- Paul Gill ha, it is all about the time symmetry. In other words, the allowance of time to reverse. This is allowed in physics.
- Paul Gill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_reversibilityen.wikipedia.orgIf astochastic processis time reversible, then it is not possible to determine, ...given the states at a number of points in time after running the stochastic process, which state came first and which state arrived later.See More
- Thomas Vincent A'Hearn Sure, if you also accept that evolution may or may not have occured, there is no basis for cause and effect and many other basic scientific assumptions. May I recomend you read this chapter from my book: http://thestoicbytva.blogspot.com/2012/10/chapter-2-limits.html
- Thomas Vincent A'Hearn The point I go on to make later in the book is that Einstein's special releativity is correct but the application of it as a the parameters of our universe, as he does in general relativity, doesn't match the results of sub-particle reearch that has happened since. Einstein is correct with regard to the temporal plane of existence but at odds with all science as a general principle. Any theory that challenges causality is inherently illogical and must be questioned on that basis. You seem like a smart guy, Paul: don't accept what scientists say, stand up and ask why they believe this illogic.
- Paul Gill I do not accept all the mainstream science. If you go into APS submissions, you will find 2 of mine. Both are frontier pushing and use elements that standard physicists would avoid. So, what is your profession if I may ask?
- Paul Gill Tom, it is easier to explain when you take the red pill and step into the rabbit hole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4www.youtube.comThe Matrix Movie Clip - watch all clips http://j.mp/ymuU6s Buy Movie: http://j.m...p/t4Wpfzclick to subscribe http://j.mp/sNDUs5 Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) ...See More
- Thomas Vincent A'Hearn The interesting thing about the Matrix is how similar it is to the epistomology of Hume, upon whom most of modern philospohy rests- to its detriment. Reality is not strange or unknowable if approached as I recommend in my book. You really should read it, you would enjoy it. I am a writer/ poet and a stoic, philosophically.
- Paul Gill How would your views push my frontiers, as you do not know what they currently are? Do you believe time travel is possible? That and crossing spatial dimensions. The real nature of what is going on in a sprite. The cause of the Electric field setup before an aurora occurs, SAMA generation...
- Thomas Vincent A'Hearn No, I don't believe in time travel, "wormholes" and the like. Time must be linear or causality is denied. You're close in your consideration of the "electric field" which, if you accept my reversal of Eintein's General relativity, becomes the nature of space itself as the conduit of wave energies.
- Paul Gill that is just it. Time is definitely not linear. Just appears so as our perception configures it.
- Thomas Vincent A'Hearn Again, I refer you to Hume, who said the same thing about perception, ultimately undone by Russell and Wittgenstein. Logic dictates the primacy of causality, which Wittgenstein's reversal of Russell supports, leaving mathematics and sciences as a supporting, refining ABSTRACTION for logic. If something is illogical, it is incumbent on science to redefine and reevaluate the theory until the underlying logical process is revealed. General Realitivity APPEARS to be true TO OUR SENSES but is illogical, therefore, is an illusion over a logical process. That is the problem with Hume, epistomology, Einstein and General Realitivity: they appear to be true to our senses. There are a great many things that appear to be true, but are illogical, and are eventually revealed to be illusions. Well, ask yourself, does the sun rise in the East? No, the Earth revolves under the sun, giving that illusion. That is where we are with regards to the nature of time: from our nature on the temporal plane we are attempting to look back into the spatial planes at sub-particle energies, which fleshes out the argument: if all things appearing on the temporal plane are OF the temporal plane (a basic tenant of General Relativity) where are the "FREE QUARKS" and "NEUTRINOS" that should readily appear? In 30 years of testing and searching for these particle, none have been found. Looks like something's wrong somewhere and all indications point at General Relativity. Sorry, there goes time travel, but you can still enjoy SCIENCE FICTION if you like, so long as you don't think it's SCIENCE FACT. I enjoy talking with you Paul, you ask really good questions.
- Thomas Vincent A'Hearn BTW, this is the question that compelled Hawkins to reverse his position in "A brief history of time" in his latest book.
"So, Erin, at last we meet..."
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
An Interesting String with an Intelligent Man.
