Author Topic: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".  (Read 3681 times)

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« on: June 09, 2009, 03:05:47 am »
Alright, the other day, while on the toilet, I had an idea for the flow of time...

In my theory, time is not actually a "line" but a polar function which circles around, and constanly moves closer and closer to the center, (0, 0), the end of time.  The curve will constantly get closer, by a rate which halves the radius from the center every full revolution around.  It is done this way for the reason of that it will never actually reach the end of time, but still constantly get closer.  For an explanation:

Take a bridge... walk halfway across it.  Then walk half of the distance you need to reach the other side... then half of that, then half of that...

...you will find that you will constantly have some sort of infintecimal distance between you, and the exact end of the bridge... this is because no matter how close to the end you get, you can only move half that distance closer... well, the same goes for this model of time.

I do it this way because it doesn't interfere with the normal human's perception of time, which is that it constantly moves forward, and can never reach the end of time... however, for the time traveler, this make alot more sense than the idea of a "line".

imagine time as a wire with a current always running.  in the normal line theory, there is no possible way for someone to take and bridge the distance from x point on the wire to the end of the wire because the wire goes on infinitely.  However, in this infinite loop/curve theory, one could easily take a short wire and connect it to (0, 0) and some other point in time because it has a finite distance.  It makes the illogical just that much more, well, logical.

I originally wanted to take a picture of an example graph of what the time "line" would look like in this situation but... Then I realized, I needed an equasion for it!  I found an equasion for it but...  well, you'll see.

Below is where I quote my "findings" explained (Math illiterate beware!)

Quote
I was trying to find the right polar equasion which (can) start off however

large, and constantly gets closer to the center, with each revolution of 2pi

making the radius X times smaller.

the INTERESTING part is that despite the fact it constantly moves toward the

center (0, 0), it will never reach it until it hits infinity, and that it

starts off at infinity.

However, upon beginning this, I decided that I would work the equasion in

reverse...

by making an assumption (sp?) that a whole circle around would be 2x, a half

circle around would be halfway inbetween 1x and 2x, being 1.5x, and 1/4 way

would be 1.25x, etc, I realized that there was a possibility for there to

actually be an equasion to specify the radius of a given angle from 0, 0,

given an original point.

I was correct in my assumption of the existance of such an equasion.

I came up with a recursive equasion that seemed correct, which was (r is

radius function, A is angle): 
r(A) = (2z)/(2z-y)*r(A-(2pi*(y/z))
y/z represents the percentage of a full circle that is made, and the

preceding ratio was supposedly correct.

Basically put, the equasion states that the radius of the current angle is

equal to (2z)/(2z-y) times the radius that was (y/z)% of a circle ago.

When I tested this, it worked under the circumstances... i tried taking

halfway around the circle, from a radius of 1, and then took a whole circle

from there.  Afterwards, I took a whole circle from one (putting it at two),

then took a half circle from there (doing the steps in reverse order).  The

numbers matched up.  It seemed to be flawless....

...until I tried to take two halves of the circle.  I took the first half,

starting at 1, it looked fine.  I took the next half from there, and the

number did not equal 2 (double of 1, which should be the number which is

reached from 2 halves).

I gave it thought, and told myself that I had done nothing wrong, and I

thought I lost all the work I had made.  I thought that it was just

impossible to have it double on every single angle, and then I just gave

up.. thinking that I would have to find a more proper equasion, with an

increase by X times every circle, and then maybe I could find a working

number with which it would work...

...and then I thought to myself today, as I was first writing this

message... "What if it wasn't the number two that had been off... what if my

numeric assumptions (at the beginning) in relation to each % around the

circle were off?"

And after a number of thoughts and such entered my head, it came to my

realization that the equasion which I multiplied the radius by was wrong...

the function of (2z)/(2z-y) only seemed to work because I was making the

wrong kinds of tests, with the wrong assumptions.  I had assumed that when I

took 1/2 around the circle it would be (2*2)/(2*2-1), or 4/3, times what the

original radius was...

