Edtharan

Yes, from the point/time of departure, but remember they will be travelling backwards in time. If light is emitted from them, then would it be travelling backwards or forwards in time? I think it makes no difference. From lights point of view, time is not happening, so whether or not it is emitted backwards of forwards is irrelevant form the lights point of view. All events along the world line of a photon occur simultaneously. So the photons emitted from a time traveller could interact with a normal point of view because the light emitted by the time traveller and the non traveller are to all intents and purposes the same. According to QM, however, interactions between matter is conducted through bosons (and light is a boson). Normal matter (I'm not considering dark matter here) interacts through the EM boson (light). If we can therefore interact with light emitted from a time traveller, then we can interact with them (even at the very least use flashes of light to ask them a question).

Actually you don't need to go faster than the speed of light to go forward in time. When ever you are moving relative to another object then you local Time will be "stretched" out and you will appear to travel faster in Time. This has been experimentally confirmed by flying an atomic clock in an aircraft around the World. They put 1 clock in the plane and another stayed at the take off point. When the plane came back around to the take off point, they compared the two clocks and the clock on the plane had recorded less time than the one of the ground. This means that more time had passed for the clock on the ground than the clock on the plane, the clock on the plane had travelled forwards in time. Of course this Time travel in not like the time travel depicted in movies like "Back TO The Future". The plane didn't disappear "leaving trails of Fire" and reappear in a similar manner. The plane existed continuously through the journey, it's just that to observers not on the plane, they would have seen things (like clocks) running slower (a bit like a slow motion movie), where as on the plane they would have seen the rest of the world sped up (like fast forwarding a movie). Because the plane exists at all points along the time line as observed from the ground, anything from the ground can interact with the plane and anything from the plane could interact with things from out side it (like radio signals, or a ball even - if you could throw fast enough to hit a flying jet ). So, yes. In this situation we can have time travel. But so far we have no practical method to go backwards in time. Relativity does not say that we can't go backwards in time, but the methods scientists have (mathematically) explored so far are very impractical (like infinitely long cylinders, moving faster than light, and so forth). But what would someone going backwards in time look like to an outside observer? Well, again, they wouldn't just disappear from our time and reappear in the past in a flash of light. As an outside observer, we would see them throughout their journey as they travelled backwards in Time. We would see one "copy" of them going forwards in time as they prepared to go backwards, and then we would also see then as they travelled backwards, however it would appear that their motion was Time reversed (like a movie in rewind). We could interact with the backwards time traveller just as we could interact with the forwards time traveller (the plane). However, every thing from both our perspectives would be reversed, including what appears to be cause and effect. This is what would be the most bizarre part of backwards in time travel. A Reverse Time traveller (according to our perspective) would be able to answer a question that we have yet to ask. However, from their perspective, they would be answering the question after we asked it. The same is true if they were to ask a question. We would appear to answer it before they asked it, but according to our perspective we would be answering the question after they asked it.

Ok. The fact that we can use events other than those that Contain Movement or are Electromagnetic in nature to mark out time. Your who argument rests of the assumption that because we use an EM event (pulses of light in a Caesium atomic clock) then our definition of Time must rely on Electromagnetism (specifically the speed of light). The ticking of a pendulum is a non EM event, but we have been using pendulum clocks for over 100 years. On the point about Movement, as I have already stated a Change is not movement (but movement is change). But we can use Change as an Event to mark out a period of Time. Also keep in mind, that although we use Change to mark out a period of Time, that period is only a scale and not the thing we are measuring. We use a scale on a ruler to mark out distance, but that distance is not the ruler.

I agree that we can't measure motion if it is not relative to something. But motion is not the only thing with which we can measure Time. We can use an internal state change. This state change is not relative to an other object, but is relative to its self in another time. In a way it is like comparing the position of an object to where it was before. If we have a photograph of a pool ball on one part of a pool table, and then another photograph with it somewhere else on the table we can tell that it has changed its position. If we have an object (just for arguments sake it was the only object in the Universe), and it changed it's internal state. Then that point at which it changed is an event without motion. We can then use that event without motion to mark a point in time. If it changes again, then we have two points marking out a period of time - without movement. Movement is not necessary to mark out events, change is. But then, all we are using that Change for is to mark a point. In space we are familiar with marking points as a measure of space, but we don't think that those points we mark and what the marks are made of as determining what space is. Just as an event marked in Time and what that event is made of does not determine what Time is it is just a way of measuring it.

