What's wrong with this concept

C

chris123

Temporal Novice
What\'s wrong with this concept

Time being like a ball made of balls of string. From this center the balls are pushed away like a disco ball in every direction. Each cord would in theory have a minimum of three strands. I agree with Dr. Mallett on his theory of within the center of artifical micro-black holes. That "at least" information could travel threw. A lazer created circle should create a low frequency EMF hole.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

I agree with Dr. Mallett on his theory of within the center of artifical micro-black holes.
Click to expand...

What theory is this? Mallett has but one paper published on ArXiv ("Gravitational Perturbations of a Radiating Spacetime", 2000). His rotating laser time machine paper was published in a rather obscure French journal and was criticised for very good reasons by Ken Olum and Allen Everett. Since then he's fallen back into obscurity alonng with his paper other than on Internet alt-sci forums and an occassional appearance on TV.

What is it, exactly, in his paper that you agree with?
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

Time being like a ball made of balls of string.
Click to expand...


Ah, good old string theory.

It is conceptually inaccurate to regard time as being a 'thing', as if it were made of something. Time is a process....it is no more made of something than 'growing old' is made of something.

Time is simply the process of change, or rather, a means of measuring such. I would imagine that fundamentally, time is an invariant......time is simply time, whatever the laws of physics are or however the universe is arranged geometrically. In any model in which processes lead to change....time will exist...by definition.

But time is not a thing in its own right. It does not 'exist' independantly of the physical objects whose changes create it. A universe without change would be a universe without time.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

If time does not exist independently of objects and is in essence an abstraction based upon the measurement of transition, then isn't that basically the same as saying that time is a "thing" - in the sense that it can only be defined by those things.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

If time does not exist independently of objects and is in essence an abstraction based upon the measurement of transition, then isn't that basically the same as saying that time is a "thing" - in the sense that it can only be defined by those things.
Click to expand...


Not really. Time is a process rather than a thing.

Imagine that the universe consisted of nothing but 3 pool balls in a triangle in space. If they never moved, then no time would pass or exist, because nothing would change.

Time cannot exist without change. It is a property of objects, and not an object itself...as it would be impossible for time to exist and have any meaning in the absence of the objects to which it relates.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

Not really. Time is a process rather than a thing.
Click to expand...

But really, when you come down to it, isn't everything a process?

Imagine that the universe consisted of nothing but 3 pool balls in a triangle in space. If they never moved, then no time would pass or exist, because nothing would change.
Click to expand...

Yes, I already understood you on that. If no things were in transition, there would be no time.

Is there anything that isn't in transition?

Time cannot exist without change. It is a property of objects, and not an object itself...as it would be impossible for time to exist and have any meaning in the absence of the objects to which it relates.
Click to expand...

So, time does not produce things, but rather things produce time?

How are things produced, then? Or have they always existed?
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

So, time does not produce things, but rather things produce time?

How are things produced, then? Or have they always existed?
Click to expand...


On the sub-atomic level, it's somewhat different to our everyday experience. At the most basic level, things only 'exist' because they interact with other things. This interaction is, for example, by exchange of photons or virtual particles.

It's a bizarre aspect of quantum physics. Things ONLY exist relative to each other via this exchange of particles. We tend to imagine that atoms and sub-atomic particles can be just sitting there minding their own business.....but in fact a particle doing that would simply not 'exist' to the rest of the universe !

So..'existence' is a result of particles exchanging virtual particle pairs. It is like particle A reminds particle B that it is there.....and vice versa....continuously. There are 4 basic manners in which this exchange takes place ( which correspond to the 4 fundamental forces.....strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity ).....most of which lead to particles being attracted or repelled from each other.

Gravity is believed to be due to exchange of virtual graviton pairs between particles.....though nobody has ever seen or detected a graviton.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

Right, I understand. Things existing in relation to other things...

It's sort of like the whole interdependence idea in Buddhism. A kind of mutually-reinforcing status quo, like yin & yang.

But I still don't get the sense we are disagreeing...

Anyways, your post was intriguing to me. I'm not especially knowledgable of quantum physics (I tend more toward mysticism and spirituality) but I thought your explanation was neat.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

Einstein showed that time is a dimenson much like our spatial dimensions of length width and height but it appears to be connected with the square root of -1 and cannot be so easily traversed by macroscopic objects. Mallet says that in special circumstances time can be transformed into a space dimension where information and particles can be sent into the past along that transformed dimension.

There seems to be a broken symmetry associated with our perception of thermodynamic time, such, that we only remember the past and not the future. Well, most people can only remember their past while others can see pieces of the future, or possible futures :D
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

At the most basic level, things only 'exist' because they interact with other things. This interaction is, for example, by exchange of photons or virtual particles.
Click to expand...

It's eerie in a way, when you think about... It's almost as if you could say the whole universe is pretending itself into existence.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

It's also amazing to consider how, sorta like Twighlight said, there are all these "levels" of interaction that can appear so different and seem to have their own ways of working yet they all fit together. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

And the particles cannot merely exchange themselves with each other with respect to a background of non-interactive space, because the space is also a perception, and as such, it must also be an interactive player.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

And the particles cannot merely exchange themselves with each other with respect to a background of non-interactive space, because the space is also a perception, and as such, it must also be an interactive player.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of another teaching, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form."

Perhaps it is saying that form and emptiness contrast relatively, but in an absolute sense the two are somehow the same.
 
Re: What\'s wrong with this concept

At the most basic level, things only 'exist' because they interact with other things.
Click to expand...

Greetings. Actually the interaction is the universe. There could be a whole lot of other things going on that we wouldn't know about if they did not interact with our matter or forces.
 
Back
Top