Time Explained

[colubridae]

Cant say where, but at a major institution before their standards dropped to todays requirements, which increasingly resembles the old A levels. Computer science which included basic physics, but ended up getting employed in neuroscience with some minor retraining as the brain lends itself to computation and physics.

I went to Nelson Mandela University of the Fourth Dimension.

(Formerly B&Q Watford)

Farsight's work was major part of my studies.

[Brain Man]

In summary its clear that what farsight says in regards to time being derived from motion is clearly upheld when looking at the mechanisms of perception. Not only does motion drive the input to the brain, but the output from the brain results in motion of some kind. (see abstract below)

You can find synchronization within the machinery of perception, i.e. The alpha waves of the thalamus which also give rise to some minor delta feedback from the thalamocortical loop. There is also the Gamma waves of the cortex, which assist in recurrent linking, but all this is primarily dependent on the external level of motion.

This information is derived from richard granger a high ranking neuroscientist who has used these analysis to provide image tracking intellligence for the military.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... 2904970690

Actually having access to the journal and looking at the article, I find it difficult to find anything here that supports Farsight. Does the brain use motion to operate? Yes. Do we organize all our descriptions of the brain and any other set of physical events by time? Yes, yes, yes.

The problem with Farsight's position on time is that there is no sign that we can use it to actually do the physics that we want. We wish to describe events. To do that we need to describe the distance between events. And when we describe distance, we want to compare the distance between one event at one time and one event at the same time or at a different time. We cannot avoid using time in our descriptions of distance. Until Farsight shows us even a simple example of describing a series of physical events without using time, his theory appears absolutely useless.

And since he's been working on this for years and undoubtedly someone has pointed this out before, we have evidence that it is actually impossible for Farsight to describe anything using his theory.

this is a better reference to grangers work. lots of stuff on oscillations for sensory processing.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Mod ... cal_system

What you need to integrate from elsewhere, and i can dig out the references is that most of these timings are slave to changes coming in through the senses. Especially fast changes.

Back to farsight, we are talking far too much about him rather than what he is trying to represent, and the giants he is integrating into an intuitive package. i.e. For his integration on time farsight references leading theorists including barbour. Ok Barbour is not exactly a giant, but who with a new theory, no matter how well heeled is these days anyway ? Thats why i dont take farsight bashing too seriously. If somebody calls him a crackpot or incompetent etc, to many that makes them want to join in and say the same thing. To me that just tranlates to me this guy is an interesting amatuer. Because any interested amatuer with some ideas gets that kind of slagging these days. Thats todays climate. Sure he has to try and explain what he is doing, and it may be wrong, be if he provides inutuitive solutions i say give it a go.

Its important from a neuroscience point of view to understand what the brains priority is in processing. Is it motion or is it time. It seems to be a mix, with motion as a priority for sensory inputs anyway. Is time derived from motion. Thats a fundamental question. What is the consensus in theoretical physics. i.e. Julian Barbour proposes that time breaks down when area of space have no reference and diverge from their common alpha point. How does this fit with what we know of the brain is of value to me.

Whether time is useful for physics itself to work doesn't bother me. What time is at a fundamental level does.

[Farsight]

All: apologies for being tardy in replying, I'll get back to you later.

[Farsight]

That homogeneity is an approximation, and a rather good one, it must be said. But it is nevertheless an approximation, and the existence of primordial fluctuations has been acknowledged for some time. Inflationary cosmology is a proposed way of accounting for those fluctuations.

No problem with primordial fluctuations or inflationary cosmology, but really lpetrich, a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. If it's homogeneous, there's no gravity. NB: Please can we talk gravity on the How gravity works thread?

That's not quite the same thing as directly perceiving a magnetic field... We don't directly see motion. We more-or-less see a series of snapshots, which we interpret as motion.

Come on, space and motion are bleeding obvious. Casting doubt on such observation in order to cling to the notion of "time flowing" is clutching at straws. It just doesn't. Things move, clocks clock up motion, and time is a cumulative measure of motion.

[Farsight]

All we need know is a good mathematician. But do we really need that today ? Langauges change. 100 years ago you had to able to read and write music. Today you need to be skilled at cutting, pasting and mixing sampled waveforms. Todays einsteins may need a different language. Cutting and pasting, integrating wide range of theories across todays enormous information database, Using computer modeling instead of maths. bypassing journal torture and getting straight into internet discussions with like minded colleagues to thrash out concepts...

There's something very profound here, Brain Man. I rather think the problem has been in trying to describe dynamical three-dimensional phenomena in a static one-dimensional linear string of symbols. Those scholed in this methodology then refuse to countenance any other approach that might offer progress. I feel inspired too, because the more I find out the more the outline I give is vindicated.