...I realized that whatever distance around the circle you go, there is a

counter distance that you still have left to travel... and that the two

coefficients to the function r(A) created had to multiply to be equal to

two...

r(A) = (2z)/(2z-y)*r(A-(2pi*(y/z))), the 2 coefficients created by (2z)/(2z

-y) when doing halfway aroudn the circle, and another half, would and could

never multiply up to be two, unless you go all the way around the circle the

first step, and then dont go around at all the next step.

y/z being a percentage... then (z-y)/z + y/z would be equal to one, always.

and thats when it all came togethor.  Its where I am now.  with a working,

proper equasion for it.

r(A) = 2^(y/z)*r(A-(2pi*(y/z)))

is the proper equasion... because of the way powers work.

lets start by taking a whole circle in one step, from r(0) = 1.

w/z, the distance around circle, = 100%, so y=1 and z=1

r(2pi) = 2^(1/1)*r(2pi-(2pi*(1/1)))
= 2 * r(2pi-2pi)
= 2 * r(0)
= 2 * 1.

this is the perfect, original idea to this equasion.

Now, the next test was to get past the flaw of my original equasion: you

take it twice, with intervals of 1/2 a circle, from the starting point being

1... this should presumably then make 1 whole circle around, bringing the

equasion to two.

r(0) = 1

r(pi) = 2^(1/2)*r(pi-(2pi*(1/2)))
= 2^1/2 * r(pi-pi)  = 2^(1/2) * r(0).

r(2pi) = 2^(1/2)*r(2pi-(2pi*(1/2)))
= 2^1/2 * r(2pi-pi) = 2^(1/2) * 2^(1/2) * r(0).

now, the way that powers work, (which I am sure you already know but I feel

like explaining anyways because I'm bored and excited) is that when you

multiply two different powers, which have the same base, you add the powers

togethor, and keep the original base.

so 2^(1/2)*2^(1/2), add the two 1/2s togethor, you get 2^1, which is two.

So, contrary to my original ideas, rather than the coefficient to the

equasion constantly being a fraction, it is constantly a power!  Going less

than one full 2pi makes it a strange root of sorts, and going more than 2pi

makes it a power greater than 1.

now... after this i realize that this equasion is not only applicable to a

function that doubles in size every full circle, but to a function that

increases by X every full circle...

so a completely generalized equasion would be:

r(A) = X^(y/z) * r(A - (2pi * (y/z)))
A = Angle at which the radius is being determined.
X = rate by which the radius increases over 2pi.
y/z = percentage of 2pi which is being traversed.
All of this given that
r(b) = c,  b and c being constants.

now, I know this isnt the exact equasion for graphing the curve which I was

originally trying to find... however, I'm sure that with some manipulation

and calculus (maybe), that equasion isn't too far off either.

NO! I just found it! No calculus needed, of coarse.
by taking the origin angle 0 to be given any radius "c", the equasion is

formable into a non-recursive equasion!

by taking the origin angle and radius combination, and replacing r(A - (2pi

* (y/z))) with it... you can rewrite the other half of the equasion...

...making a combined form of:

r(A) = X^(A/(2pi))*c, c being the original radius.  This works because all

the original recursive equasion was doing was taking a previous radius and

multiplying it by a power derived from the ratio of how far around the

circle it is going.  Now it can be used to graph the curve in which the

radius increases X times over every full 2pi.

... this is the point where I laugh at myself... because this dumbass over

here spent his entire night trying to find a so-called "complex equasion"

for a function that he fathomed as "impossible"...

... this is the point of realization of "damn... I probably could have found

this stupid thing on the internet! *bangs fist on desk* ".

My "big realization" was probably nothing but foolishness to begin with...

this is the part where you all post "lul idiot".

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2009, 04:03:27 am »
Heh, not idiot. As I said on the IRC, it's a deft equation. I admit I didn't always follow your methodology, but it certainly gets you to a good conclusion. However, I would still hold suspect this concept of time. I'll think on it somewhat. At the very least it's very interesting. I think you should talk to BROJ on this. He was speaking to me of the idea that time might be slowing down, and I think this is what you were alluding to in this, correct? That time, though of course imperceptable to us, slows? Or have I mistaken that?

