of space-like iinto time-like and viceversa,that are spacetime curvatures,that determine the type of the hypersurfaces,that there are given by the riemannian manifolds that physically appear as 4-dimensional worlds,that aren't completely symmetrics),the interactions,as electromagnetics,
weak,strongs,and gravity( that is associated to time-coordinates,with more of two
dimensions,that is linked to the 10-dimensions of space.
may there is many time-dimensions.
HT
look i'm all for non-academic-driven advances in the sciences, especially given the current state of physics with so many of the best and brightest all working on one very hard to prove m theory problem. But the debates in this thread are philosophical (and I'm not talking about the creationists and awt folks), not scientific, and are full of conjecture and intuitive assumption.

This is math right now, not even science yet. Einstein and QT were math before they were science. String/M are still math. Since no truly clear evidence has come of M, and many think it needlessly complicated for solving anything but financial probability calculations, I think it is refreshing to see a guy come up with such a comparatively simple solution.

This guy devised math no more or less preposterous than any previous math. But it makes the right predictions. Is the math elegant? Who knows? Raise your hand if you've read his paper! Raise your hand if your simpler math can potentially eliminate the need for dark matter!

But recoiling because it requires two time dimensions? If you can understand that there is one then another shouldn't be too hard to grasp conceptually. People just because you draw a point or a line on paper doesn't mean that a single dimension is 2D in and of itself! Just because a horizontal line, or series of dots, can be drawn to describe x doesn't mean the dimension x is 2 dimensional! The line only appears to have height, or thickness, or dimension Y, because you are drawing it. the line doesn't actually exist with height in the equation. eg. superstrings are 1 dimensional too. I am literally at a loss for words.

And if you contest that time is dimensional, well, so be it. Contest it in publication with equations, not intuitive logic, semantics, or rationale. Explain how static time for an object slows as its speed increases or behaves in a big bang scenario or singularity. Publish your math without time and make all the predictions, and don't worry about publishing it in a journal, just get it on your website and let the academics you respect know you have something for them to see.

QT says you can't know both properties, but qt also needs a graviton and an axion to work beyond the angstrom scale. qt is incredibly precise down there in the trenches, but has never been much use elsewhere, hence superstring/M etc.

Oh and to the guy who wants this prof to come see you because "he won't get there" otherwise, he's a university prof: he's got phone, email, all that good stuff. just punch him in to google. you should drop him a line, compare notes.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 27 2007, 05:35 AM)
Pretty useless theory then, really Remind us again of what glorious things have resulted from it.

For example the the time dimensions concept can be derived from the AWT - after all, this is why, we are talking about it right here.
Zephir
QUOTE (HT+May 27 2007, 09:29 PM)
But the debates in this thread are philosophical ...not scientific

What's nonscientific on the birefringence of vacuum or the event horizon doubling?
This is not just the math, but real testable phenomena.
2kuch
U know this world is full of wonders,so i'll add by simple that "time in complex matter has infinite dimentions" don't ask me y?.........peace
Zephir
QUOTE (2kuch+May 28 2007, 10:51 AM)
U know this world is full of wonders,so i'll add by simple that "time in complex matter has infinite dimensions" don't ask me y?

Surprisingly enough, just the simplest matter, i.e. the gas composed from chaotically moving particles has the higher number of the time dimensions from mechanical wave spreading. By AWT the limited number of dimensions arises from compactification of these particle fluctuations into foamy cellular structure. This process is reversal, therefore the introduction of energy leads to the symmetry restoration and recreation of many dimensions again. The uncertainty of quantum world is the tangible remnant of many time dimensions state from graviton era of Universe evolution history and supposedly our future too.

ARtone
Hi all

J In your short post I notice the word "Long" should this be forever as it is impossible to measure time.

Kenny, well said, I agree entirely. Using the measure of time past to "present" to future ( I use the word present reservedly) as time this like going to buy a carpet where the salesman says " but it was longer before the last person bought some" or buying for a piece of 2x2 wood, finding it to be 1/8 inch less in each dimension and the salesman saying " but it was 2x2 before it was planed.

Time can only be a dimension as a measure of the past to other past or past to future, and as a measure the word "dimension" is appropriate but this word "dimension" has been corrupted by its use in science fiction by being applied to a non 3d state, where I think some of the posters are interpreting as.

AR
ARtone
Hi Spiz

I agree that time may be shortened in a high gravity situation and in my model of the universe this is easily explained:

because the universe is a matrix of incredibly small "particles" (whatever they may be, at least 1 billion per smallest sub atomic particle) this structure is deformed by gravitation forces thereby making a straight line path (which it isn't as it must be aliased, but ignoring this for now) distorted and lengthened.