Now, as you said. If that photon is alone in the Universe, then it can not have motion (you said that you need 2 objects for there to be motion). If this is true, then there can be no motion at all and then, by your own reasoning, no Time. If the photons are not interacting, then they can not have motion. If they have no motion, then according to you there is no Time. Now, as this is the results of what you have told us your theory predicts, then we can be certain that your theory is wrong because we can plainly see that there is motion and that objects do interact. That has absolutely no connection with the point I was making. I was saying that Fermions interact through Bosons. Whether Fermions are distinct particles or are actually Boson Solitons makes no difference. Either you have misunderstood what I was saying, or you are trying to twist what I am saying to your own ends. Afain, you are either missunderstanding me or are attempting to twist what I was saying. Please note that Gravity waves was just one of the non electromagnetic methods we could use to determine Time. It was an example of the fact that our use of electromagnetic events is just a property of the fact that they are regular and predictable, and easy for use to measure. Nothing less and nothing more. You seem to want to read into it that because we are using EM waves as our yard stick that somehow electromagnetics are somehow a core factor to our concept of Time. It would be akin to saying that because I used a wooden ruler, that distance is actually property of wood. remember that motion is different to change. Motion is due to the displacement of an object (over a period of time - but for this point the time bit is not important). Change is to do with the internal state of an object. But is we had an object that changes state regularly, then we could use that instead of Motion to mark out periods of Time. So, we do not need Motion to measure time. It is just convenient for us to do so. Because how we measure things is dependant on convention and convenience, we can sometime get confused between what we use to measure and the thing we are measuring, especially if the measure is indirect, or something not tangible. This is the mistake you keep making. What we use to measure something with, is not the thing we are measuring. Just because convention and convenience we use EM pulses to mark out periods of time, does not mean that the same EM pulses are representative of what time is made of. Ah, right I though perhaps you might have made a typing mistake. This is the problem with using obscure words in a typed medium without face to face contact. However, my point still stands. You do need to explain that a bit better rather than just making a claim. No, we could still have state changes. Because we can have state changes, this means that we can have events that don't rely on motion and thus disproves your point. It is not an ad-hominem. I was attacking what you presented. I was not attacking you. An ad-hominem would be if I was using information about you (which I don't have enough of to even attempt an ad-hominem - unless of course I were to make it up) as an attack on the points you made. It would be like someone saying that because Einstein had messy hair, he was similarly messy with his equation so we couldn't trust the results he got. As you can plainly see that is completely different to what I did. I was pointing out that you had presented an incorrect definition of what is accepted as the current definition of Time, the you disproves the made up version to prove that your theory was better. Yes. Your theory is better than that made up definition. But you haven't even addressed the accepted definition Time. You have not proven anything except that you can disprove your own definition of Time. I don't know where to start. Yes. Each sentence here is true. But, you have not shown a link between them and that we use events to mark out Time. IF we used a non EM change of state of an object, are you saying that this kind of event can not be used to mark out a period of Time? If we can use a non EM event to mark out a period of time then there is absolute no link between the fact that we use an EM transition to mark out a period of time and the fact that it is an EM event. The only "link" would be that it was a convention and convenience to use EM events. This causes your theory to break down. You claim that because we (supposedly) use an EM event to mark out Time, that our current definition of time is based on the speed of light, and forms a circular definition. But, if we don't use an EM event to mark out Time, then we are not using light at all in our definition of Time, and so your "disproof" of the current theory does not hold. So, if you are to persist in your claims you have to so that it is not a matter of convenience and convention that we use an EM event to mark out a period of Time. But then this has its own problems for you as if we can't use an internal (non EM state change), then according to you, nothing in the universe could interact and nothing could therefore have anything to compare it's movement (it would be a single particle in the Universe). And, you have said that if there was only a single particle in the Universe, the it would experience no motion and therefore not Time. With no motion however, it could never reach another particle to interact and the universe would grind to a complete halt. So, either Non EM events can be used to Mark out Time, which means that there is no circular reasoning and your disproof of the current definition is false, or the Universe long ago ground to a complete halt. Either you have presented a Strawman, or your theory predicts that we don't exist. I think I know which I'll put my money on Ok. You have used an incorrect definition of Time as proof that your proposition is right. Because of that logical fallacy, you have to reassess your entire concept using the correct definition of Time. That succinct enough?

By destroying the body then reassembling it without change you have only "halted" the processes that normally go on. If I could freeze a body so that there was no interaction of the matter (essentially halting all processes), but then thawing it out a few seconds later, this would be no different. I had actually anticipated this line of questioning. If you re read the end of my post I state that I don't believe in any kind of "élan vital". That is I don't think that there is a "ME" above and beyond the physical (well information and process - but these interact with the physical). I don't think that there is a Me that exists beyond the halting of the self referential process. If you take away all matter, then there is nothing for the process to work on. If you take away all information, then there is no organisation to the process. If you halt the process, there is no self-referential loop and so no self/me (once you start up the process again, then it is self-referential and so then there is a Me). Actually, the disassembly and reassembly are processes too. It is just that these processes interrupt the main process and then restart it again without change. In fact there is still a continuum of process, it is just for that short period the process is no longer self-referential.

An here is another major stumbling block for your theory. A photo travelling through space is not interacting with any other objects. If it is not interacting, then how can it determine motion. As far as it is concerned, if it is not interacting, then it is alone in the universe. Therefore, by what you your self said, it ceases to be a photo and becomes a "bump" in the electromagnetic field. This would also apply to any other force carrying particle (bosons). The problem is, that no Fermions (matter) directly interacts. They only interact through the force carriers. But, as soon as a Boson leaves the Fermion, it ceases to be a "Particle" as such and is then just a immobile "bump" in it's "field". This means that there should be absolutely no interactions in the universe as no Boson can travel at all, and so can not therefore interact with another Fermion. I don't see the connection between the first sentence and the second. It seems like a Non Sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29). Yes, we can use pulses to an electromagnetic wave to makr out time (and then use that to measure the speed of light). But, we could have just as well used the regular gravity waves from two pulsars orbiting each others. These gravity waves are not electromagnetic, and so if we used them, then we would be measuring the speed of light, not in terms of light, but with pulses of gravity. Just because we currently use a system whereby we use pulses of light to mark out periods of time, does not mean that there is no other way we can mark out periods of time (a swinging pendulum is not an electromagnetic wave and for a long time we used pendulums to measure time). See, this why I keep repeating: "What you use to measure, is not the thing you are measuring". We might be using pulses of light to measure time, but our measure of Time is not dependant on the fact that we are using pulses of light. It is just something that is convenient. It is not fundamental to what Time is. Do not mistake convention for necessity. I think you might need to explain the exact meaning of "confounded" that you are using here ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confounded ). If that is the meaning that you are meaning, then you will have to do more explaining on why it must be so. As you are proposing something different to currently accepted theories then the onus is on you for burden of proof (if it was the other way around and your theory was the currently accepted model, then the burden of proof would be on me). But it is not the movement of light that is important to our measuring scale. It is the Events of the detected photons that is important. As you even stated in you essay "Time explained" we could just count pebbles thrown into a bucket. It is the event of the detected electromagnetic wave peak (or gravity wave peak, peak of the swing of a pendulum, the "ping" of a pebble hitting the side of a bucket, or the decay of one neutrino type into another). What is not important is what the event is made up of. It is only important that the event occurred. Your entire argument for this is based on the Starwman that it is what the event is made up of that is important as to our definition of time. I can say absolutely that this is completely wrong. The only thing that is important about any kind of event that we use to measure time with is that it occurs (being regular or predictable allows us to have a consistent scale, so that does help). If the event didn't occur, then we could not measure Time at all. It would still exist, but we could not measure it. Wrong again. You have jumped from: We use pulses of light to mark out periods of time - to: Periods of time are measuring in terms of the distance light travels in a give time. Again - Non Sequitur. We do not compare Movement to the speed of light. We compare it to a sequence of regular events. It is only convention that we use pulses of light to mark out these periods. It is because we know that the sequence of pulses of EM radiation are regular and predictable. The fact that they are made of light has absolutely, positively no bearing on it. It is just convention and convenience that we use pulses of light. It could be any phenomena, made up of anything, that was regular and predictable. What you are getting confused with is that we measure Displacement in terms of how far light travels in given time (the Light Year), but again, this is just a convention. We could have use how far a car travels moving at 100km/hour as a measure of displacement. Please note that Movement and Displacement are not the same thing. Displacement is a distance in 3 Dimensions. Movement is displacement over a period of time or a Change in position divvied by a period of time - delta D over delta T which is the current physics definition of Movement. If you are using a different definition of movement, then you will have to show (and prove) that it is better than the current definition before you can attempt to use your definition to disprove Time.