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2009, 04:18:47 am »
Heh, not idiot. As I said on the IRC, it's a deft equation. I admit I didn't always follow your methodology, but it certainly gets you to a good conclusion. However, I would still hold suspect this concept of time. I'll think on it somewhat. At the very least it's very interesting.
why thank you
Quote
I think you should talk to BROJ on this. He was speaking to me of the idea that time might be slowing down
no thank you.. this guy seems to know real life stuff alot more than I do.  I'm a computer science major and theatre geek, not a quantum physicist.. =D
Quote
I think this is what you were alluding to in this, correct? That time, though of course imperceptable to us, slows? Or have I mistaken that?

no, this was merely a way to say that
1: rather than moving to an unreachable infinity "end of time", the end of time is a point with a finite distance from all other points in time.
2: to make time travel (a little) more sensical.

say that the X factor (change in radius for every revolution) was actually so close to 1 that after 1 revelation around, starting at a radius of 1, it ends with a radius of about .99999999.   For normal people, it would take them one whole revolution around the end of time (with a radius of 1, is about pi) to reach that point... however for a time traveler, it takes merely .000000001 (the exact distance between the point before, and after one revolution), a lot less than 3.14.


Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2009, 12:27:16 pm »
I'm not understanding some of your basic assumptions. Why can one never reach the end of time, and why should it be an infinite distance away from any other point?

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2009, 02:05:06 pm »
I'm not understanding some of your basic assumptions. Why can one never reach the end of time, and why should it be an infinite distance away from any other point?

Well, isn't time supposed to continue on forever, always moving forward?  Thus never reaching an "end"?
with this "different" model of time, its still moving on forever, but its within reachable distance to anything extra-temporal.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2009, 02:31:16 pm »
Ah, but we know that there is an end of time in CT (it's even named), and assuming a similar origin to the Chronoverse as to the Universe, then time also began (with the Big Bang). While time might be incredibly large, I don't see why it would be called infinite.

Of course, that isn't to say you're alternate model is wrong; I'm just trying to understand your starting point.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2009, 03:12:18 pm »
Ah, but we know that there is an end of time in CT (it's even named), and assuming a similar origin to the Chronoverse as to the Universe, then time also began (with the Big Bang). While time might be incredibly large, I don't see why it would be called infinite.

Of course, that isn't to say you're alternate model is wrong; I'm just trying to understand your starting point.

Well, you could say that this all started after I got to thinking about where the "end of time" was... more technically, when, but w/ever.

I mean, in the epoch, the end of time is marked with the sign for infinity where it is supposed to give a date.  I mean, weather this was a mere technicality and is just used to describe that its a long way off, or if it actually is in a literal sense an infinite amount of time away....  that is still yet to be determined.  But I made this under the circumstance and possibility that it actually is a literal infinity away...

well, you know me and my musings.  they always go awry somehow, amirite?

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2009, 03:47:51 pm »
Well, maybe I can put your idea into better words with a simple analogy, and also bring in another thought from CT.

Essentially what you are talking about, I think, is like a whirlpool around which everthing spins. This is the progression of time, and the bottom of the whirlpool is the 'end', as Gaspar puts it, the place of least temporal resistance. Objects spin around this, getting closer and closer to the bottom, but at such a mathematical rate that they will never actually reach the bottom - to borrow Serge's analogy, it's like the Tortise and Achilles... but here, each time around means the radius decreases by half of the previous radius, meaning that the distance from the 'end' becomes 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, etc. but will never actually reach zero, only 1/infinity. However, the path along which the object has travelled AROUND will be infinitely long, hence the end of time is, along the temporal straightened line (which we see), infinity. In essence, the theory has it that time is in fact moving along two or three dimensions, rather than only one, but that we perceive it as straight, even as, in driving around the world, perceive our motion as a straight line, even thought it is curved in two and three dimensions.

Now, as for time travellers, they are not restricted to moving 'along' the line, but rather can jump across concentric paths. Since the distance between any point and the endpoint middle is discrete (ie. less than '1', the initial start of time), the time traveller essentially circumvents the necessity to travel the 'infinite distance'. In some sense, a 'dimnesional jump' has been made. In fact, Serge, what you are talking about is almost like a temporal wormhole, correct?

Anyway, his main thesis then is that the 'end' of time is never more than a distance of '1' away, and is, in fact, the same distance away as is 1/2pi rotations around the centre end.

Has this made sense? Essentially it appears to be an advocation of a multi-dimensional nature of time in which lateral movement rather than parallel can be used to leap great distances in time.

Finally, to account for another thing... if the mass of that which is travelling through that jump is great enough, the vortex nature of the temporal spiral will make the mass unable to settle onto another orbit, and it will instead fall directly into the centre.

Has this properly explained things? Sorry for not being more lucid a few days ago Serge. My brain was rather diminished in capacity for whatever reason, but I'm thinking more analytically at the moment, and this all is making far more sense to me.