To which you would say " yes but thats the wrong way around in a high gravity situation the path is shorter" but this brings us back to the aliasing problem which occurs in any matrix. Bending the straight but aliased line removes some of the aliasing thereby reducing the number of particles being triggered to transfer the energy of light. This of course would also effect "entanglement" Einsteins "spooky action action at a distance

Which brings me to a question: "How did Einstein know of entanglement"?

AR
ARtone
Hi Zephir

you are making the beautiful simplicity of nature sound very complex, I can only assume this is an attempt at self aggrandizement. Do you really think the construction of our universe could have been so complex?

Nature is simple, its results are complex, which, to get at the truth, we are trying to ignore. Adding a lexicon of clever sounding words does nothing to help.

AR
Zephir
QUOTE (ARtone+May 28 2007, 01:24 PM)
..you are making the beautiful simplicity of nature sound very complex...

The AWT model of reality is utterly simple and transparent with compare to existing theories: every particles are density fluctuations of hypothetical more dense environment. Briefly speaking, our universe is formed by the interior of dense star, which creates the fluctuations like condensing supercritical vapor.

Because the introducing environment is so dense, these fluctuations are attracted mutually, thus creating another density fluctuations, and so on. The certain level of this fluid is called the vacuum, which we are living in. That's all.
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (ARtone+May 28 2007, 10:24 AM)
you are making the beautiful simplicity of nature sound very complex, I can only assume this is an attempt at self aggrandizement. Do you really think the construction of our universe could have been so complex?

Nature is simple, its results are complex, which, to get at the truth, we are trying to ignore. Adding a lexicon of clever sounding words does nothing to help.

I agree with this, wholeheartedly.
mott.carl
Zephir-how many times are possibles in that theory AWT?
The aether is made of multiples spacetimes with differents frequencies and speeds?Being the speed of light the speed-pattern,by the which the others speeds must be measureds?
Then the particles and antiparticles creates the metrics of spacetimes,through of the operator PT,and its respectives breakdown linked to the densities of energy and further of mass.the speed of light gives the relations between mass-energy,with the curvatures of spacetimes(that deform the aether,and implies that each particles in the universe vibrates into of frequency only one-that is the spacetime only one,with a speed-limit ),calculed by rotations systems,with opposed spins,that gives us the metrical time,in consonance with the degrees of curvatures of spacetimes,associated to its speeds and frequencies.

In the case,the Aether fulfil all the vaccum that is linked to differents densities,and
is in reasonance with the speeds that travel the objects in that medium.That must be Dynamics and Non-Static ? Is THIS?
Zephir
QUOTE (mott.carl+May 28 2007, 05:12 PM)
Zephir-how many times are possibles in that theory AWT?

I suppose, this number can be virtually infinite - after all, the quantum uncertainty is the tangible manifestation of many time dimensions at the Planck scale. Whenever the cellular structure of Aether fluctuations dissolves, the energy spreading is losing it's preferred directions/dimensions and the number of time dimensions increases correspondingly. The fully chaotic system of particles exhibits the infinite number of dimensions/directions, because no specific geometry of energy spreading is preferred here.In low dimensional particle system the number of time dimensions available corresponds the number of spatial dimensions inside of this system because of symmetry. Every density fluctuation can serve here both like the time dimension, both the spatial dimension. in accordance with this, the gravitons (the fundamental fluctuations of Aether inside of our generation of Universe) are ambivalent particles: they can serve both like the particles of matter (i.e. the fermions), both like the particles of energy (i.e. the bosons).

QUOTE (mott.carl+May 28 2007, 05:12 PM)
..The aether is made of multiples space-times with different frequencies and speeds??

By AWT the space-times are formed by the Aether and vice-versa (supposedly). The Aether appears like the dynamic foam composed from fluctuations of fluctuations, every space-time is simply the distinct phase of Aether foam of different compactification level, which exhibits the different number of time and spatial dimensions and the geometry (space-time metric). These levels can be nested, they can even appaear parallel. The two time dimensions concept and the vacuum in its birefringence state is the easiest to understand/imagine example of parallel universes, I think.

QUOTE (mott.carl+May 28 2007, 05:12 PM)
..That must be Dynamics and Non-Static ? Is THIS?

Sorry, I'm affraid, I didn't understood the question.
ARtone
Sorry zephir but your previous post to myself does not make sense. You say that the universe was formed by the interior of an exploding star, the problem is that without an existing universe you cannot have a star. Furthermore, you use the word "density" as others use "time" both these are measures, one comparative and the other a measure of passing events.