Yes, the process might be identical, but they are not the same process. No matter how "identical" you make it, there are definitely two distinct processes. Think of the process as a kind of Meta-Matter (it's not really, this is just a "cheat" to help you understand what I mean). With normal matter, if you have two object, no matter how similar they are, they are never the same object, even if it was an identical copy. Think of Process as Meta-Matter then each process is a Process "Meta-Object". You can have two identical process, but because there are two processes, then they are not the same. (You can now discard the concept of Process as Meta-Matter - it was only for demonstration purposes ) Once you make a "Copy" of a process, it is no longer the same process. And as the point of view is a self referential aspect of a process, then it can not observe a different process as self (as it is a different, although functionally identical, process). The key phrase here is "functionally identical". You can have two processes and they can be functionally identical, but they are two distinct processes and can never be the same process. I don't think randomness is necessarily a part of it. I think it comes down to the fundamental concept of "Number". If you have 1 object and then make an identical copy, then you have 2. It is this aspect of the Universe that is the important part. If you have an individual and make a copy, no matter how identical, then you have 2. However, an object or information can not be self referential (have a point of view, a sense of self or individuality). A process can because observation is a process. Matter or information without process can not, therefore, be in the act of observing. As soon as it does, it is a process. It is this aspect of observation (that it is a process) that allows for self observation. If the process of observation is observing a process that is observing it's self, then that is a self referential process. Information and Matter can not observer it's self without the process of observing. If you took all process out of matter and information, then it would be inert and not observing. Without observing you can have no self observation, and so neither matter or information can ever be self referential, and thus no point of view. Process, there fore is the most fundamental aspect of any concept of "self" (and you don't even need a conscious "self" - just a self referential "self"). This is confirmed by the fact that information, matter and energy can be exchanged in and out of a process, but the process it's self can not be exchanged out (as then that would be part of the process anyway). There are more processes then "selves". Not all process leads to a "self". Only processes that are self referential can have any concept of self, and even then they must have a certain level of complexity. I don't subscribe to any "élan vital". There is nothing "special" about matter, energy or information that makes it "alive" or "conscious". However, I do accept that with complexity the "Whole can exceed the sum of it's parts". That is certain behaviours can emerge from the components of a system that are not explicitly predicted by studying the components in isolation. Not that these emergent behaviours are mystical or non-physical. The emergent behaviours are completely explainable by looking at the components and process of a system.

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is wrong. Ok. The answers to your post are in the top half of this post. The bottom half is a response to Dr. Physics' Post. 1) What you use to measure is not the thing you are measuring. 2) You stated that it was impossible to determine Time from a single object (as it has nothing to compare any "Movement" against). 3) You proposed that Motion (not change as they are different phenomena) create Time. "Motion" and "Change" are not the same thing. Motion involved displacement over a distance, change is to do with the state of an object and does not require any displacement. 4) I showed that "Change" without "Motion" is good enough to determine Time with a single Object. Or how about the decay of one type of particle into another, say a Neutron into a Proton and Electron (or some other type of particle decay). Remember single particles can and do decay without any outside influence, so if one of these particles existed in the Universe, then it's decay can be used as an event to arbitrarily mark time. No. Hmm' date=' A photon is an oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields. So if the photon couldn't move, then it wouldn't exists. But if it did exist, then you could use the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields to mark time. And yes, we are using motion to mark time here. However, remember my point (1) above: What you use to measure is not the thing you are measuring. Although we are using Movement to [i']measure[/i] this does not mean that Time is Movement. Quite the opposite actually. for if that movement didn't occur over a period of time (and remember a number over another number is a division), then there would be no difference between the first event (the first peak of the EM wave) and the second event (the second peak of the EM wave). They would have had to occurred simultaneously. If they occurred simultaneously, then the number we divide by is 0 (simultaneous means a separation of 0 Time), thus we get an answer of infinity. How do you go from "Time is separate from Space" to "Time is energy"? I don't think you can separate Space from Time (except with words). Also what do you mean by: "a dimensin that governs change"? How does a Dimension "govern" anything? Time is like Space. We can mark out a series of Points along the dimension that allow us to compare other distances along that dimension (but the marks are not the dimension - just a scale). In space we call these Metres and Centimetres. In Time we call these Seconds and Hours. Time seems to be different because we have no control over our motion in it. We move at a constant rate along Time. Compare this with a damaged space ship. Just say it has lateral thrusters working, but no main engines. It could thrust sideways, but not along the direction of travel. It could move freely laterally (X and Y dimensions), but it would have no control over its motion in the forwards direction (the Z dimension). Like that space shop, we have no ability to "thrust" along the direction of Time (the T dimension), but we can thrust freely in the X,Y and Z dimensions. When considering this one has to take into account local and non locale reference frames. According to a local reference frame the dimensions never seem to rotate (as when they do we are rotated along with them). But within a non local reference frame the dimensions can rotate. To make things clearer, let's ignore the Time dimension and only consider 3 dimensions (think of that damaged spaceship). The local reference frame (co-ordinate system) will always have the direction the ship is travelling in as the "Z" dimension. So if it uses it's thrusters to move laterally, then this rotates it's direction of movement. It is now moving sideways a bit. But according to the people on the ship, they are still moving forwards. However, an observer a long distance away from the ship, would see it moving sideways as well as it's forward motion. Now if the people on the ship could measure the distance along what they determine as their Z axis (the "forward" direction) that it was travelling, then they would get one value. However, the distant observers could measure it's motion along what they determines the "Z" axis, then they would get two different result. Remember, the people on the ship always see the Z axis as being the direction that the ship is travelling in, where as the distant observer always sees the Z axis as the direction that the observer is travelling in. Be cause their relative motions are different, they get different measurements for the distance that they have travelled along the Z axis. The difference in their measured travel distances are related. Specifically they are related by how fast they are travelling in the Z dimension according to a stationary observer, or an observer that had a known and constant speed for all observers. They could then use that "third" observer (even if it was a hypothetical observer) and compare their motions to that, and then they could work out a function to "translate" their motion to what the other observer would see. In fact we have such a "Third Observer" in our universe. It is called "Light". It is a known and constant speed for all observers. So we can use this to convert between observers. No wonder the speed of light figures in such calculations. Now the difference between this example/thought experiment is that the people on the space ship have some "width" in the Z dimension. If we don't understand that this is a limitation due to the necessity of the example and our preconceived notion of those kinds of objects, rather than something that points out an error (to use this to disprove it is nothing less than a strawman), then confusion can set in. Because of Newtons 3rd law: "Whenever there is an action there is an equal and opposite reaction", it means that there can't be a real "Width" in the Time dimension (maybe on the Plank scale - maybe) or then we could exert some kind of force (or have some limited freedom of movement along the time dimension).

