The Many Directions of Time

http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer/ ^ | 1 February 2006 | Alexander Franklin Mayer

[RightWhale]

I might buy the book, too, but only if the author gets interviewed on the Art Bell Show.

[inquest]

Even in the Bible, to get an idea of how these things were thought of, time was not linear but cyclical

According to the Bible, time had a definite beginning, and will have a definite ending. As for more secular, down-to-earth thinking, it's true that some ancient historians had a cyclical theory of history, but that doesn't mean they thought the exact same events would be happening over and over again.

Besides, even a "cyclical" view of time is markedly different from the view that everything happens all at once.

[RightWhale]

How small of a time loop do we need before we can treat time as an instant in a Newtonian way?

[Gordongekko909]

Distance is necessary in physics. Velocity is necessary in physics. But velocity = d/t. How do you account for that little "t" variable there?

[inquest]

Boyle also lived during the 17th century, before any good understanding of what energy was had developed. Heat is just a form of energy. And the fact that heat or energy had no impact on Boyle's Law doesn't mean that it didn't exist in gases. Boyle wasn't even claiming (so far as I know) to be describing everything about a gas that there is. He was just describing an interrelationship between certain qualities of the gas.

[RightWhale]

No, they are not. There are other, more powerful approaches to the problem.

[Gordongekko909]

Such as? Note: I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. I'm just trying to figure out which way is up. In a relative sense, of course.

[RightWhale]

Same for Newton. Energy is new, and powerful, and has nothing to do with time or space.

[inquest]

How small of a time loop do we need before we can treat time as an instant in a Newtonian way?

In a purely scientific sense, it would have to be infinitesimal. As long as there's some definite, measurable size to the loop, then we can draw a tangent along that loop and treat time as linear in the immediate region surrounding the tangent.

In our own experience, if a time loop exists at all, it would have to be eons in size.

[RightWhale]

Relativity also has to move on. Time and space are not part of it. Some dimensions, yes, but they don't have to be those.

[inquest]

Energy is new, and powerful, and has nothing to do with time or space.

Apart from the fact that it's scientifically defined using (in addition to mass measurments) measurements of time and distance. Do you know of any scientific definitions of energy that don't involve them?

[RightWhale]

That's where relativity meets quantum theory. Neither one explains everything. They are both incomplete, not necessarily dead wrong.

[RightWhale]

The only definition is that it is conserved, and that is a law. Whatever it is. Energy has a thousand different looks. Kinetic energy is far from the whole story.

[PatrickHenry]

"Yet Another Lone Genius Solves Everything" Ping List Don't ask to be added to or dropped from this list; I know what you like.

[PatrickHenry]

Alexander Franklin Mayer is listed as an "Affiliate" of the Stanford Physics department: yeah, I got a source.

[boojumsnark]

Time is just one darn thing after another.

See my tagline

[Coleus]

.

[RightWhale]

I think it might not be that simple.

[taxed2death]

"Time isn't a perception. It really exists."

Time is indeed a perception of our own consciousness. Everything everywhere is happening all at once. It is our limited view that manifests itself as our being conscious that "allows" time to be perceived.

[taxed2death]

"So does this open a door to faster-than-light travel?"

There are numerous scientific tests that have been conducted that prove that thought is instantaneous and thus "faster than light".