If AWT was a correct description of the universe (and it isn't) measurements of any type would be impossible due to continuous fluctuations.

The universe and ever thing in it is composed of structures at least 0ne billionth the size of the smallest known particle. These structures have three states

isolated rotating - activated by the addition of energy such as a light pulse
isolated static - space vacuum
conjoined to produce known particles of matter, probably in cubic values

One universe, one constructional element/particle/object

AR
Guest_mott.carl
zephir

i tallk on the aether in state of constant movement.not a aether static.Is yes,a medium,in dynamic process that altere the forms of objects( contraction of space)
,deform the passage of the time( that can be seen with differences of the centre to
the part more externe of a disc in uniform motion,that gives the time dilatation)

then the aether,in motion produces effects in the rods and clocks that if motion
in it.Is this?
Zephir
QUOTE (ARtone+May 29 2007, 12:48 AM)
..the problem is that without an existing universe you cannot have a star...

With respect of the causality something can be created from nothing... The Big Bang hypothesis faces this problem as well and the AWT fits the observation of deep space better, because we can observe the well developed galaxies even at the oldest parts of Universe. The Big Bang model is the dual model to AWT implosion.

Nick
VERTICAL TIME OR IMAGINARY TIME NEEDS AN IMAGINARY CLOCK TO MEASURE AND VERIFIED IT IF IT IS TO BE APPLIED IN PHYSICS.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Guest_mott.carl
the existence of imaginary time would be the same that infinities real-times?

or just part of the curvatures of spacetime?and others parts,are hidden time dimensions?
Guest_mott.carl
How we could link the speed-limit to the time with two dimensions,in case?
but the speed of light can be limit,but without necessity to it have an absolute value,in the vaccum.then it could be variable,ans measured in differents curvatures of spacetime.then would to think that there are infinities continuities of spacetimes,with a value maximum to these curvatures of spacetime,being the speed of light originated by geometry in its values-limit.But that values to c in each
continuity of spacetime,isn't absolute in value.the continuities of spacetime are discretes,in each limit of c,vinculated at the spacetimes,that are contiguos between
theirs.
Bryn Richards
It may be argued that the speed of light is not the limit at which matter can travel, but is simply just the limit at which matter we can detect, can travel at. I do not believe photons are fundamental particles, I am led to believe there are particles more fundamental than it, which eventually reach the most fundamental level of the actual fundamental particle itself. However, to break down matter to such fundamental levels, would require the use of a singularity, because afaik, it is the only natural process by which photons can be broken down. It's the only thing strong enough to do the job
mott.carl
do you does believe that the speed of light has infinity speed?
then as could think in spacetime continuos,if there is a constant and limit speed?
why particles that travel with speeds greater than c,cann't be detecteds?we then could to talk in small infinitely particles( some relations with the minor lenght of Strings,possible?has some relation with the spacetime?
Bryn Richards
QUOTE

do you does believe that the speed of light has infinity speed?

No, I just think it's a standard speed which photons happen to travel at, just like how any other particle travels at the speed which it does.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE do you does believe that the speed of light has infinity speed?

No, I just think it's a standard speed which photons happen to travel at, just like how any other particle travels at the speed which it does.

then as could think in spacetime continuos,if there is a constant and limit speed?

It's only constant so far as we cannot increase it further, without having particles faster than it, to smash into the back of it. Which is the same as any other particle other than photon. It can be increased to near light speed in a particle accelerator, by smashing photons into the back of the particles.

QUOTE

why particles that travel with speeds greater than c,cann't be detecteds?

Well, look at how hard neutrinos are to detect, and now imagine a particle 1) Smaller than neutrinos, 2) Faster than neutrinos, 3) Lighter than neutrinos, and 4) Only emanating from singularities, unlike neutrinos which emanate from pretty much all sources in space. Plus, then understand that when such particles shoot out from singularities, that they proceed to leave the galaxy of the singularity which spawned them, and then either 1) Leave the galaxy and eventually get caught in the gravitational attraction of other galaxies, or 2) Be held by the gravitational attraction of the galaxy of the singularity which spawned them.

When you combine all of the above, that is why such particles have not been detected.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE why particles that travel with speeds greater than c,cann't be detecteds?

