You answered your own question. You just have time confused with something else. If you think about it, the end result is pressure. We move, we create pressure, we create more overlap, more overlap is shorter time.
I don't want to take the thread into pseudo-science, even though it is already pseudo-science. Clocks slow down, and are energy dependent. Energy is movement, and pressure is to inhibit movement, and overlap is a result of pressure, and the result of overlap is time stage 1. But time stage 4 to bump apart is much harder under pressure. The clocks can't bump time apart so easily. So time slows down on a clock.
Yes. But there are other stationary physics like scale. And scale leads to overlap, so if anything ever scales up you get time again.
If you want to use the big bang as an example I can't reply. It's a science forum, and I'm not allowed to turn it into my own theory. The only reason I reply about time is because it isn't a scientific theory yet.
So, you dont believe in big-bang ? If time is 'not yet a theory' ; how can you say " time is not uniform " ?
I can use my theory for a none theory. If somebody asks an unanswerable question "What is time?" I can answer.
I have a model of the Universe, but it isn't the standard model. It has time in it in the X/Y/Z. Time isn't uniform, because scale isn't uniform. Time is overlap, so if scale isn't uniform, overlap isn't uniform.
A question like "What is time?" should really automatically be put in pseudo-science. It's the only way to answer it.
Here's me thinking this was a difficult subject, but I bet it's quite easy to grasp if half of you lot didn't confuse matters all the time.
Just to make it more complicated again .... When I read that, naturally I think of the tesseract in A Wrinkle in Time. Well, time is affected by gravity. But even that is insufficient. At its core, the metaphysical answer is that time is a requisite of change: The Qabalists expanded this idea of Nothing, and got a second kind of Nothing which they called "Ain Soph"-"Without Limit". (This idea seems not unlike that of Space.) They then decided that in order to interpret this mere absence of any means of definition, it was necessary to postulate the Ain Soph Aur-"Limitless Light". By this they seem to have meant very much what the late Victorian men of science meant, or thought that they meant, by the Luminiferous Ether. (The Space-Time Continuum?) All this is evidently without form and void; these are abstract conditions, not positive ideas. The next step must be the idea of Position. One must formulate this thesis: If there is anything except Nothing, it must exist within this Boundless Light; within this Space; within this inconceivable Nothingness, which cannot exist as Nothing-ness, but has to be conceived of as a Nothingness composed of the annihilation of two imaginary opposites. Thus appears The Point, which has "neither parts nor magnitude, but only position". But position does not mean anything at all unless there is something else, some other position with which it can be compared. One has to describe it. The only way to do this is to have another Point, and that means that one must invent the number Two, making possible The Line. But this Line does not really mean very much, because there is yet no measure of length. The limit of knowledge at this stage is that there are two things, in order to be able to talk about them at all. But one cannot say that they are near each other, or that they are far apart; one can only say that they are distant. In order to discriminate between them at all, there must be a third thing. We must have another point. One must invent The Surface; one must invent The Triangle. In doing this, incidentally, appears the whole of Plane Geometry. One can now say, "A is nearer to B than A is to C". But, so far, there is no substance in any of these ideas. In fact there are no ideas at all) except the idea of distance and perhaps the idea of between-ness, and of Angular Measurement; so that plane Geometry, which now exists in theory, is after all completely inchoate and incoherent.. There has been no approach at all to the conception of a really existing thing. No more has been done than to niake definitions, all in a purely ideal and imaginary world. Now then comes The Abyss. One cannot go any further into the ideal. The next step must be the Actual --- at least, an approach to the Actual. There are three points, but there is no idea of where any one of them. is. A fourth point is essential, and this formulates the idea of matter. The Point, the Line, the Plane. The fourth point, unless it should happen to lie in the plane, gives The Solid. If one wants to know the position of any point, one must define it by the use of three co-ordinate axes. It is so many feet from the North wall, and so many feet from the East wall, and so many feet from tbe floor. Thus there has been developed from Nothingness a Something which can be said to exist. One has arrived at the idea of Matter. But this existence is exceedingly tenuous, for the only property of any given point is its position in relation to certain other points; no change is possible; nothing can happen. One is therefore compelled, in the analysis of known Reality, to postulate a fifth positive idea, which is that of Motion. This implies the idea of Time, for only through Motion, and in Time, can any event happen. Without this change and sequence, nothing can be the object of sense. (It is to be noticed that this No. 5 is the number of the letter He' in the