🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:faaf6a7a-449b-4854-9cc4-6fdbeb36cb21@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
> "Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Caltech where he focuses
> on theories of cosmology, field theory and gravitation by studying the
> evolution of the universe. Carroll's latest book, From Eternity to
> Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, is an attempt to
> bring his theory of time and the universe to physicists and
> nonphysicists alike. (...) Sean Carroll: I'm trying to understand how
> time works. And that's a huge question that has lots of different
> aspects to it. A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how
> we measure time using clocks. But the particular aspect of time that
> I'm interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is
> different from the future. We remember the past but we don't remember
> the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that
> happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can't turn an
> omelet into an egg. And we sort of understand that halfway. The arrow
> of time is based on ideas that go back to Ludwig Boltzmann, an
> Austrian physicist in the 1870s. He figured out this thing called
> entropy. Entropy is just a measure of how disorderly things are. And
> it tends to grow. That's the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy
> goes up with time, things become more disorderly. So, if you neatly
> stack papers on your desk, and you walk away, you're not surprised
> they turn into a mess. You'd be very surprised if a mess turned into
> neatly stacked papers. That's entropy and the arrow of time. Entropy
> goes up as it becomes messier."
>
> Unlike Brian Greene who is still procrusteanizing his mind into
> conformity with Einstein's time-is-an-illusion idiocy, Seal Carroll
> seems to have taken notice of what clever John Norton teaches:
>
> http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-22-09.php
> "For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
> present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
> Einstein
>
> http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987
> Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
> and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
> an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
> into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
> that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
> happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
> still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
> wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
> wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
> in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
> it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
> juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
> times a day from ordinary comings and goings."
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
> John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
> the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
> idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
> best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
> passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
> are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
> illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
> more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
> time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
> and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
> motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
> reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
> spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
> spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
> a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
> found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
> can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
> everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
> stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
> to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
> "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
> would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
> one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
> with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
> happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
> bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
> of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
> rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
> comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
> as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
> We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
> preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
> all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
> stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
>
> However Sean Carroll has not yet taken or does not want to take any
> notice of what clever Jos Uffink teaches:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
> Pentcho Valev

====================

  1 light sec (-) from Earth (0) + 1 sec = 0 (there-now (0)!....& 0 = 0).

  10 light secs (-) from Earth (0) + 10 secs = 0 (there-now (0)!....& 0 = 
0).

  100 light secs (-) from Earth (0) + 100 secs = 0 (there-now (0)!....& 0 = 
0).
..............

  1 light yr (-) from Earth (0) + 1 yr = 0 (there-now (0)!....& 0 = 0)

  10 light yrs (-) from Earth (0) + 10 yrs = 0 (there-now (0)!....& 0 = 0)

  100 light yrs (-) from Earth (0) + 100 yrs = 0 (there-now (0)!....& 0 = 0)
.............

  13.7 bil light yrs (-) from Earth (0) + 13.7 bil yrs = 0 (there-now 
(0)!....& 0 = 0)

------------------

  Arrow of time (monopolistic: closed systemic):
----------->

 Or wheels of time (pluralistic: open systemic):

....||   >   ||    >   ||....
....|| /\   \/ || /\   \/ ||....
....||   <   ||    <   ||....

-----------------

  And what exactly is disorder or the tendency to disorder? Complexity gives 
the answer of growth of tyranny in the system imposing the tendency to 
disorder. Tyranny (Utopia) = closed (finite) = entropy = weakness = savagery 
= disorder.

  What exactly is order or the tendency to order? Complexity gives the 
answer of growth of freedom in the system enabling the tendency to order. 
Freedom (Frontier) = open (infinite) = energy = strength = civilization = 
order.

----------------

  The geometry is malleable alright, but that geometry is changed, 
contracted and/or expanded, by accelerations or decelerations in relative 
velocity (whether a relative (+) of velocity to relative (0) or a relative 
(-) of velocity to relative (0)). The geometry exists as malleable entirely 
due to gravity's fundamental being of singularity (Singularity). Everywhere, 
whether macro-verse or micro-verse, every gravity field's (every gravity 
well's) core and entire extent (always a single -indivisable- entity) is a 
version of gravity's fundamental being of singularity (Singularity).

GLB

=========================