When you drive on the road you can also see the people driving in the other direction, despite the fact that their velocity is negative that of yours...
(compared to the Earth at least)
But even then, wouldn't the duration appear positive to the observer? That is, the thing observed would appear to begin (though properly speaking, maybe it would un-end), persist at the same absolute value of the rate of the passage of time as the observer, and then end (or un-begin?). Unless the observer is timing before the beginning of the experiment, how could the subject of observation's passage through time be distinguished from one that actually does move through time in the same direction as the observer?
That's why I was accepting of the idea that the phenomenon is just a mathematical conceit, rather than a physically demonstrable phenomenon. I suppose that a properly devised experiment might be able to address the above, but I'm still stuck thinking that to the observer watching something move through time will appear exactly the same whether it's positive or negative, unless the process timed (and the timing) actually begins before the experiment itself is commenced.
Velocity is a vector, negating a vector only reverses its direction, not magnitude. Reversal of time is pointless... Time going backwards should be explicitly that, every object "retracing" all its changes and movement over a given interval of time. Time is, for now, a scalar. It has no "direction" because we've never observed objects going to a previous state experimentally, if we were to observe such a thing, it would mean spontaneous entropy reduction and going to a higher energy state. Until that happens, everything discussed here is a repercussion of mathematics which does not necessarily convey the same logic as the real world. Just like negative mass and negative energy density.
We are going to learn a lot of new stuff as time proceeds onwards ( and since we've observed none other, onwards is really just a figure of speech), kick some old stuff in the teeth, but that will be through moderated experiments... Theoretical physics is good, but any theory is practically worthless until it's confirmed by an experiment, the basis of empirical reasoning. And if someone would like to rage on about time reversal, you first need to explain a lot of other things which would not add up as a repercussion of your theory.
I'm certain that you would love to dismantle Sean Carroll's work on the arrow of time. Don't bother looking for it in peer-reviewed journals or on arxiv though. He only publishes his most cutting edge work in paperback format for the low low price of $19.99.
Time really is a dimension, as I'm sure you know. In basic relativity theory the velocity vector that you speak of is not three dimensional, but four (e.g., it is a four-vector). In other words, time is not just a scalar all unto itself. Anyway, as time marches forward we will indeed learn some new stuff. Your mention of this reminds me a lot of Smolin and Markopoulou's obsession with topos theory. Hmm.
Clearly you haven't studied a whole lot of physics and entropy. One other obsession of Carroll's is the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis. It claims that life (and intelligent life, to boot!) can spontaneously form out of vacuum energy density fluctuations. If this doesn't ring any bells, let me remind you of your fascination with Dawkins' idea about how we are just random bits of matter that form intelligent life. It's essentially the same thing, except that Dawkins' version is an utter ripoff. Hopefully you chuckle at the fact that I regularly make fun of Carroll and Dawkins by reiterating my very own special Boltzmann Space Kitten hypothesis. Yep, that's right, space kittens just spontaneously pop up all over the Universe, with space suits and all, right from scratch. Magic! Of course all of this is actually possible, but it's just so highly improbable that writing papers on it is practically equal to intellectual masturbation.
Likewise with information theory and entropy. The quantum of information is not a meme, but a distinct symbolic constant. The binary digits are the smallest set of such constants. If you knew this, you would know that Dawkins' "work" on memetics is an utter ripoff of the work of Shannon (and Jung, Boltzmann, etc, etc), and you wouldn't have your head shoved so far up Dawkins' ass.
I'd rage on, but I think my point is clear -- I spotted you as a fraud the moment you walked through the door, and nothing you've said since then has proven my intuition to be false. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
EDIT: However I still maintain the following 3 points:
[size="7"]PLEASE REREAD THE PART WHERE THE COMPACTIFIED DIMENSIONS COULD BE UP TO A TENTH OF A MILLIMETER IN SIZE.
I'm disagreeing with you not because we both have valid points of view. I'm disagreeing with you because you can't read English, or speak the truth.
I don't go around telling *everyone* to shut the fuck up.
My motto is "Instead of seeing just black and white like a child, learn to see grayscale like an adult. It will lower your blood pressure". Trust me, if this motto actually applied to what you are saying, I would be a lot kinder to you.
