Prev: Solar wind and planetary drift
Next: There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
From: BURT on 3 Mar 2010 22:30
On Mar 3, 7:06 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 9:05 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mitch time and reality.
>
> > > --
> > > Paul Hovnanian     mailto:P...(a)Hovnanian.com
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
>
> > I embrace reality. Do you?
>
> Reality's struggling to break free before it becomes as unreal as your
> drivel.

Two times is the smartest concept.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 4 Mar 2010 06:27
On Mar 3, 9:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:06 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 9:05 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Mitch time and reality.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Paul Hovnanian     mailto:P...(a)Hovnanian.com
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
>
> > > I embrace reality. Do you?
>
> > Reality's struggling to break free before it becomes as unreal as your
> > drivel.
>
> Two times is the smartest concept.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

Mitch - do you own a shotgun?
From: ben6993 on 4 Mar 2010 08:11
On Mar 4, 3:30 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Two times is the smartest concept.

One time is all that we need to pass through our framework.

But in the hypothetical supposition of a multiverse, and in one in
which points in our universe could step into parallel ones, then you
would need an extra time dimension. When there is motion you need
time. If you were able to move into unknown/unknowable spatial
dimensions orthogonal to our spatial dimensions then you would need an
othogonal time also. At the smallest level, jumps are made
instantaneously from one quantum to the next. I don't see why that
instantaneous jump is limited to one diection (ie in our time
direction); could it not perhaps allow an instantaneous sidestep in an
orthogonal direction? I.e introduce an element of choice.

But, yes, before someone else says it, this is scifi.
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 08:22

"ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3ba7229-039d-40de-94ff-10e87fa5c7fe(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 3:30 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Two times is the smartest concept.
>
> One time is all that we need to pass through our framework.
>
> But in the hypothetical supposition of a multiverse, and in one in
> which points in our universe could step into parallel ones, then you
> would need an extra time dimension. When there is motion you need
> time. If you were able to move into unknown/unknowable spatial
> dimensions orthogonal to our spatial dimensions then you would need an
> othogonal time also.

No .. you wouldn't. There is no need for additional temporal dimensions
because you add extra spatial ones.

> At the smallest level, jumps are made
> instantaneously from one quantum to the next. I don't see why that
> instantaneous jump is limited to one diection (ie in our time
> direction); could it not perhaps allow an instantaneous sidestep in an
> orthogonal direction? I.e introduce an element of choice.
>
> But, yes, before someone else says it, this is scifi.

Beat me to it :):)


From: ben6993 on 4 Mar 2010 09:31
On Mar 4, 1:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3ba7229-039d-40de-94ff-10e87fa5c7fe(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 4, 3:30 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Two times is the smartest concept.
>
> > One time is all that we need to pass through our framework.
>
> > But in the hypothetical supposition of a multiverse, and in one in
> > which points in our universe could step into parallel ones, then you
> > would need an extra time dimension. When there is motion you need
> > time.  If you were able to move into unknown/unknowable spatial
> > dimensions orthogonal to our spatial dimensions then you would need an
> > othogonal time also.
>
> No .. you wouldn't.  There is no need for additional temporal dimensions
> because you add extra spatial ones.
>
> > At the smallest level, jumps are made
> > instantaneously from one quantum to the next.  I don't see why that
> > instantaneous jump is limited to one diection (ie in our time
> > direction); could it not perhaps allow an instantaneous sidestep in an
> > orthogonal direction? I.e introduce an element of choice.
>
> > But, yes, before someone else says it, this is scifi.
>
> Beat me to it :):)


I concede your point about not needing to invent a new time dimension.
But that is assuming a 'within' framework view where any point in
(x,y,z) has a nearest neighbour in (x,y,z) and any point in, say,
(x,y,z,f,g,h) had a nearest neighbour in (x,y,z,f,g,h). I.e. where
the new f, g, h dimensions are consistent extensions of the
framwork.

But if looked at from outside the framework (agreed, it is
unknowable) our entire (x,y,z,t) framework could be jumping
instantaneously from one quantum to the next in a different time
dimension. It would only be instantaneous in the new time dimension,
not in ours. That would, I think, mean that no point within our
framework had a nearest neighbour in the adjoining spacetime. (Only
the spacetime framework as a whole would have a nearest neighbour.)
Hence our time could not allow us any access to the other spacetime
(f,g,h,t'). So you have scuppered any to-ing and fro-ing of us in this
extra time dimension. This would imply being able to view our
(x,y,z,t) framework as a quantum able to jump instantaneously through
a new time dimension. And it assumes a fractal structure.

It may be possible to consider the new time dimension as really the
same old time dimension but on a larger fractal scale.

Sorry, ... even deeper into scifi, and far enough for now.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Solar wind and planetary drift
Next: There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!