No. Information is part of the process. I am not saying that it is the Information, or the physical make-up, but the interaction (process) between the two. You can change the matter, or even change the information (within limits for both as you can't change them so much that it disturbs the process). It is the process of Information influences Matter which Influences the information which influences the patter. It is this process that is important. Well, since it is a different process, I would not be "seeing from the eyes of the copy". So this "Life as a process" hold with the expected outcome. As matter is cycled out of (or into) the process it doesn't matter. Exchange of matter is part of the process. As is the change of information. Your "point-of-view" resides with the continuity of your process.

How about if they did not move, but changed, say a Neutrino changing into another type of Neutrino and back. 1 Object, no movement, 2 events separated by time. We have time without movement. The real fact is that there exist no period in this universe that there only existed a single object. But, even in a universe with a single object Time can exist without movement (as the neutrino demonstrates). What a bout a large particle? Could then the size of the particle (rather than a point like particle) give us a measure of distance? A single particle and we can still get a definition of a measure of distance. Sorry, your "strawmen" arguments like this just don't stand up to scrutiny. You can get a definition of both distance and time with only a singe particle in the universe. You just have to be a bit more creative in what you use as a "yardstick". If you only use our current "yardsticks" definitions, then of course you won't be able to get a reasonable measurement, but our current definitions of the units are not the only way to arrive at a regular set of units with which to measure something. Think about this: A planet tide locked to it's parent Star so that one side only faces the sun would not have been able to use our old definition of a measurement for time: A Day consisting of the period of time it takes to go form mid day through night back to midday again. On such a tide locked planet this definition of the unit of time is utter nonsense, but someone on that planet can come to a definition of Time and even then relate it to what we call a day. Again (and I don't think you have under stood this): What you use to measure something is not the thing that you are measuring. The interval between events is measured by events. This by no logical reason means that the period is made up of events. An interval is bounded by events. That is how we know that a period has passed. We set an arbitrary event to mark the end of the period (please note the use of the word arbitrary). This is a complete Strawman. Not only that there is no logical follow form the first sentence of this paragraph to this sentence. You are making two distinct claims (namely that periods consist of events and that intervals are of 0 length) and implying that they are linked but offer no argument or rational as to why they are. Yes, we might assume that an event is of 0 length (but it turns out that they are not 0 length), but how does the length of an event translate into the length of time between them? An interval is a period of time. Not a "Timeless moment". Ether an interval is a period or it is instantaneous. It can not be both. Looking to Quantum Mechanics, there appears to be no such thing as Instantaneous either. SO this too breaks down your argument. There is no such thing as a "Timeless Moment" and proposing that as a physical reality is therefore wrong (and any conclusions you reach from making that assumption are therefore wrong). Lets even look at the mathematics of a "Timeless Moment". If there exists such a thing, then an infinite amount of Timeless moments must occur for every period of time we consider. Therefore the Universe has an Infinite size. Not only that, we end up with Zeno's paradox in that we can divide any period of time infinitely. IF Time (or even our perception of time) is infinitely divisible, then how do we experience any time at all? No, a fundamental "Timeless Period" is not physically possible. No, all you are saying here is that we measure Time as a ratio between other events. You are not defining Time here. You are only defining an arbitrary measure of time that has nothing at all whatsoever to do with: What Time is. So you say, but have yet to prove or even provide a reasonable argument for (that is one that doesn't rely on un-physical situations, incorrect assumptions or confusion between what we are measuring and what we are using to measure it).