Well, look at how hard neutrinos are to detect, and now imagine a particle 1) Smaller than neutrinos, 2) Faster than neutrinos, 3) Lighter than neutrinos, and 4) Only emanating from singularities, unlike neutrinos which emanate from pretty much all sources in space. Plus, then understand that when such particles shoot out from singularities, that they proceed to leave the galaxy of the singularity which spawned them, and then either 1) Leave the galaxy and eventually get caught in the gravitational attraction of other galaxies, or 2) Be held by the gravitational attraction of the galaxy of the singularity which spawned them.

When you combine all of the above, that is why such particles have not been detected.

we then could to talk in small infinitely particles( some relations with the minor lenght of Strings,possible?has some relation with the spacetime?

I personally feel that 'infinity' is thrown around way too much. The way it has been theorised by myself (By following the line of logic from the above), is that eventually particles may be broken down to the true fundamental particle, that which was created at the moment of the big bang. I do not believe in a mystical 'pure energy', I only believe energy to be a value which was assigned to this universe, as a 'total energy' value. I don't believe 'pure energy' has any physical construct, in order to exist in this universe. Therefore, the only thing which could exist, would be fundamental particles and all which is above them.
Solid State Universe
Le sigh...

Matter and antimatter give evidence for two seperate temporal dimensions.

Positrons never appear to be entering a bubble chamber 'in reverse', despite existing in a sort of 'contratime'.

Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+May 30 2007, 03:33 PM)
Matter and antimatter give evidence for two seperate temporal dimensions.

No they don't. They're just two forms of the same thing, with different charges. There's absolutely nothing to suggest multiple 'temporal dimensions', nor is there anything to suggest time as a physical dimension itself, except as merely a human construct to help us figure out events.
Solid State Universe
Define 'charges' without using anything self-referential.
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+May 30 2007, 04:07 PM)
Define 'charges' without using anything self-referential.

There are various theories out there, which attempt to provide an explanation for charge. Mainstream Physics itself does not know completely what it is. I personally have yet to come up with a complete explanation for it. But any theory which suggests that it's 'evidence' of multiple temporal dimensions, is asking to be ridiculed. The simple fact is, there is no evidence for such a thing. Had you not said 'evidence', then I would not have had a problem with your theory, because it would just be one of many.
I do hate how people throw around suggestions of 'evidence', when there isn't any.
mott.carl
i think that the dimension of time can to splitted( segmented),with two opposed directions,iwith electron and positron rotating in opposed in the time,as spacetime
curves that if intercept.then could see the time as splitted at the ordinary time,in
universe with 5-dimensions( with reversion of CPT,being tthat the appear as having
two-dimensions),that implies 3D spatial and 2D temporal.then there is not,antimatter,and the antiparticles are energies encapsulateds,locally,it is the
antiparticles are derived by the brakdown of CPT,that ocur the existence of two-times that encurve the space.and particles travel forward in into time,while,the
antiparticles travel backward into past.but both are two aspects of the same energetic states.it is each particle is reversed in spacetime as antiparticles,that are two opposed energetic states,that do transitions of negative energy states to
positive energy states and viceversa,through of these two-coordinates of time.then the spacetime is curved in 5-dimensions,and it structure must be non-linear,to affect the process of causality in surfaces that is not globally of cauchy.
already that crossed term goi of matrix 4 x 4 is different of zero,further the diagonal matrix is not equal zero,permiting loops in the spacetime curvatures,through of rotations of particles and antiparticles that define the metric of the time,and measure the spacetime curves continuos.

Solid State Universe
What mott.carl said.

Relate charge to a spatial-temporal relationship and there's no need for anything self-referential to the charge concept because it falls naturally out of the assumption of a compact temporal dimension.
mott.carl
solid state-i liked very much of it idea of "contratime",that is a beated in the contratime-weak

of the contratime strong,but occurring that time in opposed direction that pulse the

sonore time.

b.richards
after the big-bang appear branchings that permit the creations of multiverses,
that folow the spontaneous symmetry breaking,that increase the entropy,generating new universes,through of the alterartions in the asymmetry
between the muons,and in the asymmetry between matter and antimatter,as
changes of physics constants during the evolution of time.
the topologic changes are origin of times,well as time are compactified,through of
the spreading of energy,that does compact the time.
MDT
The easiest way to look at time is as a potential. What this assumption does is lump all phenomena that exist in time or which act in time as containing time potential. Something that exists longer has more time potential, etc. It simplifies the heck out of things. To this you add a second potential called distance potential, which lumps all phenomena that exist in distance or which act via distance as containing distance potential. GR is just a special combo of distance and time potential, where more of each gets concentrated in less distance and time. Time flows forward because time potential is decreasing or being converted.

