East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

LOL, I thank the bad boys too......

A short video on the topic at hand.

'The first day of the universe didn't have a yesterday'............

I would have thought that was a given......

Physics - What is Time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfN-7HczmOU

The Illusion Of Time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfN-7HczmOU

[analog]

Hi Lloyd,

You gave him a scientific stance so I came from the philosophical/scientific stance. I think this line of thinking arises when one over complicates motion itself by choosing to see it as a replicating phenomenon from point to point, rather than a fluid interaction across space and time. Replication requires synchronization, which ultimately leads a crafty mind to such a universal mechanism made just for that, but then what fashioned the mechanism. It's the god scenario, IMHO, not that existence doesn't have absolutes, but those absolutes aren't stand alone mechanisms with functions, the mechanics and functioning of existence comes when those few absolutes are brought together as a whole, IMHO. Remove one from the equation, and the other fundamental absolute entites have no meaning or value ie no dimension.

later,

Tim

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yeah, that's a good way of stating it Tim... Thanks...

My absolute ground is here, in the good ol' state of Maine__Mountains, crystal clear lakes, streams, ocean, and plenty of fresh air... Oh...the most important, the friendliest people on Earth__I'm proudly biased...


Maine__My Home...

My Home Town...

[austintorn@aol.com]

Let us go past
The “constant” numerical value
Of ‘c’, the speed of light,
And recall what it really is—
Using its “ratio-logic”:

(d/t)

It is the exact ratio
Of distance to time;
It is even
The full dimensional ratio of
Distance to Time—
(Of which there are no more
Dimensions to space-time).


Thus, it may even be

the external 4-D,

distance^4,

divided by

its internal equivalent of

time-distance^3,

which results in

dddd/t-ddd

that reduces to

‘c’

as

d/t


Not knowing the reason
Why and how the universe exists
Is the #1 problem
To a full comprehension
Of its properties,
For there is a balance
And a compliment
To the time-distance Dimensions.

There need be no timekeeper
Running around
To update all of the clocks.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Time is the difference of space.

[labelwench]

There need be no timekeeper
Running around
To update all of the clocks.
Originally posted by Austintorn

The 'clock' is built into the genetics of all things. Studies are just now identifying common genetics among centenarians. Everything has a predisposed 'season', with some range of flexibility.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The 'clock' is built into the genetics of all things. Studies are just now identifying common genetics among centenarians. Everything has a predisposed 'season', with some range of flexibility.

EDEN’S LONG LINE

Methuselah lived for 969 years.
He died on the 11th of Cheshvan
Of the year 1656 (Anno Mundi, after Creation),
7 days before the beginning of the Great Flood.

According to Rashi on Gen. 7:4,
The Holy One delayed the Flood
Specially because of the 7 days of mourning
For the righteous Methuselah in his honour.

The recent find of Austi 2:5 scroll tells us
That Adam was yet alive on that day,
He, too, boarding the Ark of Noah.

In fact, I ran into him just the other day,
Looking innumerable years old,
But aging quite gracefully.

Eve was at his side,
Yet gleaming with the ripeness
Obtained from Eden’s apple.

They revealed the formula for true apple cider,
Which would result in an elixir not vinegar.

Eden’s sinful Apple, the cause of it,
Made for harsh apple cider, but, when it
Was heated with sulfurous brimstone it
Soon turned smooth, the Hell taken out of it!

(Methuselah was son of Enoch; grandfather of Noah.)

(Methuselah would have lived longer,
But he didn't look both ways
When crossing a path—
And was run over by a horse.)

[SteveA]

Hi Steve,

In my humble and honest opinion, this isn't the proper approach, as to close the loop which is existence all things must compliment each other rather than coming to a head by applying a single mechanism, which is similar to religion applying a god to accomplish such things. What I mean is, to enclose existence you would have to also explain the mechanism by which the screen is refreshed, which is how I read much of your analogy as the process by which old televisions and such created images by sweeping electrons or whatever across the screen to update each pixel of information. If you were to find that the explainations of this mechanism were stand alone properties and weren't linked to the whole, then you've hit a dead end and might as well just take up religion, and I'm not intending to be an ass, as I'm a pretty humble person.

Well you're making a lot more assumptions than are justified and didn't read my comments too careful.

I was saying that there is no conventional explanation for how time, in the sense of the motions of objects throughout the universe can remain synchronized. It's simply assumed to be true without explanation and there appears to be no dualistic mechanism that allows for this (two motions can't occur synchronously and in parallel except when they're connected together as a single motion).

So in that manner, yes, there's a common reference for this change that's shared throughout the universe and it can't travel at light speed in a conventional sense, unless someone can show a manner in which this is possible.

Feel free to give an explanation yourself, if you'd like, but I'm rather certain it will be also be unorthodox. The theme has generally been that it's seen as mysterious, but that all depends upon ones views. I don't think time is a subject that's off limits for discussion on a physics forum.

Existence is much deeper, and I could answer all of your questions from my perspective, but being as it represents an enclosed loop of existence, it probably wouldn't make much sense without the other peices to complete the whole, but I'm not the final authority on existence by any means.

