Back with an Idea

Khronos

Chrono Cadet
You go away for a few months for research and when you get back everyone loses all sense of accuracy, but, no need to cry over spilt milk as they say.

Now for my idea. Bare with me, I'm not the best at explaining.

Time is considered to be a demension like height. So much in the same way that the mile that you measure doesnt exist, only the actual stretch of road you measured does, could we not say that measurable time doesnt exist, but that time itself exist as an all incompasing object. This is supported by the fact that there is no smallest unit of time, because if there were a smallest unit or fixed point, nothing could ever move through time as it would be stuck in the one point. So now, if i'm assuming that time is just a sort of object that encompases everything, then it could be said that everything exists on a x,y,z, and time axis. So when we walk around in the x,y,z axises of the universe we don't worry about the law of conservation of mass and energy, could it be that all energy or mass that exists in any point in time is exactly the same, then if time travel was possible then, the law of consevation of mass and energy could remain unbroken, because you are not removing any mass or energy, but moving it around like it is allowed.

I hope I explained that correctly, please point out inconsistancies and problems with it.
 
I don't know the answer to this
riddle you have made.

But....

Lets say you have a time machine
and wait an hour in front of the
time machine. Then you get in
it and go back an hour. The question
is when you open the door to the
time machine do you see your self or
not. If you don't see yourself out
side conservation of mass has occurred
but now you have to live with a
divergence in the time line. If when
you come out of the time machine and
see yourself the conservation of
mass does not occur, which is also a
problem and create a paradox.

To put it to you simply I just don't
know the answer to this. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif


Designer.
 
This is supported by the fact that there is no smallest unit of time, because if there were a smallest unit or fixed point, nothing could ever move through time as it would be stuck in the one point.

Look up Zeno's paradox.

Units of time are purely arbitrary and man-made. Time doesn't come in units...any more than a river flows in units. Time is not a 'thing'......time is a meaningless concept outside of change relating to physical objects. So time is simply the order and flow of that change.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of all matter and energy in all of time exists independantly of each other, in regards to calculating the "limit" of matter and energy. So all the matter at one position in time is not the same as the next position. So the you in the past isn't the same you in an hour. And if we consider time as just a position, then moving to a new place would just be the shift in position, so the matter that belonged at lets just say 2o'clock would now be in 1o'clock, but there would not be anymore or less matter, just the matter belonging at 2o'clock is no longer there and is somwhere else

Zeno's paradoxes, I'm not sure which you are refering to, but I think it is the Arrow Paradox, which shows how there can be no time or nothing could happen. Which is what I'm saying, but instead of disregarding it, I'm seeing it as a infinitly large... object. Like how, if the universe is infinitly large, then my computer is essentially sizeless comparitively, but I know it has a real size still. Much the same way that I know breakfast existed at 6 oclock this morning.

Zeno's paradoxes are merely showing how math and reality dont always work out perfectly. The bus stop paradox works mathmatically, but I obviously CAN get to the bus stop. People consider paradoxes as paradoxes, because they are unwilling to accept that math can explain everything at our current understanding of it.

Pythagoriams Theorem for example. If I rest an 18 foot ladder 12 feet away from the house, My ladder obviously rest at a specific location, even through mathmatically it does not. Or how you can have 3/10 of a cake and not have an inifinte amout of it like I would mathamatically.
 
You're right about Zeno's paradox, they weren't created as laws of the universe, but as thought exercises.

But you are right about plotting x, y, z, and time as being four dimensions that we perceive.

That is part of Minkowski space-time, and the many worlds interpretation.

Past present and future are all simultaneous, moving mass or energy around will not cause a paradox, either because of you landing in a different worldline, or the actions you took on your trip actually led up to the events that you remembered before going back in time.

