The direction of Time.

[Michael F. D.]

Suppose we have turned on a clock. It have begun to account the time. What means the evidence of this instrument? The amount of conditional time lag has passed from event A before event B. The Direction of time - from a certain initial point (zero) to the endless future. Time is totalized. Time is counting forward up. In this nobody has doubt. This became as axiom.

But my cogitations about time have brought me to the other conclusion.

Let be a clock with battery. Let these clock has a timer i.e. it allows to totalize time. Let, the clock had stopped in 2400 hours (144000 sec) after start. The timer has fixed this numeral. What it means?

The most probable reason of clock stoping is a failure

of the battery. In this case the number shown by timer corresponds to time of functioning (working) of the battery or its Time Cycle (TC), or TIME CYCLE is STRAIGHT PROPORTIONAL to WORK made by battery.

TC = k*A (1)

where TC - time cycle;

k - a factor;

A - a work;

Though, unit of time is a second, but unit of work is Joule, it is possible to say evidence of the timer i.e. the time is equivalent of a work which was made.

For our example this 144000 (sec) = 0.5 (Joule)

Each second in timer corresponds to work (0.5/144000) joule. This is an accumulative principle:

in each second an amount of executed work has increases.

But notion "work" is not fundamental. The fundamental notion is a POWER.

N = A / t (2)

where N - a power;

A - a work;

t - time;

 

Having substituted (1) in (2) we'll get

 

N = TC /(k* t) (3)

 

In in respect of a clock this means a following.

Timer from the beginning is installed to the condition corresponding to TC of a battery i.e. 144000 sec (for this "ambience of existence"). Each second the unit of time (energy) is SUBTRACTED from this value . This value does decreased discretely.

Each evidence of the timer is corresponds to the potential energy of the battery on a given moment. Since each second an energy decreases together with TC.

So. Time for the all objects in universe has a direction on reduction of characteristic of its TC, that corresponds to the reduction of its energy. This process of reduction of TC of all objects occurs discretely on each next quantum of time Qt. Qt simultaneously is the synchronizing signal for all objects.

TIME GOES in the INVERSE DIRECTION i.e to zero.

[JaKiri]

As to the first paragraph, it's not an axiom. It's called the thermodynamic arrow of time, and there has been much discussion.

 

As to the rest,

 

Whut?

[Giles]

Near as I can make out, the rest is also about the second law.

 

Would the following be a correct summary of your post Michael F.D.?

 

as time goes on, work gets done, which reduces the available potential to do more work (i.e. energy). Thus, potential runs down to zero as time goes on.

 

If that's what you mean, you should read about entropy since it's basically the concept you're discussing.

 

The main thing you've missed is that potential running down (i.e. entropy increasing) is a probabilistic effect.

 

(*Giles braces himself to be savaged by the physicists*)

[JaKiri]

The point about energy conservation and the like is that it's a transference, the rate of which may be calculated. It's not about 'running down', as it depends on the surroundings as well.

 

And running down suggests that the energy is destroyed.

 

The second law of thermodynamics is a dodgy reference, as it is those waste energies that he failed to mention that are it's cause.

[Michael F. D.]

To say simply "time" - to say nothing. Time exists in the manner of Time Cycle (TC) inherent to each object only. This is time of their existence or life. From the begining, each object has its own TC (energy is manifestation of TC). A value of TC, in effect of entropy and influence of other objects, has decreases from initial importance to zero. The influence of other objects can shorten an object's TC or break it on any stage. However, there is a mechanism of compensation of TC of object at the expense of TC of other objects. The interaction between objects occurs at a rate of interaction their TC. All known phenomenas are a manifestation of this interaction.

[NavajoEverclear]

Mr. Michael F. D.----- maybe its just because you are from uzbekistan and so your usage of english is not in a very understandable vernacular to me---- still I'm not sure it excuses that you talk like my highschool physics book reads. Our science teacher along with all of the students rather dislike it, because it makes everything much more complicated than it needs to be, with no good reason at all. It was a poor purchase by the school district------ please stop talking like my science book, thank you.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Michael F. D.

To say simply "time" - to say nothing. Time exists in the manner of Time Cycle (TC) inherent to each object only. This is time of their existence or life. From the begining, each object has its own TC (energy is manifestation of TC). A value of TC, in effect of entropy and influence of other objects, has decreases from initial importance to zero. The influence of other objects can shorten an object's TC or break it on any stage. However, there is a mechanism of compensation of TC of object at the expense of TC of other objects. The interaction between objects occurs at a rate of interaction their TC. All known phenomenas are a manifestation of this interaction.

 

Mathematical proof please.

[Radical Edward]

the direction of time can be demonstrated with a simple two word axiom:

 

shit happens.

 

this is obviously true, and has an inherent link with entropy, which is a subset of, and can derived from the two word axiom above.

 

I will go into a more complete demonstration of this later, when I have time to type it up.