Well neither am I. I've pointed out many areas that connect to qualities of experience as well as structures that would appear likely to be infinite and beyond any particular ability to be described. There's also the potential that things can change beyond immediate explanation at any moment, though these are all areas where little can be said except the possibility of their existence. The specifics regarding these would also likely be quite individual.

Here's a post of mine from two years ago when I joined the forum. I've come a long way since then. It should read similar to what you're saying. This is a starting point to the complexities of existence, IMHO, and shows a mind who's intellect is begining to answer the questions formulated by his imagination, which is a good thing, but IMHO, the questions go much deeper than this.

I agree, though time is an aspect that is still present in most anything we can discuss - our conversations occur within time.

later,

Tim

Thanks,
Steve

If I understand right, wouldn't this definition you gave inevitably give rise to another absolute, which I feel you might be neglecting.

If percieved motion is entangled with a division of absolute rest into infinite numbers of points, there would be increments between those points as you have said. This brings time into the picture because of how you related it to space, but what of the other time this unwittingly creates.

I'd have to say that, yes, we could have the units of time that influence this universe be, yet another, fractal embedding of another layer, but it doesn't appear that this would be relevant to us. You don't need more than one unknown present.

Basically, I don't see that there's anything more that's needed than adding a single layer of abstraction between the manner in which events observed/experienced and the fundamental process that constructs these. Adding more may be convenient, but it's not necessary. In many ways we already have too many layers of abstraction present in the standard model and more immediate, first person experience version of physics would be more useful. I believe many problems arise from continually building patch worked layers of explanations for events further and further beyond the abilities of people to actually verify except as hypothetical models and in this sense, I'll admit that the description of time I gave is not even necessarily universal - but in the name of science, people have been referring to physical observations in this sense under the assumption that these observations and measurements are reflective of an "objective reality" that is somehow immune to their own perceptions, beliefs etc. and yet it appears there's no manner to distinguish between what is subjective or objective - and the use of the term objective is generally with regard to democratically determined views - if things appear to agree on something, then it's called objective, otherwise it's subjective, though even the perception of such agreement should be subjective and if we're making physical measurements of things, I have yet to see specific "objective"/"subjective" labels on these.

If the divisions are incremental and they are happening throughout space, something must sink them together, else there would be no proof of action reaction, or what happened when. These divisions could be happening more frequently on one side of the galaxy than they are on the other. Without an ever present pulse rippling through the cosmos keeping all this in sync, the symetry of time would be broken.

Would this not be a representation of absolute time, then?

I assume that whatever reference for time oneself is using, that's the same reference that is observed "out there". Just like if you were tuning a channel on a radio - wow, it so happens that everything is heard on the channel you're tuned. It doesn't mean that this is "everything", but in terms of experiences in time, there's not much beyond being influenced by this. Even the apparent timeless components of experience, like the manner in which a particular smell is experienced, could potentially even be influenced or dependent upon time, but on a scale that is not observed or known.

That was always my problem with answering the riddle of motion by viewing it as particles replicating from one point to the other. This would cause more problems than it solved to me, because then to have a chronological flow to anything, you would have to have a heartbeat across the vastness of space traveling at instantaneous speeds much faster than Einstein's light. Then, you would get into the headache of what we know as present reality riding that wave across space, whereby, in front of the wave was furture, and behind the wave past. I don't know. I never was drawn to this type of thought, not to say that you aren't right.

I think it's can't really be a wave even. It's likely a single string of discrete events - though across the "width" of the present, these could then be correlated into other forms. As an example, imagine a string of little magnets - depending upon their polarities, they can fold into different forms and as some of these are added or removed from the "present", this shape is altered. Though in this context, the fundamental unit of time would be with regard to the motions of these. The space in which they're moving would be one with dimensions that are conscious perceptions. That appears to at least be a mechanism that can potentially describe how physics works (there are other ways that this information could be presented and the manners in which this computation or construction of those forms could be described, but I don't think the specifics of this are necessary to recognize that it's a model that appears to be universal in its ability to describe conscious perceptions of physical change, as well as the persistence of physical objects and physical laws - though specifically which form of computation is most naturally correlated to physical observations isn't clear, though similar to the unification of string theories by M-Theory, you can also unify forms of computation into "Universal Computation", by altering the interpretation of those computations - and this can be seen similar to the manner in which people can experience the same events but in different ways).

If there's some form of phenomenon or even some potential aspect of existence, excluding things that are simply incomprehensible or completely unrelated to anything possible, then I think this "kernel" is capable of supporting it, though if you think otherwise, feel free to state what you think might be incompatible with it.

[SteveA]

LOL, I thank the bad boys too......

A short video on the topic at hand.

'The first day of the universe didn't have a yesterday'............

I would have thought that was a given......