Tachyons are hypothetical particles that travel in time.
 
i will add this bit of information here:

Quoted:
" The cube, which is at the basis of our present-day construction methods and of the x-y-z Cartesian co-ordinate system, is not in and by itself a stable configuration. Eight spheres forming a cube are inherently unstable. To gain stability, they must be artificially stabilised by interconnecting them in the way the tetrahedron is connected. In this way, two tetrahedra of four spheres each, joined at their respective centers, form one cube of eight spheres.

It happens that this geometry, as developed by Fuller, is in perfect accord with how crystals grow in their various forms, and that its application in engineering reveals to us the possibility of very efficient structures in terms of economy of raw materials and strength of the resulting construction.

Now how could the discoveries of Fuller be utilised to form a co-ordinate system and why should we venture to do such a task, seeing that the Cartesian x-y-z co-ordinates have done perfect (or almost perfect) service for such a long time?

For one, Cartesian co-ordinates may be a convenient mathematical construct, but they do not accord with nature's ways any more than modern chemistry will ever be able to duplicate the conditions of living organisms.

If we utilise x-y-z co-ordinates not for orientation in a known enclosed space (such as did Descartes), but in space with unknown extension, if our system of three axes in other words does not form one of the corners of a known space, but the point of origin of space extending in all directions, the original three axes are no longer sufficient for orientation. We must double the system, adding a mirror image of the three axes, to be able to describe the space 'on the other side of the corner' (fig. 2).

Normally we do not think of this action as a doubling of the axes, as we simply assign negative values to one of the sides, and positive values to the other. But rigorously, we now have six axes: plus x and minus x, plus y and minus y, as well as plus z and minus z. The fact that the plus and minus parts of each axis seem like one continuous axis does not justify considering them to be one. In fact, for the purpose of orientation, we must specify whether we are locating something on the plus axis or on the minus axis, even if we chose to do so by considering positive numbers to belong to the plus axis and negative ones to the minus axis. So we have, in actual fact, six axes to consider and in order to locate an object in space, we must define its position in relation to three out of six axes.

This is where Fuller's synergetic geometry suggests a way of simplifying our task enormously. If we decide to reduce the number of axes from six to four, taking the basic and most simple stable geometric figure, the tetrahedron, as our point of reference, we may locate any point in space by defining its position with regard to three out of four (not three out of six!) axes of reference. The four axes of reference in this system of co-ordinates are the axes that originate at each one of the vertices of the tetrahedron, intersecting at its midpoint and passing through the middle of each one of the triangles opposite these vertexes (fig. 3). These axes are co-ordinated with angles of 109 degrees, 28 minutes. The four of them represent the minimum set of reference axes emanating from a common origin needed for defining all possible directions in physical space.

I have developed, in order to make this concept more clear and to allow its application as a tool for instant and intuitive orientation in space, a colour coding system that combines these tetrahedron-based space co-ordinates with the currently widely used method of colour separation for printing purposes, the so-called CMYK colour separation process.

CMYK (cyan-magenta-yellow-black) are the four colours used by present day printing presses. The combination of these four colours in various percentages creates a large number of different colours in almost endless continuous shading. Assigning one of the basic colours to each one of the four axes of the tetrahedron, and blending them towards the other axes, we obtain in fact a unique colour for each one of the thousands or millions of possible directions that we may want to instantly identify. Naturally we can also express direction in terms of degrees, minutes and seconds of arc in relation to the three nearest axes.

A part of this article is a printed version of a tetrahedron to be cut out and pasted together, which will beautifully illustrate the principle.

A co-ordinate system of this kind, suitably developed and refined, may be used with profit in astronomy, in navigation (especially space navigation), in holographic representation of images, in crystal-based electronic information storage and possibly a whole range of other, yet-to-be-thought-of activities.

By its use, we transform our four directions of orientation on earth (east-west-north-south) into four directions of orientation in space. We need to develop and use this tool if we are seriously considering to expand our influence into planetary or interstellar space, not only in the sense of observation, but also of exploration and navigation"

end quoted
from:
http://www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_6.htm

and Time Travel!!!
 
Back
Top