I think you can sum up Time in a single sentence: Time is the period between events. This is like saying that distance is the gap between objects. You would not say that objects placed a certain space apart defines distance, but it measures the gap between them. So using events (like the regular pulsing of a Caesium atom) to mark out periods does not "define" what time is, but only allows us to measure Time. It is the gap between the events that are important for the definition of time, not the events themselves. So, even though the events we detect consist of electromagnetic waves, and are caused by an electromagnetic phenomena, that fact has no bearing on what the gaps are. If we could detect gravity waves, and found a source of regular gravity waves, then we could use that. What the events are made of is not what we define time as, but it is the gaps between these events (whatever the events are made of) that is what time is. I would say that "flow" of time and Time are different. Just like distance and movement are different things. I think linking our "sense" of time and time its self in this way is misleading. It places our Perception of time as a factor in defining the scientific definition of time. Our perception is dependant on the "Flow" of time, but if you stated that our definition of distance is dependant on out motion through space it wouldn't make sense. So why should our motion through time change our definition of time? Yes, we perceive time. But don't confuse our perception of time as Time it's self. A Clock measures time, but it doesn't define what Time is. Yes, our language has evolved around our experience of the world, but our language is still evolving. This means that we can discuss the definition of worlds, their meaning and the concepts behind them. Also many words have multiple meaning and some people get hung up on a single meaning of a word, even if it was not what the speaker meant (but that the definition chose by the listener especially if it allows them to misrepresent or misinterpret the meaning of the speaker in such a way as to disprove them). I think it is point 1 that causes the most difficulties. People see the events and think that the events themselves are Time. The events only mark out a series of gaps. It is the gaps themselves that are time, not the events. Once you discard the notion that Time is the Events, then it does become a lot clearer. The gaps between events are just like the gaps between the marks on a ruler. The marks on a ruler are not distance themselves, but they mark out a regular occuring sequence that we can use to compare other gaps to. Events are like this as well. We use a series of regular events to compare other periods against. The events we use are not time, but because they are regular it gives us a good comparison against which we can use to compare. It is that first sentence that I have a problem with. We do not know what Time is in an innate sense. What we do have an innate knowledge of is a sequence of events. In (2) when you were describing our biological sense of time, you even used a series of events: "sleep when it's dark, and wakes us up when it gets light". Our Biology is dependant on Time, not Time dependant on Biology. We should not reference out Biological Sense of Time is a discussion on the Definition of Time. Lets even go back to distance. There is a condition called "Alice in Wonderland Syndrome" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_syndrome) in which your personal sense of distance can be distorted. Does this mean that someone undergoing this condition changes the definition of Distance? I don't think so. So, if our personal perception of distance does not change the definition of distance, then why should our personal perception of time be any different?

And this is my point. It is a process. It doesn't matter what matter you are made up from, the only important thing is the process and matter replacement is part of that process. This assumes that there is something "special" about the matter that makes up living creatures.. If the matter is only what the process works on, and it is the process that is the important thing, then all "conundrums" disappear.

Even though a single species might have had a variable rate of change, they can use other species to detect this change in speed. Like tree rings, not all trees grow at the same rate, some plants grow at a variable rate depending on the seasons (deciduous plants), and some grow at a much more constant rate (tropical plants for instance). However, if you cut down two trees at the same time, then you can still use one tree to "calibrate" the tree ring data from the other. So, one species might have had an "accelerated" change in their DNA, (may be because a retro virus spread through the population and caused many mutations in their DNA - like is currently happening with Koalas here in Australia) and another might be "ticking" along much slower, but if you know that those two species were contemporary with each other (like through fossil records), then you can use that information to recalibrate your DNA "clock" and account for any variability in the ticking rate. This is why a lot of research goes into measuring DNA changes as that these kinds of corrections can be made. Using DNA is not a simple matter of "Counting up the mutations and dividing by a constant" to give you the year as many critics want you to think (I have even heard a critic actually use almost those words as "proof" against the method). I agree with swansont here. Even in discussions with other people (not on this site) about the validity of evolution (and my own exploration on the 'net), I have never even heard this claim before, let alone any reputable sources. Also why 25,000 years, not 26,000 years, or 6,000 years or 1,000,000 years. We know that the Sun is roughly 8 light minutes away (that is it take the light from the sun around 8 minute to reach Earth). Using the speed of light at 300,000km/second. This gives us the distance to the sun as 300,000km x 60 x 8 = 144,000,000km. Now divided this by the 25,00 years and we get 5,760km/year as the speed of the Sun. Or to put it in every day terms, about 0.657km/hour (or about 6.57m/h). Of course, this is assuming the sun was at Earth 25,000 years ago. If it was only half that distance (and microbes below the surface would have easily been able to survive the Sun at that distance), the we can just divide by 2 to get a speed of 2,880km/year. What about bacteria that they have found living kilometres under the ground. How long would that survive? Is that what you are taking the point of being "devoid of any biomolecular structure". Also, if the Sun was closer, the it would have been hotter (otherwise what reason would there be for the earth to be "devoid of any biomolecular structure"). Therefore animals that have proteins that can not work in hotter temperature ranges (humans for instance have several of these that stop working if the body temperature goes only a few degrees above normal). So, you would see in the fossil record that these kinds of creatures didn't exist (as their proteins wouldn't have worked and they would have died). This therefore means that any creature that have these kinds of proteins must therefore have developed them after the rest of the animals were in existence which would be that they "Evolved" them. But hang on, you were trying to use this as evidence against evolution. But this situation could only occur if creatures that are cold adapted "evolved these traits. So even if you can prove these claims, it only proves evolution. And if the you are wrong and the Earth has existed for roughly 4.3 billion years, then this allows for the current form of evolution. So it's got you coming and going.

You are looking at our existence as a "thing". Instead, we are better described as a "process". In a process the composition can (and should) change, and the patterns can also change, but what is important is that there is change. As a process, it solve all the problems you presented. 1) Gradual transition of Matter: Part of the process of any living thing is to move matter an energy around. So the fact that the matter that makes us up enters and leaves our body is expected. Also, as a process, it means that the specific particles of matter that makes us up is not important. 2) Like in scenario (1), change is part of any process. Processes can operate on matter, or on information (what do you think a computer is all about). Reproduction is part of life, and it is also a processing of information. The information contained in our genes is replicated, mutated and combined with our partners genes. All this is process applied to information. When we learn something, the structure of our brains change. This is a process. It changes our make up and the patterns associated with us, but the process remains. 3) This is really covered by the first and second answer. The matter and patter/information that we are made of are engaged in constant change. This change is a process and it is the process that continues. The cycling of matter or information. 4) Time. What you are describing is the halting of process. Without process (neurons firing are a process) you would not have any awareness of consciousness. Those million years would pass by instantly to you. What if all your matter was swapped out while your process was stopped (despite this it's self being a process). Well, for a start, we are getting into the "thing" mistake a gain. Instead of thinking of "You" that had all their process stopped, what would occur if it was a computer. If you dumped every thing from RAM, registers and cache to a storage medium, then transferred that to a second, identical computer, then loaded that into correct places and turned on the power, could you operate the computer as if it was the original computer and you had not done a thing to it. The answer is Yes. If you save your position in a computer game and then copy that saved game to another computer running the same game, can you start playing the game form your saved game point? Again, the answer is Yes (I did this just a few weeks ago). In all 3 cases (the body being frozen, copying the current state of the computer and the saved game all have one thing in common. We recognise their existences due to a process. For the saved game is it the process that the computer runs to change the data (information/pattern) contained in the saved game file and the game data into what we see on screen. For the case of the RAM, registers and Cache being transferred, the computer uses this data to determine what it's current state is and then how it move to it's next state. Moving from one state to the next is a process (in fact even the name we have for the piece of hardware that does this is called a "processor" ). As with the body. Our cells process chemicals into other chemicals, or moves them around. Neurons fire and that can trigger other neurons to fire. All these are processes that cause us to recognise someone as an entity.