If distance and time potential are zero, we get a point that will last only an instant. If distance and time potential are infinite we get infinite distance that lasts an eternity. Everything else is in the middle. Energy has distance potential via its wavelength and time potential via its frequency. This special combination is the heart of everything. When this packet of distance and time potential impinges on matter, what happens? It causes an affect that we can measure in distance and time.

The only other variable needed to correlate everything is mass potential. Mass potential is a special combo of distance-time potential, which differs from energy in that it does not travel at C. Although it is a special combo of distance and time potential it is easier to model if it is treated like a separate potential. The proton has more mass potential that an electron.

When a positron and electron form from energy, we begin with a singular combo of time and distance potential. It simply changes into two different combinations of time, distance (and mass potential). These convert their time and distance potential back, via what we call the EM force, with the EM force simply the processing technique, in distance and time.

A good analogy between this simple model and what physics prefers is like trying to find the common link between 100 breeds of dogs. It is simple, they are all dogs. But instead each is treated liike a unique lifeform, then we come up with elaborate relationships to help us justify the assumption that they are all unique lifeforms; they must be unique because one is black, one has thick fir, this one is short and that one barks too much.

The problem I have is how do you interface the simple concept of dog to elaborate models that see every dog as unique. How does one address the subtle differences? The answer is simple, DNA. The DNA uses only "4" bases in various combinations and makes everything. The subtle differences are just due to unique combo of 4 bases and nothing as elaborate as the fractal vector of neck hair. The diversity of physics is based on unique combos of "3" bases.

Guest_mott.carl
we think that the 4-dimensional is reflective of the 5-dimensional,through of the coordinates-time,that is linked to the topology of charge,energy and spacetime,as
defformations produced in the transitions between linear and non linear structures.these modifications are metrics given by the time,curving the space,through of asymmetry between two votices that opposite rotations,that are
renormalized in the 5-spacetime dimensional manifolds.through of the opertaor PT.
the spacetime is potentiak vector that imply that spacetime is reflective in the
informations of the past and future,then both already exist the spacetime curvatures continuos derived of the GTR,then the spacetime foam does the transport of informations between past to future and future to past,as potential
advanced( as negative energy potential carrying informations into future and retarded positive energy potential lcarrying informations into past,in both directions
occur the increase of entropy,depending of the observers in uniform relative motions( opposed rotating uniform rotations,as bi-vector).,that does the appear the
reverse time dilatation-dependent of the speeds,with c,as reference,then the time t
and proper-time t' are linked to the reversion of the spacetime( calculed by the degrees of curvatures),that is the time running in the negative orientations,but
always positive to the observer running more fast near at the limit of c,then the
curvatures of spacetime originated by two opposed orientations( two vortices linked by opposite rotational frames-solitons of Falaco ),then the space is segmented by the time that curve the spacetime in two opposed orientations).then must appear others continuities of spacetime,with others values
to c.being c',c''.....c,infinity).there appear the particles-antiparticles that are superpartners,with others continuos spacetimes
then the wormholes can be derived of these strings that link the solitons of Falaco.
that are tunnels that link the disticts spacetime between future and past,through of topologic changes( that is given by different dimensions of time)
Nick
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 30 2007, 04:29 PM)
There are various theories out there, which attempt to provide an explanation for charge. Mainstream Physics itself does not know completely what it is. I personally have yet to come up with a complete explanation for it. But any theory which suggests that it's 'evidence' of multiple temporal dimensions, is asking to be ridiculed. The simple fact is, there is no evidence for such a thing. Had you not said 'evidence', then I would not have had a problem with your theory, because it would just be one of many.
I do hate how people throw around suggestions of 'evidence', when there isn't any.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CHARGE AND A FORCE?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Guest_mott.carl
must exist a fundamental particle that is linked intrisically to the time-coordinate
that determine the direction of the flow of time,and because the time is linked at the increasie of entropy.It is,time and energy are the same thing.Then could to think that this particle associated to the arrow of the time,demonstrate that there in
contrapart,a particles that this same particles can travel backward in time,and do
decrease the entropy,and therefore when a object is if moving very fast appear the antiparticles that does the reverse-time( then have there other coordinate
space-like associated),and the slow down time is proportional at the space.then
the time-dilatation is associated to reversionof time,that imply there the curvatures
of space.then the object can travel in both opposed orientations of the time,and therefore double the space in two parts,then the spacetime,linkeds,only can to be
curve.
mott.carl
when think that increase the dimension of time,might increase also the dimension
of space to occur the exchange between its?
the the universe is made for multiverses,each one with properities differents in the
spacetime?but always appear the connections between all?
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.