TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I still dissagree. Of course the colors could be the same when you seperate them. But when you mix colors together and those frequencies compile on your retina, you get mixed information.

Color only exists in your mind, which is why what you see is always the truth. It may be a mixture of frequencies that developes a harmonic of color..

The same idea is to watch a car drive away in a very colorful enviroment, the further it gets the less you know about its exact color, your get mixed data.

This is precisely right. It is the same in tv's. Each 'pixel' is actually 3 pixels. That is to say that on a standard tv there are three different colored pixels that each get excited by a different electron and together they form a pixel. Thus your eye is trained into seeing one color by compiling various colors together.
This is even more obvious when you think of a DLP television which uses three colors for every pixel (color wheel or LED based).

I have disected the original picture, since I was sure that I could find and at least demonstrate the difference between the two centerpieces. In doing so, I ended up with a similar picture to what you had above.

As soon as I can figure out uploading pictures on this site, I will do so. It is unfortuneate that we have discussed this so long. The point I was trying to make is that the only way to truly prove what color the centerpiece is is by comparing the two colors analytically with a professional piece of equipment (in this case I suggested Adobe CS or other type of professional digital editing software.) I will also do this later today, as I have a couple of people here at work with the software.

I'll update this post when I get the data and figure out how to upload the picture.

edit: Umm apparently I need to request gallery space. Who should i talk to?

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I loved it. Thanks. And thanks for the insight to the friendship between Einstein and Godel. Did not know that. I wonder if anyone ever took a picture of the two walking together. I'd like a copy to frame and hang on my wall. I'd name it, 'two doubters doubting'.
I especially liked the way you related an optical illusion to the way we see time. I am interested in that because I fear that we have other concepts that are of that category that don't really refer to anything that exists. Blindspots that we've created because of the way we regard these mental inventions.
Beautiful work. And that goes for the folks that are helping you put it together too. Exciting possibilities. Now this is forward motion.

Wow, thanks Steve. You have made my day.



Edit:

I read about Einstein and Godel in this book. It's maybe historical rather than scientific, and I don't know if it's the best source available.

A World Without Time - Palle Yourgrau - Penguin UK

There's also this earlier book which I understand is somewhat philosophical, but don't trust me on that.

Amazon.com: Godel Meets Einstein : Time Travel in...
Amazon.com: Godel Meets Einstein : Time Travel in...

There's plenty of pictures of Einstein and Godel kicking around. Just search Google. I don't know about buying big images though.

einstein godel - Google Image Search

[arkain101]

As soon as I can figure out uploading pictures on this site, I will do so. edit: Umm apparently I need to request gallery space. Who should i talk to?

Hit reply, so you have the 'advanced' reply window. Look for the paper clip. It is 'add attatchments tool'. There you can upload files directly to your priviledged member webspace. Once it is uploaded, simply reply/submit on as usual on your text reply window and the file should attatch to that particular post.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Popular, thank you. I have arrived at the same conclusion via a different avenue. I don't see a lot of discussion about place holder concepts or concepts that we create to cover entities necessary for mental activity. The issue of time is the crossover between being a rock and being a living thing.
Without being able to retain 'past moments' or previous 'nows', we'd not be conscious. Since we can see them and infer them we assume that 'time' is there holding them together like beads on a string. But there is no string outside our minds. Just more beads popping into our minds along with our internal metronome.
How many other entities do we have like that? Perhaps some day we should have a thread to see where that discussion goes.

[Farsight]

Steve: I think there's a fair few common concepts that people just don't understand and never really think about. I'm having fun thinking about them!

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I have noticed for the past few days that an unusual number of guests are here viewing this thread. I was hoping that you could tell us how you were directed to this thread. Please either send me an email, or register and join the conversation.

Thanks!

Bill email = webenton68@msn.com

Two possibilities Bill:
1) Some self-promotion of work with no peer review.
2) Yet another attempt at crashing the site.

I suggest deleting the thread, but that's just me.

[InfiniteNow]

Hmmmm.... 17 guests viewing this thread right now...

[arkain101]

Direction of time flow.

Consider this,

If we consider the flow of time, forward, when light data that comes at us (an observer).

Then the flow of time in reverse is light that leaves from you.

Consider every particle a meaningless entity in relation to time. Yes, like your animation of particles flutting about.

And consider time+ as energy changing the state of the particle and time- as the particle losing energy from giving up that change of state.

In this, time and space obviously are not consistent, but completely relavent to a given set (a pair) of mass-energy interactions.

In this way, time flows both forward and reverse, and the mass is the medium on which time springs into existence. yet, only for a sliver of a change of state.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Two possibilities Bill:
1) Some self-promotion of work with no peer review.
2) Yet another attempt at crashing the site.

I suggest deleting the thread, but that's just me.

I haven't been doing much self promotion. I've sent the essay to Scientific American and New Scientist weeks back. I didn't seriously expect them to publish, but I wanted to say "if you're going to run any features on Time Travel be a little sceptical and have a look at this first". They both said no, but were nice about it. The only other people I've sent it to are Palle Yourgrau and Lee Smolin back in November I think. And ummm, don't laugh: but I also sent it to the Nobel Organization asking for an email receipt so I had a datestamp, which I got along with short shrift. Maybe somebody somewhere in some organisation or school has seen it and is passing the word.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Two possibilities Bill:
1) Some self-promotion of work with no peer review.
2) Yet another attempt at crashing the site.

I suggest deleting the thread, but that's just me.

Interesting. Assuming you're serious, why?

Popular isn't the first person to suggest that time doesn't exist.
Some people think that 'Peer review' is used to stop the advance of science, not enable it (the author, Michael Crichton is one of them).

Being a mathematician Turtle, I would have thought that this subject would interest you.