Hebrew alphabet. This is the letter traditionally consecrated to the Great Mother. It is the womb in which the Great Father, who is represented by the letter Yod which is pictorially the representation of an ultimate Point, moves and begets active existence) .... (Crowley) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Liber LXXVIII is Aleister Crowley's exploration of the tarot, and this context should always be remembered; it is metaphysical, despite Crowley's self-aggrandizing outlook. But it points to something that science might—perhaps ought to—be able to explain, which is the necessary relationship between time and change. And that is where things like the Cesium Clock come in. One can reasonably propose that there is something more fundamental by which we might measure time than a cesium atom. And I have great faith that science will figure it out. At some point, it is fair to say that there are two limitations to science according to humanity: Our ability to measure, and our ability to contain and manipulate data. It is my general belief, for instance, that there are more factors to account for in discovering the fundamental truth of the Universe than the finite human brain is capable of containing and manipulating. (Reversing this consideration toward metaphysics, it is the reason why no human being can perceive and comprehend "God". A cosmic-scale "TMI", if I might be permitted a sad cliché.) Fundamentally, though, understanding time requires us to identify and comprehend the most basic devices of change in the Universe. To wit, and perhaps just for a mindflog, any event you perceive in real-time is actually history by the time you recognize it. That is, the event you perceive has already occurred. This appears to be absolute. Whatever signal you perceive is not simultaneous; the light that reaches your eyes has traveled for a period; the sound that reaches you has traveled for a period; the thoughts that occur in your mind are processed after the fact. Even with something like a car-bomb going off in your proximity, whatever you perceive is already over. Since I'm delving in metaphysics and philosophy, then, I'll simply make the joke that history kills. The bottom line is that metaphysically I understand time as a fundamental component of change; that time is subject to gravity; and that basic atomic functions (e.g., cesium oscillation) are the most accurate means we have to measure time. Whether this means science has discovered a fundamental (unchanging, if you want an ironic phrasing) definition of time is not known to me, though I have great faith that this particular answer is well within humanity's faculties. ____________________ Notes: Crowley, Aleister. The Book of Thoth: A Short Essay on the Tarot of the Egyptians (Liber LXXVIII). 1944. BibliotecaPleyades.net. October 15, 2011. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/libro_thoth.htm
It is possible to plot 3-D objects in 2-D space. We can start with a piece of paper and through shadowing and highlighting we can create the impression of 3-D. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If time is the fourth dimension, of space-time, is it possible to draw an image of 4-D space-time, in 3-D space? The 4-D image would have to create the impression of time, but without any real time, per se. In the above, we express the appearance of the z-axis, but there is no actual z-axis. This is a time theory test, to see which theories are up to the task and which are grandfathered in and don't have to compete to be accepted. As a hint, to make 3-D on 2-D we need shadowing and highlighting to trick the eye. To trick the eye and brain so we see time....
Slaughterhouse Five Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, as I recall, attempted to explain this perspective. Blurry caterpillars, or something like that. I'd have to go back and look up the passages specifically, but it would be a conventional representation insofar as people would agree that's what they were looking at.
I don't see the connection with time, and a 4th dimension. I don't see the connection between the speed of light, and cause, and effect. Time is very clear to me in overlap. I see a quantum overlap of spherical particles, and being spherical the transition from velocity, and direction become a spherical overlap in any direction.. because a sphere points in every direction. It's a very clear picture, and very easy to understand, and imagine. I don't know if I have some weird autistic ability, I am confused why there is so much confusion with time? Humans have a heart beat, a pulse, a loop of blood, the loop is completed with the heart beat. The universe has a pulse, an overlap, that pushes apart to overlap in the opposing direction, and then pulses back to the beginning... like a caterpillar body. Each particle that overlaps is an individual heart beat, and even if they skip an overlap it would not matter at the quantum scale, there are so many heart beats that an average is all that we need to observe. But at a quantum scale the heart beats become less averaged out. Atomic clocks depend on energy that is not so averaged out. I think that imaginary dimensions fall into the get out clause category. You can't answer something.. add a new dimension. String theory adds a lot of dimensions that I can also see in the 3 dimensions that we have. I can translate string theory into 3 dimensional physics as well as time. I'm not trying to sound clever, I'm actually trying to un-confuse something that is quite simple.