I shall draw you a picture. Or, heh, should I graph it in Excel? I think I can do an equation in that, can't I? Hmm...

Now, the question is, is there any evidence that time in fact could operate this way? You see, the prevailing theory I have had of time is that it is linear, and that our forward momentum is an aftereffect of the Big Bang, much like our outward velocity and expansion of the universe is a result of that primordeal explosion. It is possible to slow down this velocity, but one would require temporal engines and temporal 'matter'. And, of course, this does not explain why an object exposed to a field which lowers its temporal velocity (ie. a gravitational field) will see its velocity reasserted upon leaving it, nor indeed its intrinsic connection to spacial velocity. However, in what you are seeing, the End acts as a vortex, drawing things to it.

I must give this more thought, but I would much like to hear those more versed in matters as this give their opinion. My fields of knowledge are limited to mechanical type engineering, and ancient languages, the latter of which gives no benefit, and the former of which only in a cursory fashion. I can thus understand your mathematics, but further theorizing puts me on tenative ground.

Update: Here's an excel graph of what you're talking about, I think. I have set the diminishing factor to 0.8. As you can see, for the number of instances I have, the line does not ever reach the 0,0 mark, the distance from any given point to the centre remains finite. I will input a function that can show me 'distance' (ie. time) travelled along the line compared to distance to centre. Note, however, that I think the true diminishing factor might be extordinarially small, perhaps infinitely small. As such, the discrete distance to the centre does not change much over noticable time.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 04:17:16 pm by Daniel Krispin »

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2009, 10:24:42 pm »
I understand what you are trying to explain with this model, but what is confusing to me is that time is represented two dimensionally here. There is an x-direction and a y-direction to time, with (presumably) the timeline and observers to the flow of time existing at all points on the line, right? Well, a 2-dimensional representation of time makes sense to me in the sense of Time Error - in that there is a perpendicular axis to the normal flow of time. A 3-dimensional representation of time even makes sense to me if The End of Time was along the z-axis, thus being both perpendicular to the timeline and to the Time Error axis. But a two-dimensional representation of time that is a spiral? That is just strange, and both dimensional aspects of it would have to be explained by you for your theory to make sense I think.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2009, 10:39:22 pm »
I understand what you are trying to explain with this model, but what is confusing to me is that time is represented two dimensionally here. There is an x-direction and a y-direction to time, with (presumably) the timeline and observers to the flow of time existing at all points on the line, right? Well, a 2-dimensional representation of time makes sense to me in the sense of Time Error - in that there is a perpendicular axis to the normal flow of time. A 3-dimensional representation of time even makes sense to me if The End of Time was along the z-axis, thus being both perpendicular to the timeline and to the Time Error axis. But a two-dimensional representation of time that is a spiral? That is just strange, and both dimensional aspects of it would have to be explained by you for your theory to make sense I think.

I think you're not accounting for one of the basic presuppositions of his model: polar, as opposed to cartesian, coordinates. In that case you wouldn't have x,y, and z components, but rather angle,r, and perhaps z. As I've already said, this is more of a vortex, perhaps, and as such things may spiral downwards, as they go further in, but that is difficult to graph. But anyway, I think his whole epiphany in this was looking at things apart from the cartesian way we are typically wont to look at things.

I would probably set things up differently myself, but I think this was the sum of his theory.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2009, 01:24:53 am »
I understand what you are trying to explain with this model, but what is confusing to me is that time is represented two dimensionally here. There is an x-direction and a y-direction to time, with (presumably) the timeline and observers to the flow of time existing at all points on the line, right? Well, a 2-dimensional representation of time makes sense to me in the sense of Time Error - in that there is a perpendicular axis to the normal flow of time. A 3-dimensional representation of time even makes sense to me if The End of Time was along the z-axis, thus being both perpendicular to the timeline and to the Time Error axis. But a two-dimensional representation of time that is a spiral? That is just strange, and both dimensional aspects of it would have to be explained by you for your theory to make sense I think.

I think you're not accounting for one of the basic presuppositions of his model: polar, as opposed to cartesian, coordinates. In that case you wouldn't have x,y, and z components, but rather angle,r, and perhaps z. As I've already said, this is more of a vortex, perhaps, and as such things may spiral downwards, as they go further in, but that is difficult to graph. But anyway, I think his whole epiphany in this was looking at things apart from the cartesian way we are typically wont to look at things.