Its ironic that you accuse me of not being able to read English when you miss the word "may" in my statement...
EDIT: It might be worth noting that Taby has a habit of heavily editing his posts even after they have been replied to without marking the edits. The consistency of the discussion is therefore not guaranteed despite my best and honest efforts to maintain said consistency.
Its ironic that you accuse me of not being able to read English when you miss the word "may" in my statement...
[/quote]
I didn't miss it, trust me. You can't just slip in conditionals and bash string theory at the same time. Even in your latest post you still maintain that the idea of Planck-sized compactified dimensions turns you off. What you are doing is fraudulent double-speak.
Given your own logic, the very real possibility of macroscopic-sized compactified dimensions and the LHC's capabilities should totally fucking exhilarate you to the point where you're turned on like a 14 year old boy hiding in a Catholic school girls' locker room. Yet, you claim to still be turned off.
I didn't miss it, trust me. You can't just slip in conditionals and bash string theory at the same time (e.g., it turns you off). What you are doing is fraudulent double-speak. I mean, the possibility of macroscopic compactified dimensions should exhilerate you, given your own logic, right?
No, you're missing the point. Sure, they might be large enough, but they might not be. EDIT: in the latter case we have an inablity to falsify them. EDIT: Also, you're ignoring the quote from Newton.
[quote name='taby' timestamp='1304878646' post='4808176']I didn't miss it, trust me. You can't just slip in conditionals and bash string theory at the same time (e.g., it turns you off). What you are doing is fraudulent double-speak. I mean, the possibility of macroscopic compactified dimensions should exhilerate you, given your own logic, right?
No, you're missing the point. Sure, they might be large enough, but they might not be. In the latter case we have an inablity to falsify them.
[/quote]
No, I get the point, and apparently you do too.
All your initial bullshit about compactified dimensions absolutely having to be Planck-sized and supersymmetry being nonsense, because blah blah string theory is absolutely unfalsifiable using modern technology and the LHC is a grand waste blah blah, was totally uncalled for.
I'm very glad that you can now admit that seeing things in grayscale is much better than seeing things in black and white.
Please don't lecture me on Newton and / or Occam's razor. I get it. Perhaps you need to look into Hanlon's razor. I could only assume that since you're on gamedev that you're not a total idiot. The only logical conclusion left was that you were intentionally being a slimy liar.
Taby, you remind me of a guy I met on a local astrophysics forum who claimed that shadows are nothing but black light. He had a lot of theories, actually... Some of them were that the celestial bodies have nothing to do with tides, others yet discussed that the "force of gravity has no acceleration" (his words), that the Earth is actually going around the Sun and that the atmosphere is "sexually reproducing" because of the EM radiation, thus creating life on Earth.
A good scientist will always look for an error on his part, rather than rushing out and bashing everyone else calling them a fraud, trollbaiter and what not. None of your theories are worth squat until you prove them, but that would require you to put your real name behind it. It's much simpler when you can hide behind a nickname on a game development forum, isn't it? But do continue, I love reading your posts, they crack me up.
Before calling someone a fraud, consider the meaning of that word... According to the wiki, [font="sans-serif"]fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage". I assure you, I've received $0 for my statements here, my only purpose is to gain a broader understanding with fellow colleagues interested in physics, in a decent and friendly environment. Your response to me, for example, was pure gibberish which proved nothing. You were only restating the work of scientists whose work you've been bashing from the beginning of this thread (and knowing types like you, and beyond). Velocity vector is 4D, yes, it includes the time aspect which helps model spacetime and all the repercussions of the relativistic theory, but it's only a component of a vector, currently only ensuring the constancy of the speed of light across different reference frames (and all the consequences of such a claim)... Alone, it's a scalar which has never been observed "going the other way". That's a fact, your drug induced dreams might suggest otherwise, but that's not science... As your established, esteemed brain is probably aware of.[/font]
[font="sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="sans-serif"]Show me experimental evidence and I'll believe you. Honestly.
[/font]
[font="sans-serif"]All you've done here is spread your nonsense, no-proof theories and bash on the work of scientists who have proven themselves a long time ago. Standing behind what they say with their name and honor. Where is your brilliant mind out there? They'd slap you in your seat in .5 seconds. If nothing, at least try to be polite to other people.[/font]