[ChildInAZoo]

That homogeneity is an approximation, and a rather good one, it must be said. But it is nevertheless an approximation, and the existence of primordial fluctuations has been acknowledged for some time. Inflationary cosmology is a proposed way of accounting for those fluctuations.

No problem with primordial fluctuations or inflationary cosmology, but really lpetrich, a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. If it's homogeneous, there's no gravity. NB: Please can we talk gravity on the How gravity works thread?

Well, no, since you refuse to answer questions there. And it is in this thread, too, that you make the absurd claim that a homogeneous distribution cannot have any gravity. This absurd claim is in conflict with Einstein's actual science and this gives us reason to believe that you have never read the science. If you want to show us otherwise, you would have to show us the equations governing a homogeneous distribution.

[Farsight]

It isn't absurd, here's Einstein in his 1920 Leyden Address telling us that a gravitational field is inhomogeneous space:

Ether and the theory of relativity

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν).."

So if space is homogeneous there is no gravitational field. What could be simpler?

right i am not following this. Can you start again?

No problem. In a nutshell time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It's a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it. See the opening posts where I explain it in detail, and note that nobody can offer any evidence or logic or argument to counter it. They can't because I'm right. And that means that anybody wittering on about time travel is a quack.

[ChildInAZoo]

It isn't absurd, here's Einstein in his 1920 Leyden Address telling us that a gravitational field is inhomogeneous space:

Ether and the theory of relativity

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν).."

So if space is homogeneous there is no gravitational field. What could be simpler?

Actually looking at the science would be simpler. Actually looking at Einstein's solutions to the Einstein Field Equations... the ones that use a homogeneous solution.

Can you please show us where these solutions go wrong?

[Brain Man]

I rather think the problem has been in trying to describe dynamical three-dimensional phenomena in a static one-dimensional linear string of symbols. Those scholed in this methodology then refuse to countenance any other approach that might offer progress.

The maths can be no different from computer modeling or any other kind of sculpting.

Where i respect mathematics is when its actually able to operate in a deep inside out level. i.e. Maxwells work obviously taps into something pretty deep about electromagnetism, such that the equations seem to translate into other realms like gravity.

But other maths such as dirac, and just about the bulk of whats commonly used can be likened to a GPU modelling a photo realistic scene in a movie. Its tortous, long winded and serves purely to chisel out the surface rather than inside out and to the core back out. There can be a dozen other maths (or non maths such as modelling) ways found to do the same thing. Its the occams razor..A lot of whats out there is not adhering to that principle.

so the idea of maths above all as being the highest form of understanding is not true. SOME maths is very deep, and ends up producing new knowlegde at a similarly deep level. Often that is also quite elegant and simple. Some concepts are also similarly very deep, elegant and simple and start with no detailed maths, but an understanding of the concept of the maths. If somebody like yourself manages to put out theories based on integrating good quality (but marginalized) research that are elegant and simple across the board of a breadth of areas, rather than pages of after the fact modelling torture, then that gives me the impression there is the strong possibility that something right could be happening.

[Farsight]

Where i respect mathematics is when its actually able to operate in a deep inside out level. i.e. Maxwells work obviously taps into something pretty deep about electromagnetism, such that the equations seem to translate into other realms like gravity.

I'm a bit of a Maxwell fan myself. I wish more people would read his original work rather than accepting the Heaviside recast that is known as "Maxwell's Equations". IMHO all the stuffing got taken out by the vector form, moving from "what it is" to "what it does". The screw mechanism I referred to in the other thread is something alien to people, as is Einstein's variable speed of light. Put the two together and vacuum impedance just jumps out at you.

But other maths such as dirac, and just about the bulk of whats commonly used can be likened to a GPU modelling a photo realistic scene in a movie. Its tortous, long winded and serves purely to chisel out the surface rather than inside out and to the core back out. There can be a dozen other maths (or non maths such as modelling) ways found to do the same thing. Its the occams razor. A lot of whats out there is not adhering to that principle.

I'm not quite sure what to make of Dirac. He was fairly young when he did his famous equation, and like his "sea" it doesn't offer a picture of the underlying reality. But like Einstein he fell out of the mainstream, and people don't know much about things like his proposal that gravity varied over time. So I wouldn't be surprised if I read some material of his that did offer a picture of the underlying reality. Must do more research I suppose. I do keep coming across things that surprise me, and leave me saying "Why didn't anybody tell me about that?"

so the idea of maths above all as being the highest form of understanding is not true. SOME maths is very deep, and ends up producing new knowledge at a similarly deep level. Often that is also quite elegant and simple. Some concepts are also similarly very deep, elegant and simple and start with no detailed maths, but an understanding of the concept of the maths.