Physics - What is Time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfN-7HczmOU

The Illusion Of Time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfN-7HczmOU

(BTW, those links were duplicates, just FYI)

I'm sorry I didn't get around to replying to your previous post, but I'm at work right now (and manage to succeed in resisting on-line posting with questionable success ) ... also I had a hard time thinking of a simple description of time (as it influences so many things), but if I had to try to find an "executive summary" of what time is I'd say it's ones own exploration of existence.

My view of the reason why time is seen as universally shared, is not specifically because it actually is, but instead that ones own version of it determines specifically where, when and how that you currently exist - and everything that exists in a "currently" (relative to yourself) compatible state shares those same rules of interaction and hence appear as existing to each other.

If we analogized with a typical day in life, when you go to a store, your actions are in pursuit of certain environmental conditions and this movement is constructed by knowledge or logic and an accumulation of rules and this is represented as the physical space you're moving through and experiencing etc. When reaching the store, you're acting in manners related to shopping (or in some cases being a worker there ) and similarly people, things, objects etc. that exist in a compatible manner of interaction are present as well.

Though the details of how this can happen can be very complex and the specific pathways that were followed by everything, or the sequences in which things appeared to occur for different observer are not necessarily the same as one experiences them to be and this is why physical laws can't determine time for an individual but instead just map out some properties of this "space" (which isn't space as its currently referred to but pathways of experience and branches of decisions and actions).

There would still need to be a manner in which all this exists beyond the present moment though, in order that those continuities and possibilities remain in existence and can lead to the present and allow a future etc. and this could be seen as a common attribute possessed by everything within it.

It's not something inherently imposed on anything though as it's just a part of oneself.

[analog]

Hi Steve

Well you're making a lot more assumptions than are justified and didn't read my comments too careful.

We've had a lot of these type conversations in the past here and I was just giving a philosophical opinion on where most of them end up when relying on higher end structures at a base level to explain the building of base level constituents into higher end structures. I'll leave this alone for now though as I don't want to clutter up Lloyds thread when there's similar conversations throughout the forum in past threads. My repost from way back wasn't a reply to you by the way, just in case you thought it was. I was just showing that others have considered such concepts.

I think it's can't really be a wave even. It's likely a single string of discrete events - though across the "width" of the present, these could then be correlated into other forms. As an example, imagine a string of little magnets - depending upon their polarities, they can fold into different forms and as some of these are added or removed from the "present", this shape is altered. Though in this context, the fundamental unit of time would be with regard to the motions of these. The space in which they're moving would be one with dimensions that are conscious perceptions. That appears to at least be a mechanism that can potentially describe how physics works (there are other ways that this information could be presented and the manners in which this computation or construction of those forms could be described, but I don't think the specifics of this are necessary to recognize that it's a model that appears to be universal in its ability to describe conscious perceptions of physical change, as well as the persistence of physical objects and physical laws - though specifically which form of computation is most naturally correlated to physical observations isn't clear, though similar to the unification of string theories by M-Theory, you can also unify forms of computation into "Universal Computation", by altering the interpretation of those computations - and this can be seen similar to the manner in which people can experience the same events but in different ways).

If there's some form of phenomenon or even some potential aspect of existence, excluding things that are simply incomprehensible or completely unrelated to anything possible, then I think this "kernel" is capable of supporting it, though if you think otherwise, feel free to state what you think might be incompatible with it.

I think you just described a sophisticated media storage device with the rotating magnets, a quantum dvd....lmao. just kidding. Its hard to communicate properly at this level due to most models being abstract expressions of what an individual sees in their own mind. Establishing a base communication of terminology helps, which is what some of us around here spend most of our time trying to accomplish, which isn't always easy. From a quick read, even with such a theoretical description, you'd still have to answer the eventually asked question of what the magnets are and what function magnetism has within a paradigm and why is there perhaps an infitite expanse of such and if finite, how did it get into the correct dimensions to account for what we see before us. What syncs their motions to display information, etc. I know I'm not addressing the perceptions part of your theorizing, because I'm not sure how you are implying it.

Even though Relativity seemingly denies absolute simultaneity by its application of c mechanics, some of us here would argue that this is a subjective view due to the physical operation of the clock itself, which isn't a device suited to measure absolute time as absolute time is a property of fundamental matter in absolute c as Lloyd pointed out. The clock is subject to Lorentz transformations which effect its frequency due to its mechanics, whereby Relativity corrects this phenomenon, but doesn't rule out that there is indeed an objective absolute resolution whereby c absolutely synchronizes time and spatial dimensions throughout the whole, which should leave out any need of varying perceptions. If you are interested in such mechanics then there are many threads which address them here, but if you want to follow your current path of logic, then that's understandable.

Here's an article written by Felix, one of our members here, attempting to give his mechanism for time, motion, and matter by acknowledging a type of mechanized spatial Aether. Off hand it reminds me of some of what you're saying, but I'm extremely tired right now and could be misinterpreting. You might be interested if following such paths, but I view things differently.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theory-articles/3578-the-dance-shiva.html

Sorry Lloyd if I'm cluttering the place up. Get Greg to sweep it out anytime if ya want. I won't be offended at all...lol.

later,

Tim