My Time Paradox

[Masa Hiryuu]

a perfect language like you describe though Guille would still be subjective like math. but it would be a significant step in a better understanding of TOE and could aleviate much confusion

[Guille]

a perfect language like you describe though Guille would still be subjective like math. but it would be a significant step in a better understanding of TOE and could aleviate much confusion

I know it would be subjective. It woul djust be completely logical, that's it's own spetial property.

But lets sick to the time paradox as the theme of the thread.

[Guille]

This is a more precise way of expresing the paradox:

(NOTE: logic order used; statements of numbers are conclusions taken from the letter statements, these last ones are conclusions from the roman numerals statements, and these are conclusions of the greek alphabet statements).

1.Time is paradoxical.
a)Time is a property of spatial objects.
i)Spatial objects have space.
ii)Spatial objects have time.
iii)Spatial objects are elements (componenets) of spatial dimensions.
iv)The properties of a set are the properties of the elements of the set.
b)Time has/must have time.
i)Time is a dimension.
Alpha)Time must have properties of dimensions.
ii)Time is a property of dimensions (a).

[Guille]

In logical language, it can be written:

Edim={o : €o/\o¬€o (o€T)}

-->T=dim

.'. T={o : €o/\o¬€o (o€T)}={o:T}

.'. T={T}

i.e. T€T

key:
Edim=espatial dimensions
T=time
o=objects (espatial objects)
note: I know it isn't easy to follow, but it is based on the notation stated in www.physicsforums.com

[Epslion]

This was originally posted under "The cause of Gravity", but it applies well here.
Time is elusive and mysterious. It has eluded the grasp of mankind’s understanding since the beginning of time, and therein lies the problem; we cannot even begin to fathom the depths of time if we are forced to describe it with itself. To overcome this, what seems to appear as an inconceivable problem, took a true genius, Albert Einstein. He allowed us to peer at space and time from a brand new perspective—a perspective unlike anything else before him. In his theories of Special and General Relativity, he describes space and time as dynamic structures which interact with matter constantly; although his theories mainly dealt with space they also partially described time as dynamic and changing. Take for example the Gamma factor, mathematically written as [g=1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))] where "g" is equal to dilation in time, "v" is equal to the objects speed, and "c" is equal to the speed of light. One of the implications of this equation is that an object’s speed with respect to the speed of light directly affects the speed or "movement" of time—besides this fact it also establishes that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, but it does not describe what time is.
What is time? I have pondered this very question for about three years--and I now believe that I have reached a critical stepping-stone. I hypothesize that like light; time may too travel in waves. This, I shall call the “Ripple Theory.” There are a few implicationsof this theory I would like to cover. The first being the "Cosmic speed limit", Relativity sets the limit at "c" (speed of light), but I postulate if one were able to observe the behavior of light from a superior point of view one might find that light itself is regulated by a "speed limit", that limit being the speed of time, imagine if you somehow could see time, you would observe ripples/waves. Like a child casting stones in a pond and thus creating ripples in the water. The question now arises from where do these waves emanate? There is no singular source of these waves; rather the universe itself emits these waves on all fundamental particles—each particle subject to its own time wave. An interesting consequence that will result from this, is that all particles move at the same spatial speed, acceleration occurring when an object uses energy/force to change the frequency of its own time wave thus covering a determined amount of space in more or less time.

Light is a rather interesting object to observe because it can be described in two completely different ways. The first is particle-like; more specifically it has momentum. A simple experiment can show this; if you were to shine a beam of light (red light preferably, because of its lower frequency) at a smooth metal surface, you can knock electrons off the plate. The photons collide with the electrons. This would be the end of it if it were not for the second experiment, first performed by Sir Isaac Newton. What he did during his experiment was to shine a light at an opaque sheet with two holes and a second sheet behind it to collect the light. What he anticipated was to observe two distinct light dots appear on the second sheet, but what he got instead, was lines of dark and light areas across the entire sheet. This shows that light is also wave like! Because of the frequency of the two proceeding light waves canceling out certain parts of each other at the same time amplifying other parts to produce a new series of crest and troughs. So what is it, a particle or a wave? This very dilemma lies at the heart of Quantum mechanics.

