Stasis and infinite boredom. The trivial solution.

One thing for certain, time would not stop if all thinking beings
died. Non-cognitive processes continue despite the absence of thought.

But, none of this explains what happens if you're going the speed of light in your car and turn on the headlights......

But the light emitted when a particle is moving faster than the speed
of light is well known. It is called Cherenkov radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

In other words, I should probably slow down at night?

That cannot be tested or proven therefore i'll bet there is no evidence to support that statement.

Full circle.

fire with fire?

Yes, the special theory of relativity goes against this claim.

The faster you move through space the slower through time. Earlier you said light does not age, and I would agree, becuase all of its movement is through space and none through time. This matches with a well established theory.

However it goes against the claim that light does not travel. We cannot claim that light both does not age, and that it does not move within the framework of special relativity.

To do any kind of calculations we require two frames of reference, and from either movement is occurring. Thus light moves through space. It also means that if light had perspective, all events would occur simultaneously, does that even have meaning however, most scientists would say probably not. This appears to be what is hanging up yonder laymen.

I just started reading the book "The end of time" by Julian Barbour. It will take me a while to get through it. He suggests that time and motion could be an illusion. Which I do find difficult to comprehend on one level, but hey, he is a physicist. I guess if you are in for a penny you are in for a pound. You have to go all the way.

Another book, "The fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch. Also very interesting. He believes in parallel worlds. I don't like his stuff as well as I like Julian Barbour's. Deutsch is hard to understand listening to and reading.

http://www.ted.com/speakers/david_deutsch.html

David Deutsch will force you to reconsider your place in the world. This legendary Oxford physicist is the leading proponent of the multiverse (or "many worlds") interpretation of quantum theory -- the idea that our universe is constantly spawning countless numbers of parallel worlds.

In his own words: "Everything in our universe -- including you and me, every atom and every galaxy -- has counterparts in these other universes." If that doesn't alter your consciousness, then the other implications he's derived from his study of subatomic physics -- including the possibility of time travel -- just might.

In The Fabric of Reality, Deutsch tied together quantum mechanics, evolution, a rationalist approach to knowledge, and a theory of computation based on the work of Alan Turing. "Our best theories are not only truer than common sense, they make more sense than common sense,"Deutsch wrote, and he continues to explore the most mind-bending aspects of particle physics.

"Amazingly enough, it is Deutsch's idea -- one he has harbored since childhood, he says -- to truly understand 'everything' that is known. Even more amazing is how close he seems to have come and how well he explains it to the rest of us."

The San Jose Mercury News

Julian Barbor

His 1999 The End of Time advances timeless physics: the controversial view that time, as we perceive it, does not exist as anything other than an illusion, and that a number of problems in physical theory arise from assuming that it does exist. He argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory of it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. "Change merely creates an illusion of time, with each individual moment existing in its own right, complete and whole." He calls these moments "Nows". It is all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that the illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time capsules," which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the appearance of motion, change or history." The philosopher J. M. E. McTaggart reached a similar conclusion in his 1908 The Unreality of Time. And in one of his last letters, Einstein wrote "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn, persistent illusion."[1]

Julian Barbour (born 1937) is a British physicist with research interests in quantum gravity and the history of science.
Since receiving his Ph.D. degree on the foundations of Einstein's general theory of relativity at the University of Cologne in 1968, Barbour has supported himself and his family without an academic position, working part-time as a translator.

http://www.platonia.com/ <----- his website

I would ask this . . . . what does the word illusion mean? I would wager that the word usage is not even close to the colloquial usage. Basically it applies only at the shallowest of context.

This is one of the main problems you are having here in this thread. Word usage, hologram, illusion, time. The way we use these words makes a big difference in our understandings in one context, or could end up being meaningless in another.

For me, physics is what physics is, what it looks like from the laymen perspective is meaningless. I am uninterested in what it looks like, but instead in how we can make predictions based on theory, if it works its at least as accurate as it is functional. After all what does any theory that is based on maths that cannot be visualized look like? Looks have always been deceiving in physics, that is why we test. Theories can be counter intuitive at first, however some of our brightest physics have pointed out that anything sufficiently complex is unintuitive by definition, thus relegating this observation of complexity to a shallow point that leads to no new knowledge.

What does illusion mean in such a context, I wager it is meaningless. Movement can be illusory, but we have a framework via relativity on how to deal with it, and this allows us to make accurate predictions. We get to know it well in college and so we start to be able to visualize how it works, and it stops being illusory. Illusion requires perspective and perspective should not effect fundamental theories, thus I cannot be compelled by any person, famous physicist or not, that uses the word while trying to describe popular science. Telling a baffled reader that what we know may be illusory is really just saying, man this stuff is hard to visualize . . . lol. Not very compelling to me hahaha.

Hologram has an objective description and thus is different, however no good theory has been presented regarding this, Max Tegmark has started, but alas its incomplete and makes invalid predictions at this point so he is still most certainly on the drawing board with that one. Honestly this is one of my problems with you JB, you have not sufficiently studied accurate theories that do make accurate predictions, and instead are spending time reading about unsubstantiated theories first. From my perspective one should educate in what has been tested and accepted, then later read the ideas that have not reached accepted theory.

I love ted.com.
Seen the presentation on Play?

Bushidobilly... exactly, most these discussions are discussions on perception... further definitions would definitely help with time, space, light, image... time is what my clock says, it moves unless the batteries run out. Space is what usually contains nothing, so I can put stuff there, which I don't have enough of right now. Light is a tricky one for me... there's the switch on the wall that makes the room bright... doesn't work if I forget to pay the electric bill. It's also what usually wakes me up at 5am. And it's what Yoda is part of.

Well I just wanted to introduce the idea. If anyone is interested in it they can read the books I mentioned, if not, so be it.

I need to get back to painting.

Have a nice day!

Per wikipedia, Barbour got a PhD in physics over 40 years ago, and hasn't had a related academic position since then. Apparently (?) based on this, same call him a 'physicist'; this labeling in turn cases some to think he is an authority on physics.

Maybe he is, maybe there is more I'm unaware of, but getting a PhD 40 years ago is pretty much useless as an indicator of a persons ability to speaking meaningfully on the topic.

Its not common, but apparently profitable, for barely knowledgeable people with PhDs to write nonsense books filled with jargon which blends physics with BS. The fact the subject matter is authentically difficult to understand makes it easier for them to confuse people into thinking they are saying something meaningful.

Quoted for truth.

Oh yea love TED. Dono if I have seen the one on play, ill make a point to check it out.

How would you know that?

IF this is a thought created (dream like) universe it would not be true. Where is your evidence that the above statement is true?

Fossils?



The earth itself?

No that would not be evidence simply because all thinking beings have not died.

Here we are.

(Science is still hard pressed to even know what "thought" actually is.)