I'd go along with that. It isn't a black and white world. Sometimes mathematics delivers understanding, sometimes it obscures it. I think the key is to look at an expression and ask yourself questions along the lines of "Do I really understand what this term really means?" If the answer is no, you aren't getting to the bottom of things. I started by looking hard at E=mc^2, saying what is E? What is it really? I'll dig out Energy Explained sometime to see what people make of it here.

If somebody like yourself manages to put out theories based on integrating good quality (but marginalized) research that are elegant and simple across the board of a breadth of areas, rather than pages of after the fact modelling torture, then that gives me the impression there is the strong possibility that something right could be happening.

Thanks. I do what I can, but sometimes some theoretical physicists are their own worst enemy, and won't entertain anything new that might break the impasse. Such is life. But we're getting there. It's like shifting a tooth. But I've got a little surprise coming up soon that will make life interesting.

[Trolldor]

So... is my watch accurate or not?

[colubridae]

IMHO all the stuffing got taken out by the vector form, moving from "what it is" to "what it does".

"you do say the darndest things popeye" Olive Oil.

[lpetrich]

No problem with primordial fluctuations or inflationary cosmology, but really lpetrich, a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. If it's homogeneous, there's no gravity.

Farsight, why don't you work it out mathematically? And while you are at it, why don't you study the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions of Einstein's equations?

That's not quite the same thing as directly perceiving a magnetic field... We don't directly see motion. We more-or-less see a series of snapshots, which we interpret as motion.

Come on, space and motion are bleeding obvious. Casting doubt on such observation in order to cling to the notion of "time flowing" is clutching at straws. It just doesn't. Things move, clocks clock up motion, and time is a cumulative measure of motion.[/quote]
Space exists but time doesn't? Maxwell and Einstein would laugh at you.

I rather think the problem has been in trying to describe dynamical three-dimensional phenomena in a static one-dimensional linear string of symbols.

Farsight, why do you think that that's an impossibility? Do you have any argument other than some fallacious Law of Resemblance?

I also note that language is a "static one-dimensional linear string of symbols", so according to your claim, language is as worthless as mathematics.

The equations of modern physical science form counterexamples to your claims.
Newtonian mechanics
relativistic mechanics
Navier-Stokes equations
Diffusion equations
Schroedinger's equation
Maxwell's equations
Yang-Mills equations
Klein-Gordon equation
Dirac equation
Particle-interaction terms
Einstein's equations
...

[lpetrich]

Where i respect mathematics is when its actually able to operate in a deep inside out level. i.e. Maxwells work obviously taps into something pretty deep about electromagnetism, such that the equations seem to translate into other realms like gravity.

How did you figure that out?

But other maths such as dirac, and just about the bulk of whats commonly used can be likened to a GPU modelling a photo realistic scene in a movie. Its tortous, long winded and serves purely to chisel out the surface rather than inside out and to the core back out.

How is that supposed to be the case?

I'm a bit of a Maxwell fan myself. I wish more people would read his original work rather than accepting the Heaviside recast that is known as "Maxwell's Equations".

Maxwell-thumping is not a good argument.

IMHO all the stuffing got taken out by the vector form, moving from "what it is" to "what it does".

Why is that?

I'm not quite sure what to make of Dirac. He was fairly young when he did his famous equation, and like his "sea" it doesn't offer a picture of the underlying reality. ...

Why is that?

[Farsight]

...Space exists but time doesn't? Maxwell and Einstein would laugh at you.

LOL! Up your game, lpetrich. Read what I said, don't just make it up. See the OP where I said:

And what he got was this: time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it.

Farsight, why do you think that that's an impossibility? Do you have any argument other than some fallacious Law of Resemblance? I also note that language is a "static one-dimensional linear string of symbols", so according to your claim, language is as worthless as mathematics.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said I thought the problem has been in trying to describe dynamical three-dimensional phenomena in a static one-dimensional linear string of symbols. It isn't easy in English either. That's why we need pictures and analogies and hands-on demonstration. Simulation would be nice of course, but it's a lot of work.

The equations of modern physical science form counterexamples to your claims.
Newtonian mechanics
relativistic mechanics
Navier-Stokes equations
Diffusion equations
Schroedinger's equation
Maxwell's equations
Yang-Mills equations
Klein-Gordon equation
Dirac equation
Particle-interaction terms
Einstein's equations
...

Er, no they don't. And is that the best you can do? I tell you about time, I give you the Einstein information and the references and the scientific evidence and the invincible logic, and all you can do is take refuge in some vague list of equations? Come on lpetrich. this is getting embarrassing. Go and get some help. You could do with it, because everybody can see I'm whupping you here.