Two times happening together
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Meyer's Process - As Simple as It Gets
Next: Tomorrow they are ready to start the LHC collider. The Earth can ?be exploded in a 1000 seconds!
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. |