I would actually say there is also a 4th and 5th reason too. 4) Any Genetic algorithm based life created by humans, will be able to access documentation on the structure, organisation and operation of their genome. 5) Because of the machine that the genetic algorithm is processed is not directly the result of the process of the GA (but it can be an indirect result - as computers are an indirect result of our own genetic code), then they will have much more freedom to change their genetic code than biological life does. These last 2 reasons mean that any development from GAs (once they become self replicating (rather than being dependant on human intervention as it does now - we have to write the programs, specify the selection criteria, etc), then it will follow a non linear development. Through documentation, they will be able to redesign their own genome to increase their fitness intelligently. They can therefore increase their intelligence, which then allows them to redesign their genome to produce more intelligence, which feeds back into allowing them to design their genome to give them more intelligence, as so on. If we could have as complete documentation about our genome as any GA based entities created by ourselves would have, then we could do the same (baring ethical debate and law). However, because of reason (1), we will not be able to develop at the same rate that a GA based entity could.

Hi Farsight. I've haven't been on this site for some time and have missed our discussions. But a single object can change. For example a Neutrino can change into another type of Neutrino. So if we had a universe that consisted of just that single Neutrino, then we could measure time. This, by your argument makes time more fundamental than space as with just 1 object you state that we could have no concept of space, but because that object can change, we can have a concept of time. Here is the fundamental mistake that you keep making. When we use the caesium atom to define a second, we are not using the electromagnetic pulses to define a second, but we are using the gaps between the pulses to define a second. It is just that we use the electromagnetic pulses to mark out the periods between them (because they are regular) to mark out what we mean by 1 second. So a period of time is a period of time. But how long is a piece of string (or a period of time). Well, we use that regular pulse from that caesium atom to mark out what we mean by "a period" of time. Just like the marks on a ruler do not define what distance is, but only mark out what we mean by 1 centimetre. This means that your article is actually based on a strawman. You have set up the argument that the current definition of time is circular, and then use that to "prove" your argument. However, what you have stated as the current definition of time, is not what the definition of time is. Therefore this is a strawman. That 9 billion periods of radiation is not the definition of time, but the definition of a second. The term "Second" is what we use to measure time. And, as I have stated before: What you use to measure something, is not the thing you are measuring. If I use a metre ruler to measure my room, the distance across my room is not that metre ruler, but I can describe the distance across my room in a ratio compared to that metre ruler (which is 3 ruler lengths : 1 room length - which we usually express as 3 metres). Thus a second is defined by the cumulative periods of time separated by a series of regular events (that radiation). The second is definitely not the radiation it's self, nor is it dependant on the fact that it is electromagnetic (if we could detect gravity waves - which are not electromagnetic nor do they interact with electromagnetism - then we could use a regular source of those to define what a second is). The events we use to mark out a period of time is not important, nor are what those events consist of. What is important is the gaps between those events. The periods of time that separate the events. If there was no time, then there would be no separation between those events, just as if there was no such thing as distance there would be no separation between objects. The fact that there exists any separation between the events means that time is real, as real as the separation between objects proves that distance is real (because distance is defined as the separation between objects).

As a demo in my year 12 computer class (about 12 -13 years ago now) I created a genetic algorithm to solve the travelling salesman problem. The travelling Salesman problem is where a salesman wants to visit several cities, but wants to do it in the shortest time possible. He can start from any city and finish in any city, but can not visit a city more than once. If you use a brute force approach, as the number of cities increases the number of possible paths that the salesman could take rises very quickly. For instance: with just 2 cities (A and B) there is 2 paths the salesman can take A -> B (and B -> A). With 3 cities (A, B and C) there are 6, with 5 cities there is 120 paths and with 10 cities there are 3,628,800. Imagine with 80 cities! Searching all these paths using brute force is virtually impossible. Using a simple Genetic algorithm I was able to generate a near solution (that is I could not guarantee that is was the shortest, but is was close) very quickly (20 cities with 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 paths in around 30 seconds). And this was 12 years ago. The algorithm I used listed each path as a string of symbols (integers representing an ID number of the city). I generated 1,000 of these strings and measured them for their length (using a lookup table of the inter city distances). The shortest 90 of these strings I kept and the rest I discarded. Then for each string I kept, I made 9 copies (and kept the original) and "mutated" each copy by randomly selecting one of the cities and swapping it's position in the string with another random city on the string (as an example if I had a string like ...1, 2, 3, 4, 5... it might turn out like ...1, 2, 5, 4, 3... where 5 and 3 are swapped). This would leave me with 900 strings, so I would then generate 100 more strings, but they would be completely random (that is they were not based on any string made previously). This would bring me back to the 1,000 strings and I would repeat the procedure again and again. After about 30 seconds (for the 20 cities) the path length would have stabilised and this would be the near solution of the problem. I had a screen saver that used genetic algorithms to generate a short animation, so it can be used for art too. A Genetic algorithm that used the genome as a music score might be interesting to attempt. You could output it as a midi file and let people down load each song and vote on the ones they like the best. The "songs" that people like the best are then "bred" and so are used to make the next "generation" of songs. As for their use in "every" field of science, I'm not sure. It might be a bit of a stretch to use it in astrophysics. However, some scientific fields it would be extremely useful in. Although, chemistry would be a good field as you could describe a chemical formula as a GA (genetic algorithm) and have it design new chemicals for you. I have never though of something like this. However, each GA needs to have some selection criteria with which it defines the fitness of each Entity. What would be the selection criteria that the top level GA would be selected for? From what I have heard, Triple helices are actually possible in DNA, although I have never heard of it occuring naturally. With a double helix though, if you want to store more "data' then it is far easier to just increase the length of the DNA strand than to add in another helix. It is also the same with GAs too. Just increase the length of the array that the "genetic" data is stored in. Yes, GAs are used in many industries and fields. They do have the potential to revolutionize the world. And are currently doing so.

