Time interests
I was thinking. . .
When we look at the theory of Relativity in comparison with classical physics in the relation of time to motion, gravity, space and so forth, we see the dissolution of the exact and eternal time arrow. Rather (possibly because it make equations look better) we now conceive of a "space-time" in four dimensions - not analogously to the three spatial dimensions, but even more closely tied. In fact, with a view toward different motions, one man's present is another man's past or future. There is no absolute time outside of motion. I, for one, was relieved, finding the study of Newton distasteful on a multitude of levels. But why does the Physicist make such a strange deal out of time? I quote:
In their search for this mysterious time-flux many scientists have become deeply confused. All physicists recognize that there is a past-future asymmetry in the universe, produced by the operation of the second law of thermodynamics. But when the basis of that law is carefully examined, the asymmetry seems to vanish.
I don't think it is very fruitful to examine this in any great detail, but Davies goes on to say that the asymmetry of time vanishes when you look at the particles that make up the universe. Each "thing" bouncing against others is perfectly reversible. And the whole of the (material) universe is just things bouncing against things. So it could just as soon go "forwards" as "backwards" - whatever forwards and backwards would then mean. But all the arguments for time dilation (muon decay rates at near light speed, relativity, et cetera) depend on motion. Why not simplify everything and define time as "the number of motion" (I think I seem to remember reading that somewhere) - which would have the happy side effect of having every distinct motion having a distinct time. Also, it would account for the asymmetry in the sense that motion is based on causality, which does not have perfect symmetry (as indicated by the second law of thermodynamics). Concordant with relativity, in agreement with muon decay rates, supported by entropy, and - here's the kicker -
SUPPORTED BY EXPERIENCE
No. There can be nothing in modern science that is supported by experience. I forgot, the whole purpose is to try and destroy common perception, so that the physicist can appear as the new priestly class, with revelations from on high, esoteric doctrines that clash with reasonableness for the sake of appearing as cognoscendi. Obfuscation breeds respect from the masses. Clarity brings contempt.
One associated digression: to be profound, just be confusing.
When we look at the theory of Relativity in comparison with classical physics in the relation of time to motion, gravity, space and so forth, we see the dissolution of the exact and eternal time arrow. Rather (possibly because it make equations look better) we now conceive of a "space-time" in four dimensions - not analogously to the three spatial dimensions, but even more closely tied. In fact, with a view toward different motions, one man's present is another man's past or future. There is no absolute time outside of motion. I, for one, was relieved, finding the study of Newton distasteful on a multitude of levels. But why does the Physicist make such a strange deal out of time? I quote:
In their search for this mysterious time-flux many scientists have become deeply confused. All physicists recognize that there is a past-future asymmetry in the universe, produced by the operation of the second law of thermodynamics. But when the basis of that law is carefully examined, the asymmetry seems to vanish.
I don't think it is very fruitful to examine this in any great detail, but Davies goes on to say that the asymmetry of time vanishes when you look at the particles that make up the universe. Each "thing" bouncing against others is perfectly reversible. And the whole of the (material) universe is just things bouncing against things. So it could just as soon go "forwards" as "backwards" - whatever forwards and backwards would then mean. But all the arguments for time dilation (muon decay rates at near light speed, relativity, et cetera) depend on motion. Why not simplify everything and define time as "the number of motion" (I think I seem to remember reading that somewhere) - which would have the happy side effect of having every distinct motion having a distinct time. Also, it would account for the asymmetry in the sense that motion is based on causality, which does not have perfect symmetry (as indicated by the second law of thermodynamics). Concordant with relativity, in agreement with muon decay rates, supported by entropy, and - here's the kicker -
SUPPORTED BY EXPERIENCE
No. There can be nothing in modern science that is supported by experience. I forgot, the whole purpose is to try and destroy common perception, so that the physicist can appear as the new priestly class, with revelations from on high, esoteric doctrines that clash with reasonableness for the sake of appearing as cognoscendi. Obfuscation breeds respect from the masses. Clarity brings contempt.
One associated digression: to be profound, just be confusing.
beitia- let me know if you are interested in a full time job opportunity in your area with salary. danny, 310-808-7628.
Argued by
Anonymous |
3:18 PM