Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 19 Jun 2010 16:57 On Jun 19, 11:58 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 12:04 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 10:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > wrote: > > > > An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research > > > concerning the nature of the "arrow of time" > > > Consider these Arrows > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows > > Sam Time has 5 arrows TreBert The arrow of time is meant to be understood as going ahead. Mitch Raemsch
From: bert on 19 Jun 2010 18:36 On Jun 19, 4:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 11:58 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 12:04 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 10:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research > > > > concerning the nature of the "arrow of time" > > > > Consider these Arrows > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows > > > Sam Time has 5 arrows TreBert > > The arrow of time is meant to be understood as going ahead. > > Mitch Raemsch Interesting how Einstein merged time with space (Spacetime) He thought space was more important than time. My concave and convex theory I use to show "universe's inflationary cosmology Time is a dimention. Time is controlled by #1 gravity 2# acceleration(Motion) We also have time dilation,and the tricky one is time warping space. Oooops my thinking is blurry and maybe Einstein thought time was more important than space(Have a gut feeling he did) Reason is an object's motion is through time and not space Hmmm TreBert
From: BURT on 19 Jun 2010 19:03 On Jun 19, 3:36 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 4:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 11:58 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 12:04 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 10:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research > > > > > concerning the nature of the "arrow of time" > > > > > Consider these Arrows > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows > > > > Sam Time has 5 arrows TreBert > > > The arrow of time is meant to be understood as going ahead. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Interesting how Einstein merged time with space (Spacetime) He > thought space was more important than time. My concave and convex > theory I use to show "universe's inflationary cosmology Time is a > dimention. Time is controlled by #1 gravity 2# acceleration(Motion) We > also have time dilation,and the tricky one is time warping space. > Oooops my thinking is blurry and maybe Einstein thought time was more > important than space(Have a gut feeling he did) Reason is an object's > motion is through time and not space Hmmm TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Things do flow ahead in space. And that is always. I think time comes first. I believe it contains the design of the universe at every point in space. MItch Raemsch
From: David Makin on 19 Jun 2010 20:12 I confess such "Arrows of time" is not something I've considered much - but I see no reason why we should take it for granted that the current "present" cannot have multiple (in fact infinite) pasts - I'm *not* saying that we can therefore time travel, that's an entirely separate issue. Even in "real world" physics a given state can usually be reached by more than one possible path - this does not invalidate the second law.
From: BURT on 19 Jun 2010 20:58
On Jun 19, 5:12 pm, David Makin <dave_ma...(a)lineone.net> wrote: > I confess such "Arrows of time" is not something I've considered much > - but I see no reason why we should take it for granted that the > current "present" cannot have multiple (in fact infinite) pasts - I'm > *not* saying that we can therefore time travel, that's an entirely > separate issue. > Even in "real world" physics a given state can usually be reached by > more than one possible path - this does not invalidate the second law. It's not like space. It has no up or down. Mitch Raemsch |