Well you could have the nanobots seek out and destroy white blood cells and the sites where they are "manufactured". This would effectively eliminate any immune reaction (as you wouldn't have an immune system that could react). Because of this, the nanobots would have to take over your immune system. The reaction time of them would most likely be slower (as they would have to be upgraded - either software or hardware - to handle any new diseases). But the upside is that you would have reaction free people and the nanobots can be much more easily "inoculated" to any known diseases (it is just the new ones you have to worry about). A nanobot immune system would be more flexible, easier to adapt to a new pathogen, able to be reprogrammed if something goes wrong (eliminates autoimmune diseases) but they will have less capacity to automatically adapt to unknown pathogens. Another use for nanobots in preventing diseases is for them to seek out any pathogenic organisms in the body and then if that pathogenic organisms (and nanobots) leave the host body, the nanobots would destroy the cells of the pathogen. This would make communicable diseases almost impossible as they would be destroyed if they ever left their host. Well for this to occur, the nanobots would have to get the "material" to seal the wound and create the new connecting tissue. They would work better if they could seal off major arteries (and then be easily unclotted when needed), deliver pain killers and attack invading pathogens (see above). One way nanomachines could be used in healing is to guide cells into place in wounds. These cells could be grown in a vat outside the body (and be identical to the patient's own cells so no rejection concerns) and then sprayed onto a wound (with the nanobots) the nanobots would move them into place (and act as connecting tissue until the body rebuilds its own). These kinds of nanobot would not nessesarily need long term power supplys as they could be charged before being sprayed and then once they run out of power the body would filter them out of the blood (you might get some funny coloured urine). Nanobots that are to be implanted in the body and move through the blood supply would most likely use glucose as their fuel as this would occur in the body anyway (and the body uses it for fuel too). So the person would have a higher energy demand (but not really that much more - it would depend on how many of the nanobots you would have in your body). you could have them electrically/chemically stimulate the brain, but we have cells that do that now. If they use chemicals (and any nanobot system that could deliver chemicals, not just the ones in a brain), then the nanobots would have to have some way of manufacturing the chemicals or only carry a limmited supply of them (weekly treatments to "resupply" your nanobots could be a drawback). The alternative is implanted "Nanofactories" that use nanmachines to build chemicals (or even solid structures) from raw materials (and energy to make the factories work). These would take raw materials from the body and recycle them into useful chemicals. And if you have nanofactories that can work on the atomic level, then you could "scan" someone (maybe using nanobots themselves to do the scanning) and then if a person is killed (or not) an atomic level nanofactory could then rebuild then form scratch (but only up to the time that the were scanned at). Using cybernetic implants (which could be installed or even built of nanobots) to handle memories, then you might be able to "live stream" you memories to an external device and then if you body gets killed unexpectedly, you can be reconstructed and you memories uploaded into the "New" you. If you have nanobots permanently in a body, then these could be used to constantly scan a person and then while they are asleep, this information is uploaded to their "Insurance Plan Server" and if they are killed the next day, they can then be reconstructed and they will not loose too much of their life. Unlikely as this would require an antenna and receiver/transmitter circuits. The frequencies available to devices that small would take a lot of energy and because of the high frequency, not be able to travel far. Chemical signalling would most likely be the method used or electrical signalling (passing small electric fields through a body that can be detected by the nanobots). However, the nanobots could not "broadcast" this way as it would take too much power to do so (they might get a short range version to talk to near by nanobots).

There is. Just on the outside edge of the ramp. You don't need to pull the block around the pully, just move it far enough out into the corner to then attach ropes to drag it in another direction (along the next leg of the ramp). Here is a quick drawnign of what I mean: That does seem like a good point. However, not all the stones were precisely cut and laid. Only the stones on the facings and the structural components (the tombs and such) where actually the large stones. Much of the pyramid structure would be "fill". These could be carted up in by workers and dumped into place. This would drastically increase the speed that the volume of the structure could be filled in. They would not have just constructed the mass of the pyramid of cut stone as it would be completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Using "Fill" instead of cut stone for the bulk of the pyramid can then be handled with "bucket chains" and can actually be very quick in filling the volume with rubble. One thing to note is that quarrying all the stone for the pyramids would have produced a lot of rubble (off cuts, flakes, etc) and these would be perfect for filling the pyramid. Also (I'm not sure about this, so if you know otherwise correct me): If they didn't use this rubble from the quarries to fill the pyramids, where is it. It would have left vast spoil heaps of these off cuts and I have never heard that such locations have been found. The rubble has to have gone some where, and where better that to use it to fill in the insides of the pyramid. If the blocks are arriving regularly, then it doesn't matter how long it took to get them there. Also, if you were using manual labour to haul each stone, if one stone is delayed, then it only delays that stone, where as if a train is delayed and it is carrying 20 stones, then that means that 20 stones are delayed and that because the train then has to return and transport more stones, it means that this then has knock on effects over the entire project time line. The method for building the pyramid more closely resembles the Just in time production methodology that is now being implemented more and more in modern production. It is the differences between carting them individually and using a limited number of trains that carry many stones that makes these delays much more significant in modern methods. Also, with manual labour, people can be reassigned. If a block is delayed, then the people that were to cart it up the pyramid can be immediately sent off to fetch another stone so that the gap can be quickly filled. With trains, this can not occur. If a train is delayed, then the people that were to place those stones can't be just reassigned to pick up more stones. They just have to sit around and wait for the next load to come in. Well these guys estimated that it could be done in 10 years with period equipment, so by the sounds of it, it could be done well within 20 years. If you also factor in that they didn't use the high quality stones for the non visible parts and used rubble to fill in more hollow spaces, it is beginning to look like they were quite proficient at building them and could feasibly do it without invoking an outside agent.

