Posted on 06/13/2006 7:25:15 AM PDT by Politically Correct
I see.. you havn't thought about this subject very deeply..
There are other subjects; but what is "thought?" takes some sneaking up on..
"It's not too hard; compute the volume of a 30,000 ft spherical shell of radius 4000 miles; compute the energy needed to vaporise that amount; divide by the amout of energy coming from the sun."
Oh, but we forgot the ZAP constant that God applied. I saw it once on Bewitched, and then again when watching Jeanie. See what God does is defy all laws of Physics, Conservation of Energy, etc. and just does a blink boing oing oing, and it is done. Helps to get past all the pesky math problems.
And then I thought, if some force had that power, then perhaps not one second has passed, ever. Right now, everything we perceive could have been placed there just an instant ago, but it would appear to mimic the physical location of all atoms at some other period of "time", or, any given physical/time configuration, if you will.
So I concluded that time itself is powerless and completely subservient to motion, or as I understand your above comment, there is no time without geometry (or in my parlance, no time without motion (and motion, of course, requires space and geometry)).
The frog only sees what occurs on his worldline “in” space/time – his motion, if you will.
To him, causality gives the sense of time passing. Aristotle mused that the act of counting is the essence of time. Later scientists would mention entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. In either case, the phenomenon of cause/effect gives a sense of time passing.
That is probably why the frog only sees time as a line - absolute and abstract – and physical reality as three spatial dimensions (x, y and z) evolving over that absolute timeline (t).
The frog must obey the speed limit of the universe, i.e. the speed of light. If he were moving at the speed of light, for the frog, no time would elapse (null path).
Even though the frog view is reduced to his own worldline, he nevertheless is aware of time dilation and thus understands that while 25.3 years elapse in his spacecraft traveling at the constant acceleration of one earth’s gravity, 5x1010 years would elapse on earth: Spacetime Wheel
The frog’s clock is stuck on absolute time which is always a line and never a plane.
In sum, the frog is a corporeal spatiotemporal creature on a worldline in three spatial dimensions evolving over time. His entire existence is self referential. He cannot go backward or forward on his own worldline or in his own lightcone – much less anyone else’s.
The frog would say that space/time is created by the energy/matter to which he is so keenly attuned. He is all about energy/matter and thinks in terms of particles more so than waves. For many frogs, if he can’t see it with a microscope or telescope, it doesn’t exist.
So ends the frog.
Enter the bird.
The equivalence principle supports the bird view. The principle derives from the Newtonian notion that all objects fall with the same acceleration and thus how fast object accelerates (inertial mass) and gravitational mass are the same.
Thus falling toward gravity indentations of space/time (general relativity) and velocity are equivalent.
The reverse is also true for the acceleration of the universe (space/time) itself. Further, a bird might observe that that dark energy is negative gravity - or space/time “outdents” – which cause the universe’s expansion to accelerate.
As an example, let’s say a galaxy is so far away that the light from it that we see today left the galaxy when the universe was a small fraction of its present age (and size) and has been traveling for 12 billion years. If the galaxy were only 1 billion light years away at the time the light was sent out, why would it take 12 billion years to travel 1 billion light years distance?
The answer is the expansion of space/time. Thus whereas the light from the far galaxy is traveling at a constant speed, it nevertheless takes longer to get here. The reverse would be true in a contraction of space/time.
Space/time is a continuum. Time is geometric.
So whereas the frog cannot help you, starbase, the bird can – providing of course that the bird can bend spacetime into the shape of a bagel (or worse) by pulling your bundle of space/time coordinates to the destination space/time coordinates of your choice.
But here’s the catch: the bird would say that energy/matter is created by the space/time changing or expanding.
Each of your moving constituent particles is a twisted line with a beginning and an end.
(Remember that the bird sees the movie all at once whereas the frog only sees it one frame at a time.)
You therefore are a bundle of twisted lines “in” four dimensional space/time which correspond to the information (mathematical structure) that is “you”.
So when the bird bends space/time to move your bundle else where and else when - all of the lines must move for you to remain “you” (actually the information of you).
The only way for you to be a “moment” in space/time would be to reduce yourself to a single point – no lines.
The bird would prefer this anyway, because he doesn’t see just four dimensions – three of space and one of time. Thus when he is “flying” in a higher dimension, especially a time-like dimension – your “lines” are broken – an arm here, a leg there (LOL!) – only much more fragmented at level of particle/wave.
And as a single point it is easier for the bird to bend space/time and move you to some other time and place. But, alas, you would correlate to no meaningful information, the “you” would be gone.
But keep the hope, because in Tegmark’s Level IV parallel universe model (the only closed model known to me) - the information which is you (or mathematical structures in his model) exists “beyond” space/time. So even as a bundle of lines, there exists a blueprint or form for you.
For Lurkers: I often speak of “weighing anchor” in mortal death – that means a relocation of our awareness from the space/time continuum to “beyond” it. That awareness is a gift of the indwelling Spirit when we believe in Christ. It is particularly thrilling that we have the beyond awareness even while yet “in” the flesh – just a bit foggy, like seeing through a glass, darkly.
Getting my popcorn again...
Thank you for the encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
"what statement would you like me to explain?"
Explain why the following statement is important to you:
"You remember Aristotle, said to be the Father of science and the first great systematizer of logic."
You wanted to know why this statement is important to me.
Actually beavus, I tend to be a Platonist myself. :^)
However the statement is important to me, from a history of philosophy point of view. Back in his time, science was called "natural philosophy," a usage that actually persisted until the 19th century. Plus I very much admire the work Aristotle did on causation; plus he is generally regarded as the first great systematizer of logic; this is not my "opinion."
"However the statement is important to me, from a history of philosophy point of view. Back in his time, science was called "natural philosophy," a usage that actually persisted until the 19th century. Plus I very much admire the work Aristotle did on causation;"
So far so good, then...
"plus he is generally regarded as the first great systematizer of logic"
Why should you care how he is regarded? Is it understanding you seek, or idols?
Forgive me, but what an idiotic thing to say, beavus! We stand on the shoulders of giants. Aristotle is such a giant. Western civilization wouldn't be what it is without him.
And yet as Einstein insisted, the physical laws are the same for all observers, regardless of their position or velocity. The universe is unified by law, irrespective of the views of observers: That is what makes it "one." (from the Latin uni -- "one" + verso -- "turn.")
I've read that Einstein wasn't really happy that his theory was named "relativity." He was afraid people would mistake that word for "relativism," which would totally undermine this above central insight. He would have preferred to call it the "theory of invariance," IIRC. But it didn't turn out that way.
Well, so much for interesting trivia! Thank you, starbase and Alamo-Girl, for your delightful exchange of ideas!
"Forgive me, but what an idiotic thing to say, beavus! We stand on the shoulders of giants. Aristotle is such a giant. Western civilization wouldn't be what it is without him."
Rather than judging ideas on the man, you might consider judging the ideas on their own. In doing so, you would be more like your idol.
At any rate, when you argue with people not given to fallacious appeals, you can save your breath and hold your glorifying attributions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.