[JaKiri]

See if you can put it in the margin, for extra points.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

See if you can put it in the margin, for extra points.

 

I'm no Fermat, unfortunately.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

I'm no Fermat, unfortunately.

 

My point exactly!

 

He didn't do it!

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

My point exactly!

 

He didn't do it!

 

but I won't claim to, either

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

but I won't claim to, either

 

Bloody frogs

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

Bloody frogs

 

too right. Picard was a frog too wasn't he? and was still working on it, hundreds of years after it had been proved.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

too right. Picard was a frog too wasn't he? and was still working on it, hundreds of years after it had been proved.

 

Yep. But then after Wiles prooved it they inserted a line about his proof being the most innovative since, well, Wiles's.

 

Cheecky American Capitalist Pig Dogs.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

Yep. But then after Wiles prooved it they inserted a line about his proof being the most innovative since, well, Wiles's.

 

Cheecky American Capitalist Pig Dogs.

 

they actually edited the episode? heh... neat. do you think that they will edit it again of someone comes up with a more innovative proof than Wiles in the next couple of hundred years.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

they actually edited the episode? heh... neat. do you think that they will edit it again of someone comes up with a more innovative proof than Wiles in the next couple of hundred years.

 

No, they put it in a later episode.

 

And assuming Fermat didn't just fluke it, there's still his solution.

[Radical Edward]

It makes you wonder if he did actually have a solution though. How big is Wiles'? I only saw the program on TV about it, and he was working on it for quite a while, so I imagine it must have been quite substantial.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

It makes you wonder if he did actually have a solution though. How big is Wiles'? I only saw the program on TV about it, and he was working on it for quite a while, so I imagine it must have been quite substantial.

 

Given it was combining the forefronts of 20th century mathematics....

[Michael F. D.]

O.K.

We'll consider the simplest example. Exists well known equation:

T=1/f (1)

Here:

T - a period of fluctuations (sec);

f - a frequency of the fluctuations (Hz).

In accordance with my point, this equation is a quotient by event of more general one:

TC = 1/ U (2)

Here

TC - time cycle of object ( any process is considered as object also);

U - a frequency of events as external so and internal, which capable to change the object.

 

We'll do compare equations (1) and (2).

(1) has a narrow specific using for fluctuations, EM basically.

(2) possible use for any object, including alive one.

 

Example.

 

TC of terrapin and fly have the big difference in effect of the big difference of the frequency of internal events (the breathing, heartbeat, i.e. metabolism). The external events occurs more often with fly also - she does moves much quicker than terrapin.

The Terrapin and fly, as any alive object, compensate the reduction of TC by feeding.

However, inevitably, TC of both of them, will decrease to ZERO.

This will happen when they will die.

[JaKiri]

That's not 'the mathematics'.

 

Show me the empirical evidence that you have gathered for your proposal, why the current model differs from your one and then make a prediction that has not yet been verified.

 

That's how science works.

[Michael F. D.]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's not 'the mathematics'.

 

Show me the empirical evidence that you have gathered for your proposal, why the current model differs from your one and then make a prediction that has not yet been verified.

 

That's how science works.

I am aware that you are talking. This has been presented in the full theoryes:

- General Relativity & Special relativity;

- Super String Theory;

- G-D Theory;

etc.

They must describe full set of the observable phenomenon ( BTW they do not do this), and to make a prediction that has not yet been verified.

However, nobody can present such requirements to the simple point, to single phenomena, Time for instance. You can not require the explanations of the gravity or EM phenomena also, though they can be founded on characteristic of Time.

Besides, I guess that SF this not a place for the full theory. Here possible to get the replies on a some simple point only. I do not expect the rave reviews on my points (regrettably). However, if a point NOT be DISPROVED, I'll consider that my proposal had passed checking for correctness and has been confirmed.

In respect of empirical evidence. My point does not contradicts any existing e.e. I have brought the several examples. It is possible to bring them in any amount and you may find their themselves. This shows the identical attitude of my point to reality. Else, my point unites the matter " not alive" and "alive". Is it too much for the "simple point"?

[JaKiri]

If you can't explain all observed phenomenon (within the accuracy of the experiment), and make predictions, then you are not presenting a scientific theory.

 

ps.

 

GR and QM have NOTHING which support your 'theory' (in fact, quite the opposite)

Superstring theory hasn't even decided which number of dimensions it likes best, let alone been completed

And I have no idea what 'G-D' is, apart from 'General Discussions'

 

[edit]

 

And as to full explanation of observed phenomenon, I obviously mean WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE THEORY.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Michael F. D.

Else, my point unites the matter " not alive" and "alive"

 

I see no difference between live matter and dead (not alive) matter, other than live stuff is more organised (ignoring crystals for simplicity)

[Michael F. D.]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

I see no difference between live matter and dead (not alive) matter, other than live stuff is more organised (ignoring crystals for simplicity)

Is it don't care for you , alive you or dead?