Saturday, November 05, 2005

Gott Time?

Okay Clifford, enough's enough. Some of like to be genuine and eloquent in our speech as well. So I'll try my best.

You had to understand that without this inductive/deductive topological sense, this would not help one to identify what Greene is saying. You had to know what this represent in our valuations of time as we look throughout the universe? Etc, etc, etc:)

Brian Greene:
it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ...

I notice this comment previous about Richard Gott. I returned to my archives in the internet world for information that I had already cataloged. How and why, I will not say right now, but it is about the prospect of the "future" and about where we had been in our "past."

Imagine then--and put aside the engineering problems for a moment--a machine big enough to walk into. As you would walk forward within the confines of the light beam, (see diagram below) you'd have the impression of moving forward, but because of the space-time vortex, you'd actually be moving backward. You could walk back through time--maybe even passing yourself as you entered the ring.
(does this sound familiar Steven?)

So who is Richard Gott, but first, some of you good readers might recogize what Sean has to say about time travel?

Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel through Time

The notion of closed timelike curves in the real world is hard to reconcile with our intuitive understanding of causality. Perhaps one can find global solutions to general relativity incorporating closed timelike curves. These, in effect, would be time machines. But it may be impossible to construct such a system in a local region of space. Theorems along these lines were proved by Frank Tipler in the 1970s. Tipler assumed that the energy density was never negative and showed that closed timelike curves could never arise in a local region without also creating a singularity. This was reassuring, as we could hope that both the singularity and the closed timelike curves were hidden behind an event horizon (although this was not part of the proof).

Now I spoke in regards to the name of Ronald Mallet for a reason, other then to insight hope into people, and tell them to disregard the color of skin. That the mind still works in all it's wonders whether in a male or female, black, white, yellow or green. Okay, so I went to far in the color dynamics, but you get my jest, eh?

Of how disadvantaged views, will create color in our world perceptions. We just have to rise above this(step back from the experience)and put it into perspective. The sameness with which all of us have in this humanistic valuation of character and such, arising from a historical past. Are your words your own in the makeup of advice you give, or is it from the mother and fathers, as parents who speak through you?

Will We Travel Back (Or Forward) in Time? by RICHARD GOTT III

Einstein proved we can travel forward by moving near light speed. Backward requires a wormhole, cosmic string and a lot of luck
Do the laws of physics permit time travel, even in principle? They may in the subatomic world. A positron (the antiparticle associated with the electron) can be considered to be an electron going backward in time. Thus, if we create an electron-positron pair and the positron later annihilates in a collision with another, different electron, we could view this as a single electron executing a zigzag, N-shaped path through time: forward in time as an electron, then backward in time as a positron, then forward in time again as an electron.

So no, it is not just about going back in time and finding out where we reiterate the views embedded within our own consciousness, but show, what has happened to the individual as a inductive/deductive feature progresses forward in time.

Do such loops work in our makeup? Trust me when I say it is extremely difficult to change what has already happened in terms of our historical experiences. Yet, the advancement of views in that future when meeting that historical past, is the new mode of experimental basis. Which we will in this case refer to as scientific sensibility? How many reminders do we actually need on what is "reality" and what is fictional?

So lets say for instance, that in Young's experimental travel of the photon, having going into the nether world, what path had it taken, to become the backdrop on that screen? It had to incorporate signatures and we all understand the Hydrogen spectrum do we not? The Electromagnetic Spectrum?

Ah so we understand do we about leaving signatures? Yes this is part of the history I am talking about. Have I extended it metaphorically? Yes, you betcha.

You have to embed this kind of thinking in order for foundational perspectives to change the way you perceive life on a grander scale. Not egotistical evolution, but of one that model consumption does to you about how we open new doorways to insightfulness and change in what we had always perceived?

No comments:

Post a Comment