Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jul 2010 18:54 On 6/30/10 10:58 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Nature has no lower bound, nor any upper bound. > > Nature is an infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of self-similar > systems. > > Any respectable natural philosopher can see that. You missed part of the sentence--Any respectable natural philosopher can see that that infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of self-similar systems is contradicted by observation.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:10 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 30, 8:53 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Pity your understanding is poor, and the quality of >> your ideas inferior. > ----------------------------------------------- > > But if you steadfastly aviod my website, how would you know? > > 'When the next great awakening arrives in this world, you will know it > by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederacy against > it.' (apol. to R. Feynman and J. Swift) So, there's no reaction that'll convince you that you are wrong. If people agree with you, you are right. If people disagree with you, you are right. If people ignore you, you are right. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Yousuf Khan on 2 Jul 2010 07:41 On 6/30/2010 1:37 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Oh, fer shur man! Like....WOWWW! > > Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the > sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about > multiverses, extra-dimensions, and the Big Bang preventing our eggs > from unscrambling. I grant that his hand-waving arguments are > creative, but they are also completely nuts. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Alright, I'll bite, and give you the time of day to explain yourself. What exactly are you saying that is any different than what we call "causal time"? Yousuf Khan
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 2 Jul 2010 12:58 On Jul 2, 7:41 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > Alright, I'll bite, and give you the time of day to explain yourself. > What exactly are you saying that is any different than what we call > "causal time"? ---------------------------------------- Sean M. Carroll's argument, and that of many other physicists, is that: (1) the "laws of physics in the microcosm are reversible" (2) time has an arrow, it only goes one way. (3) It's all the fault of the Big Bang, multiverses, Boltzmann Brains, extra dimensions, etc. -------------------------------------------- RLO's argument is that: (a) the "laws" [read artifical human models] are reversible, but nature's physical systems and their interactions are NOT. Real physical systems and interactions are irreversible. Always. (b) Causality is the first and most fundamental principle of nature. (c) It is causality that determines the arrow, not time. Time is a purely relational concept we use to order causal sequences, and to measure the relative rates at which two causal sequences occur. A bit subtle, I admit. But a thousand times better than Carroll's untestable postmodern pseudoscience. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: JT on 2 Jul 2010 15:08
On 19 Juni, 18:04, 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 Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up. Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form. So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none of those is however proved. But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and spatial. JT |