I would probably set things up differently myself, but I think this was the sum of his theory.

Krispen, thou doth have a way with words.

Eric, you say that I say that time is 2 dimensional, and then you give your viewpoint as to a 2 dimensional time model that is depicting entirely different priciples than the ones I am trying to convey.

Let me give a similar situation depicting the way you are comparing the two ideas.

Both ideas, however valid, can coexist.

Say our teacher or our boss (for WHATEVER reason) assigns you, me, and Krispies to depict a property of a circle.

the next day we both come back.

I have a circle graphed on my piece of paper, with radius of 1.  Just the basic circle shape itself.

Krispies comes back with a rectangle (wtf, I know) with the dimensions 1 by pi.

You come back with a graph of the function pi*2*x.

Now, however different the graphs are, and however different their x and y axes (sp?) were used, all of them are still correct in their own right.

Mine was correct in displaying the shape of the circle.

Krispies' would have been correct in displaying the area of the circle.

And yours would have been correct for displaying the ratio of radius to circumfrence.


2 more ways to think about how your model and mine don't interfere:

If you just unroll and straighten out the "curly line" that mine depicts (thank you for the wonderful picture, Krispies!), then it still can be thought of, and applied, as a line.

OR

If you think of it in a polar way, one could also merely take the radius R as itself and alone while disregarding theta, thusly limiting it to R being the one and only necessary axis when relating time to other things such as real world, or possibly even alternate dimensions.  Its kindof like taking a string thats been wound around a spool.  it may be wrapped in a circle now, but in the string's point of view, its still just a line.

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2009, 08:23:28 pm »
Got it. The circle analogy was perfect. It's also interesting to me that in both yours and my more traditional example the End of Time is not reachable as a point on the timeline alone. In yours the distance to it is constantly halved ad infinitum, and in mine it exists as a parallel dimension of time.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 08:25:49 pm by chrono eric »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2009, 11:08:10 am »
Anyway, his main thesis then is that the 'end' of time is never more than a distance of '1' away, and is, in fact, the same distance away as is 1/2pi rotations around the centre end.

Thanks for the explanation, it did indeed make sense, but I have to reject it because it seems (I say "seems" because it feels like I am forgetting a mathematical concept pertinent to this) to have the exact same problem that it attempts to solve. The arrow of time need not be set in one direction only: the end of time can just as easily be the beginning of time, depending on the direction one is "traveling." So, apply the same reasoning but in reverse. A non 0, 0 point is the beginning of time and time itself spirals outwards, doubling in distance with each pass. If the end of time is an infinite distance away along the spiral itself, there will be an infinite doubling of distances. While the distance between sections might be finite, the distance between the end of time and any other point once again becomes infinitely large, either along the spiral or otherwise.

So this is really just a fancy way of asking, why, in the original model, does time spiral inwardly rather than outwardly?

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2009, 04:23:22 pm »
Yes, well, as I said, I myself do not entirely agree with it. I was just attempting to explain his hypothesis. I think my own concept of time is rather different.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Theory on time, and my "big revelation".
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2009, 05:36:11 pm »
Anyway, his main thesis then is that the 'end' of time is never more than a distance of '1' away, and is, in fact, the same distance away as is 1/2pi rotations around the centre end.

Thanks for the explanation, it did indeed make sense, but I have to reject it because it seems (I say "seems" because it feels like I am forgetting a mathematical concept pertinent to this) to have the exact same problem that it attempts to solve. The arrow of time need not be set in one direction only: the end of time can just as easily be the beginning of time, depending on the direction one is "traveling." So, apply the same reasoning but in reverse. A non 0, 0 point is the beginning of time and time itself spirals outwards, doubling in distance with each pass. If the end of time is an infinite distance away along the spiral itself, there will be an infinite doubling of distances. While the distance between sections might be finite, the distance between the end of time and any other point once again becomes infinitely large, either along the spiral or otherwise.

So this is really just a fancy way of asking, why, in the original model, does time spiral inwardly rather than outwardly?

well... if you wish to get interesting, you could say that the model of time is actually TWO infinite spirals, with the two centerpoints being the beginning and end of time, whose centers are distance X away from eachother and the point in which time stops outwardly spiraling around the beginning of time and starts inwardly spiraling around the end is exactly at the midpoint between the two spiral's centers...

=D

A mite chaotic, but still just as reasonable as the original spiral idea, if not more reasonable...