Ripple Theory offers a different look at light’s behavior. Before I address how it affects the two different definitions of light. I will first describe light’s movement in terms of the Ripple Theory. Light does move at the maximum speed possible, but it does not set this limit, instead time sets this limit. The rate at which time vibrates (frequency) is the speed of time, and this is different for all independent particles (I say independent, because once two objects connect, their time waves synchronize). The reason light is able to propagate at the maximum speed limit, is its time wave is spread to an infinitely thin sheet, thus allowing light to cover any distance in relatively no time. The reasoning for this is lights time wave has no crests or troughs so it cannot ever experience one revolution/moment in time. Now to address why light appears to be both particle-like and wave-like. In terms of Ripple Theory light is particle like, it only appears to be a wave because we are moving in a wave of time and light is moving straight through time. It is kind of like looking in a mirror, we observe our time wave through looking at the observed wave of light. The reason common-day objects appear non-wave like is because the observer and the object have relatively close time wave patterns (because they are moving at relatively close speeds) so they do not observe any distinction. A good way to visualize this is to think of two people falling. If both people fall at equal speeds, neither can observe any net speed between them. In essence one person’s speed cancels out the other person’s speed.

[Guille]

What I am doing now with my paradox is trying to prove that toe time set is actually russell's set, and thus, I would definatelly prove that time is paradoxical no matter what: time has time iff time doesn't have time is a true complete paradox. But it's a hard long work.

[dleviwing]

GTP is not a logical premise Guille.
Why are you attempting to redefine time to something else? Einstein already did that to create the mathematical geometry of the "Spacetime Continuum"
Post 14 simply means the value of time always equals 0.0 thus always the present. How do you interpret it?

[Guille]

GTP is not a logical premise Guille.
Why are you attempting to redefine time to something else? Einstein already did that to create the mathematical geometry of the "Spacetime Continuum"
Post 14 simply means the value of time always equals 0.0 thus always the present. How do you interpret it?

I didn't know how to interpret it.


Time is whatever but "near" to be accepted as a dimension by human beings and human minds/brains. It is impossible for now, to understand time as a dimension. We have always converted time into an abstract concept. There IS a main prupose of all my posts related to time on this forums, and I will stated in the futur,e when more people understand my GTP and thougts. That statement will explain the meaning of me trying to proof time as a paradoxical subject.

[Guille]

I have been dedicating a lot of time to this, exactly now, it's 40:00 hours that I have been awake only because of "time". I have solved this paradox, but time will only be solved by my ultimate master statement in the future.

Well, if you people in this forums have been brain sucked or something I don't know, but I'm sure that a member called quanta07 who talked mostly about time, isn't a creation of my mind. He stated that time is the set of all the time points.

Ok, if time is the set of time then time is the set of all time points because the time that time was set of was the set of all time points. Thus, time being the set of time (i.e. having time) isn't paradoxical, because it is like saying that time is the set of all the points in time.

logical langauge:
T={T}
-->{T}={Tp}
.'. T={Tp}

[AntonioLao]

If everything in the universe is radioactive then the decay equation is given by

[math]\frac{N}{N_0}=e^{-\beta t}[/math]

where [math]N[/math] is the number of atoms remaining at time=t and [math]N_0[/math] is the number of atoms at time=0 and [math]\beta[/math] is a constant depending on the substance.

this exponential decay can be transformed to give an equation for time as

[math] t=\frac{1}{\beta}(ln N_0 - ln N) [/math]

if the [math]\beta[/math] can be applied also to living organisms then all our betas should give all of us an average life span of about 100 years give or take a few years.

For human beings, [math]N_0[/math] would be the initial number of brain cells (neurons) at birth.