We have already created space ships that will travel to other star systems and launched them. They are called the "Voyager" and "Pioneer" spacecraft. The problem is that they will take thousands upon thousands of years to do so. Not a reasonable amount of time. These small craft are not very big (The Voyager are around 700kg and the Pioneer are around 200kg) and yet they still took the largest rockets available at the time to launch them. A space ship capable of carrying enough people and resource for a self sustaining trip to another star system would most likely weigh in at several million kg. We have nothing that could launch such a vehicle. It would take an enormous amount of resources to build such a craft in orbit (just look at what it is costing to build a space station - that is not even self sufficient - in orbit of the Earth). So, we already have space ships on their way to other star systems, but to build one that could carry people is far beyond us at the moment.

That is what I meant. I did not mention compound pulleys. What I was meaning was that they could change the direction of the force needed. Then using the leaver, they could use that to offset the mass of the stone. Yes, if the ramp just led straight out from the pyramid that would be the case, but they could use the pyramid its self as part of the ramp foundations and have the ramp circle the pyramid. The same use for the pulley (to change the direction of the pulling force) would allow the large teams to get it to the corners (and then it is just a matter of spinning the sled to reorient the stone for the next leg of the journey. Well, as you said, runners could be used instead.

IIRC, they have found remnants of dirt ramps that the Egyptians used to construct the pyramids, so, this Dirt ramp building technology existed long before the Romans came on the scene, so why could the Romans not just appropriated the construction techniques? I am not saying that the Romans did use this methods, but there did exist known methods of building these monuments that did not involve Aliens/Atlantians/etc. Actually there is. There is this little invention called the wheel. They could make them out of stone, wood, or even metal. But lots of rollers/wheels, would allow the blocks to be moved. IF you were just using rollers (the most basic form of the wheel) then as the rollers become available at the rear of the block, you would then rush them forward (being lighter than the block you can move them faster) and place them in position. Once you work out how fast you can replace the rollers, it is a simple matter of mathematics (or at worst trial and error with ever larger blocks) to work out how many rollers you need to keep the block supplied. You can get some hard woods tough enough to damage even modern steel saw blades, so trees like this would have been tough enough (especially if used en-mass) to move these 800 ton blocks. As for over a hill, well the did know about leavers and pulleys, so it is quite probable that they could rig up a pulley system to allow them to move it up the hill (or they could just have simple gone around it ). Not exactly. The dirt is not just "Blown over it". The water lies beneath rock in aquifers (much like the aquifers here on earth) and frozen solid. No. They don't exactly know how much water there is on Mars. It might be only a little bit, or it could be a lot. Estimates put it at enough to cover the Northern basin (less than 1/3) the surface of Mars, and only in a shallow sea at that (nowhere near the depth that the oceans of Earth are). I have also heard about Elves, Unicorns, Dragons, etc, but there is no evidence for them. Big creatures need tough bones and tough bones fossilise easier (like with the bid Dinosaurs). You know what. If I could fly between planets, and there was a big flood coming, I would do my best to fly away, not just let the technology get washed away. Or at the very least, put it in orbit where i could get it again and would not be subject to flooding. And they wouldn't necessarily used stone. If you have the technology to fly between planets, then you are going to need some form of material engineering. You would have had to use it to make your spaceship. Making materials strong and light enough to build a space ship requires an advanced understanding of material engineering. So these "Aliens" would have had the knowledge to construct something like concrete (or other "artificial" stone). They could have constructed the building much as we construct buildings with concrete today. So then, why would they resort to laboriously hacking lumps of rock out of quarries (we can see the tool marks on the rocks), dragging them around (and marks on the rocks where they have done this too) and then using their superior technology to lift them up? It just does not make sense. Yes, it is difficult and these re-enactments don't have hundreds of years to experiment and work out all the problems associated with their techniques. However, the fact that re-enactors have been able to do it means that these ancient peoples could have done it too.

You could coat a porous material in a substance that repels water (Hydrophobic). Because the coating would repel the water, it would stop it passing through the holes.

:D :D As a Star Trek fan (I do refrain from calling my self a Trekie or Treker as I am not nearly that fanatical - However I did dress up as Data and enter a float parade - which we won ) I have been fascinated by the replicators more than any other of the technologies as it seems to hold the greatest potential for changing society. Once you have replicator technology, there is no longer any real need for primary produces, except in the case of energy. I think it would be possible to actually make a replicator like device (it wouldn't work the same way as it does in the show, but it would have a very similar effect). Currently we have devices called rapid prototyping, or 3D printers. These seem to be fairly limited in their materials, but are moving in the direction of a replicator. I think the next technology needed to make these into true replicators is nanotechnology. I am not talking about little autonomous nano sized robots whizzing around building things, but nanomanipulators attached on one end to a substrate and the other end is used to shunt around molecules and atoms. This "carpet' of nanmanipulators would move material from "Hoppers" to the "Print Head" of the device and position them where needed as the head scans the surface. The material in the "Hoppers" would be sorted by a similar process in reverse: Taking an object (even a pile of dirt), and breaking it up into it's constituent atoms and molecules and sorting them into the appropriate hoppers for future use. Once you have such a device, then all you need to make more of them is the basic atoms and molecules and "printing" another one. As the basic atoms would be common (carbon, iron, silicon, etc) you could literally just dump some random junk in the sorting hopper and have the final product emerge at the other end with the hardest resource to get being energy (and why not just print your self some solar panels to get that energy while you are at it). If you can manipulate atoms to make molecules, then you could even "Print" a slab of Meat that has never been in a living organism (and a philosophical question is would such an item be acceptable for Vegans?). Such a device would be able to produce any item it is programmed with as long as it has the basic raw materials and a supply of power. It wouldn't have the drawbacks of matter creation using energy (E=MC^2) as it would need far less energy and wouldn't produce a lot of antimatter as waste. It would also be the ultimate recycler as you could just use items that were created by it previously as the raw material to be broken down into atoms for the next item (like to upgrade your computer, you would just throw in your old cpu - with a few handfuls of soil extra for good measure, and press print). SO, this could make food as well as luxuries all from rubbish that would end up in the landfills. Admittedly there is a lot of practical problems to overcome to get a device like this working, but the real advantage comes once you have that first device capable of creating its self (or improvements). Once you reach this threshold point the rest is free sailing. ( I've though too much on this haven't I )