About Time

About Time (some letters to NPA about time)
sg micheal, 03/MAR/2009


Subject: [NPA_Dissidents] a first step in theory of time
Hello Roger,

I thought that time was a straightforward concept with which we have
no problem. Now I am not sure at all.

1. Newton assumed a natural flow of time forward and never thought
about it seriously. Under assumption he defined traveling in space as
a continuous function from time to space.

2. If we assume space time symmetry, then it must be possible to
consider traveling through time. Then Newton's basic assumption of
the natural flow of time must be definable as traveling through time.
But how can we do that? I do not know how to define natural evolution
of time as a mathematical function from time to time. The problem is
that time is continum and so there is no such thing as next time.
dear dr. kanda, employing Occam's Razor, this f(t) you speak of can be constructed thusly:
(t, f(t)) as a traditional ordered pair.
i rename f(t)=C=EtP/h where C=temporal-curvature, E=energy-at(x,y,z), tP=Planck's (time) constant, h=Planck's constant
notice that f(t) does not actually contain t :)  which is good (thank God) .. it's a measure of energy density at (x,y,z)
now E is obviously the 'stickler' meaning it is critical to determining f(t)=C
if there is 'normal matter' there, we simply take the energy equivalent of the particle there..
if something else is there (such as the interior of a neutron star), we have difficulty..
but i believe that is not insurmountable
you may point out "sam, time is in there via Planck's time constant", but.. i contend that constant is actually a constant and not variable..
of course, we must rigorously define 'these accepted facts' (of Planck's constants) quite apart from the theory .. i have tentatively accepted conventional definitions for right now (until i come up with something better) .. so for now, i see f(t)=g(E) so..
(t, g(E)) becomes the ordered pair
(of course, the energy, E, at (x,y,z) is normally a function of time (what particle is where at any given time), but.. i believe this does not cause a tautology or recursive problem .. this is my faith in the method - of course - based on faith - there is always an element of faith in science)
(perhaps this is where Feynman's self-interaction comes in? C is not that great for normal matter (calculate it) so it is not a huge leap of faith to assume matter is not self-affected greatly by time displacements .. of course it is .. but only minutely .. perhaps this will be the basis for a 'new quantum mechanics' based on temporal curvature .. who knows..)
about my statement above regarding faith - we employ it every day:
Godel's theorem - we assume logic is consistent and incomplete - not the other way around
so my assumption about temporal curvature being the basis for a new QM is this:
temporal curvature is a self-interacting phenomenon just like Feynman's virtual particles, but..
just like virtual particles, the self-interacting phenomenon is recursively orders of magnitude diminishing..
the reason Feynman's scenario works is because it is a particulate version of temporal curvature
(for anybody interested in Feynman's ideas, plz read QED, available in any bookstore)

3. As we have no idea how to define traveling forward in time
naturally, how in the world can we consider traveling backward in
time.

Best regards,

Dr. Kanda


Subject: time reversal
reverse time sounds like a reversed light sphere

it sounds plausible to me

phil
-----------------------------------------------
time reversal is only possible/plausible with negative temporal curvature
at first, i dismissed this as pure fantasy
but..
IF we accept the need for dark energy, then it MAY exist
but ONLY because of dark energy (which i question question question)
i recently proposed an explanation of dark energy (based on negative temporal curvature: nega-particles)
but this may be my mistake of allowing convention to brainwash me into accepting their fantasy about our Universe :(
at this moment, i cannot know..
all i know is many things convention says about our Universe is WRONG (that is obvious from recent posts)
so, chances are - they're also wrong about dark energy..
so..
my proposal may just be a good idea twisted/contorted into something ugly (based on conventional pressures)
i truly believe i have been 'lucky' (i would say divinely inspired) to find this concept of temporal curvature
it will replace Feynman's ideas in QM
but don't give me credit..
anyways .. i'm still trying to understand if my tentative concept of photons having very slight negative curvature 'makes any sense in the big picture'..
(if this picture of photons 'proves to make sense', then there may be indeed nega-particles and dark energy..)

sam


Subject: Feynman vs Sam
1st let me say Feynman was a Brilliant man

sam is just so so ;)

my wife knows nothing about physics and i was trying to explain some things to her (about how i 'waste' my time here)

i compared an elephant with physics
we can look at the elephant many ways
if we're a vet, we can even look inside it
but.. what i was trying to say is this: looking at the elephant in many different ways only gives us different perspectives of the same thing

now let's compare Feynman and me
of course, my son Arthur has much energy
we can compare Arthur to a proton
Feynman would say Arthur gives me $ and i give him $ (virtual exchange)
but..
i contend there is no $ (and indeed $ is purely fictitious in our world)
the reason there is attraction to Arthur is simply because he has so much energy
his energy affects his 'flow of time' (as proposed in a previous letter)
and of course, this 'flow of time' affects time (but only minuscule) and recursion is limited
another way to say is temporal curvature affects time but only in a limiting sense
so they are mathematically equivalent but conceptually completely different

indeed, there is no such thing as money (it is a virtual concept in our minds)
we waste too much time pursuing it
just as we waste too much time pursuing virtual particles in the lab

let's pursue things of value

let's pursue things that are real

let's pursue temporal curvature

;)  sam


the deep and 'scary' insight is that energy is temporal curvature
if accepted and confirmed, this will be the next QM and perhaps TOE