TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[cwes99_03]

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.

A rock can retain past moments. Say a rock is struck with a sledge hammer. Before it was struck it looked one way and after it looked another. The brain is very similar. Before it records a memory it looks (chemically, physically, etc.) one way and after it looks another.

I don't understand the need to explain time. Time exists, matter exists, energy exists, what needs explaining about their existence? Time exists as a set of all 3-d (or is it 10-d) space strung together to form a flow. Time is simply defined by change.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

..I don't understand the need to explain time. Time exists, matter exists, energy exists, what needs explaining about their existence? Time exists as a set of all 3-d (or is it 10-d) space strung together to form a flow. Time is simply defined by change.

It's why we do physics cewes. We want to understand everything. Time energy, mass, charge, gravity, everything.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

qwes:

A rock can retain past moments. Say a rock is struck with a sledge hammer. Before it was struck it looked one way and after it looked another. The brain is very similar. Before it records a memory it looks (chemically, physically, etc.) one way and after it looks another.

After being struck by a hammer, the rock is different. There is an implication of what it 'might' have looked like before (to a conscious mind observing it) but it has no 'recollection'. This is precisely the point with time. We attribute change to time as though 'it' were the cause of change. In exactly the same way, religion establishes the universe by saying God created it.

[Dov Henis]

Popular,

Just to point out interesting similarity of conceps:

You write in yr post

TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

" So frequency is a number of events per second. And a second is a number of some other events. The interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. For time is a measure of events, of change, measured by and against some other change. And for things to change, something, somewhere, somehow, has to have motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time."

I write in my post]

The Universe Beginning, End And In-Between

"Time is a vital factor for living entities. In cosmic matters time just happens to be the other side of the cosmic coin distance, a factor proportional to distance, or to other continuously changing parameter(s); in cosmic matters time does not warrant a dimensional term separate from them."

Reflecting,

Dov

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by Popular

It's why we do physics cewes. We want to understand everything. Time energy, mass, charge, gravity, everything.

Ok, then why don't you focus on learning about the things you don't understand about time. What in particular don't you understand?

[InfiniteNow]

A very cursory search of Hypography alone for discussion on the concept of time should quickly show you just how resistant to easy description time is.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

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.

Sorry Steve; I missed this earlier. It seems worth my time to clarify. Bill posted concerning how many views this thread has garnered and continues to garner as I type, and I proposed that it is either the author playing hijinks to promote his ideas, or someone trying to crash this site by (I think this is the right term) a denial of service ploy.

As to Popular's ideas on time - or anyone posting here claiming some new insight - I find it highly improbable that any true new insight into the nature of time is going to show up on this or any other forum. While peer review may slow things down, it is indeed the very essence of the scientific method. Like it or not, even true insights may take decades, or hundreds, or thousands of years to receive recognition. I don't know this Crichton guy, but from your brief reference he sounds like a whiner to me. As you presumed however, I do find it all interesting.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

A very cursory search of Hypography alone for discussion on the concept of time should quickly show you just how resistant to easy description time is.

I don't deny that there are questions. I'm just wondering what questions this particular person has, and why he feels a need to abandon all previous description of time, for some new theory he wants to propose.

Einstein didn't abandon Newton's description of the universe when he started, nor when he finished. He sought out ways to adjust or add to it. Thus if the originator of this thread would go about it in the same way (that is to seek knowledge and answers, rather than create them) he might have a better chance at truly making a breakthrough. Perhaps his questions have already been answered elsewhere.

EDIT: Hmmm 20 guests viewing this thread. Only 1 viewing the previous thread I was on. Doesn't seem like a glitch.

[cwes99_03]

Ok, here are my results from the "optical illusion" used in the opening post and discussed throughout the thread by me.

I took 6 random samplings from the magnified center pieces of each of the crosses and then averaged them together.

The averages for the cross on the left were R=101, G=97.8, and B=96.3. The right centerpiece was R=117, G=112, and B=110. Now it is fairly obvious to me that these two colors are different. However, this method took and changed the original picture (i took the original picture and enlarged it before taking my measurements.) Since there is such an obvious difference, I will make one more go of it using just the original picture taken from the first post of this thread. The sampling using the original picture will be more random because there won't be as much room for me to move the cursor around and sample different parts of the centerpiece (shading and whatnot won't be as noticeable).

Edit: Wow 37 guests.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

The averages for the cross on the left were R=101, G=97.8, and B=96.3. The right centerpiece was R=117, G=112, and B=110. Now it is fairly obvious to me that these two colors are different. However, this method took and changed the original picture (i took the original picture and enlarged it before taking my measurements.) Since there is such an obvious difference, I will make one more go of it using just the original picture taken from the first post of this thread.

Keeping in mind that what you actually see when viewing an image is the bitmap to which it renders, I’d suggest working from a Ctrl+PrintScreen capture of that bitmap, not a magnification of the original file. However, I suspect you’ll get results similar to your initial average of 6 sample pixels.

These results indicate that the colors given by both averages are both gray, one the left slightly darker, the right slightly lighter (for easy comparison, I’ve attached squares of the 2 colors beside each other, along with a square of 128-128-128 standard dark gray). Because the source image uses light and dark shading to suggest a cylindrical shape, I suspect the light-dark difference is due to sampling slightly different points on the suggested shape’s perimeter, and will vanish or even reverse if you select different random samples.

Since my perception of the image in post #1 is that the left image’s cross piece looks gray, while the right’s yellow, cwes has demonstrated to my further satisfaction that my perception has been fooled, and that both are actually gray.