Buffman

And well that you might! But not here, and not now. Revenge is savored best when served cold. "Sire! Beware the Ides of Buffman." (That's any and every day.)

Ted Hoffman

The Tao says Buffman has many lives. As Buffmans bloodied tail disappears in the tall grass away in the horizon, Intensity relaxes visibly as his broad shoulders sag slightly as he surveys the battlefield. The muscles of his strong back relax as the chi of battle dissipates. From that moment he knows he must watch out for Buffman's deadly and sudden strikes. He taps the hilt of his Samurai sword and adjusts his headband. His strong muscular feet suck the energy from the earth as he readies himself...
His body radiates energy and a wind caused by his propagating energy blows the grass around him. The grass lies down flat in submission around him in a perfect circle...
Then he spins around. There is a resolute look in his eyes. His tight jaws set in a stern expression. He pauses...
Then his face cracks up in a bright smile as he makes a giant, powerful stride foward

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Buffman

HUZZAH! The crop circle mystery resolved.

Friar Bellows

I lost track of this discussion fairly soon after the first post! But I thought I might add a link to an interesting book (free for downloading) on the subject of time:

<a href="http://www.time-direction.de" target="_blank">The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time</a> by H. D. Zeh.

wdog

hey all,

I have a question about this related to another thread. There is an expressed opinion that we exist along our entire worldline and time is the illusion that we are merely passing over that existence. Or in other words, our entire timeline is 'visible' to some external superagent (you guessed it!). I have a lot of problems with that picture, but what do you make of it?

tronvillain

That is the position that I take, but I do not think there is any external superagent. As I said on the last page:
Oddly, no one bothered to respond to it. Perhaps they all think I'm nuts?

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

wdog

tron,

well i don't think you are nuts, it is just a rather far out theory. it just seems to present so many problems with uncertainty and the nonlinearities of the world. the many worlds interpretation of QM seems to match this the closest but that is a case of nonunique worldlines.

Sidian

i was actually trying to be careful NOT to name the speed of light as the maximum speed. i don't think light is the maximum speed. i only mentioned it like that: "maybe the speed of light" because that's how it was taught to me, but i never bought it.

anyway, i don't see why my ideas are quivering and i'm not on yer "time exists" wagon.

i was using einstein's theory to explain why time seems to pass at different speeds.

it does so based on speed, and since i don't see time as anything more then a measurement for movement or a place holder for movement, i think that relativity works quite well without time. it merely explains why our measurements are distorted at high speeds. if there was a stationary point in the universe and we could measure everything from there, we wouldn't see any slow down in movement on a grand scale.

Ted Hoffman

Tron
Time DOES NOT move at any rate. Precisely because time is not a particle or a wave.

If the earth started rotating faster, a day would take, say, 10 hours instead of 24. Would that mean time is moving at a faster rate?
No.

Not all moments can exist simultaneously because each moment has its own set of matter - for example, if I burn my house down to fine ash today, the ash cant exist alongside the house "simultaneously". The idea you are suggesting is counter-intuitive and violates brute facts of existence. You cant eat your cake and have it.

If you need further redress on your post, please state so. I dont think you are nuts. But perhaps the idea is invalid.

tronvillain

Intensity:
Who are you responding to? Not me apparently, since I said nothing about time moving at any rate.

True, but completely unrelated to anything I said.

*sigh* Saying that all moments exist "simultaneously" is not the same as saying that all moments exists simultaneously - it simply means that all moments in time actually exist rather than simply being potential inherent in a moving present. If you burn your house down to fine ash today, the house will still exist yesterday, so the ash can exist alongside the house "simultaneously", though it can not exist alongside the house simultaneously. Using the English language to talk about time is difficult, and occasionally you have to use words differently.

The expression is "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Anyway, nothing about the view I take violates brute facts of existence, and it is only counter-intuitive in suggesting that the "motion" of the present is only apparent rather than real.