User Tools

Site Tools


ash

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
ash [2015/08/28 10:37]
Henk [A Short Treatise on Travelling]
ash [2015/08/28 19:36] (current)
Henk [A Short Treatise on Travelling]
Line 71: Line 71:
 ==== A Short Treatise on Travelling ==== ==== A Short Treatise on Travelling ====
  
-Only the most naive traveller thinks that the opposite of forward is back, for once one has gone forwards, then turning around and going back does not deliver one to where one started. We have long known that time is a fourth dimension of sorts, and that suggests the tantalising ​possibility that one may be able to find a direction, call it anti-forward,​ that could enable one to return to the exact spot, in both time and space, from where one started. A search for such a direction to may well be a fool's errand. Or not. +Only the most naive traveller thinks that the opposite of forward is back, for once one has gone forwards, then turning around and going back does not deliver one to where one started. We have long known that time is a fourth dimension of sorts, and that suggests the tantalizing ​possibility that one may be able to find a direction, call it anti-forward,​ that could enable one to return to the exact spot, in both time and space, from where one started. A search for such a direction to may well be a fool's errand. Or not. 
  
-It is easy to think of space as a container of sorts, with three axes in perpendicular arrangement stretching from where one is into infinity - a vacuum in which one may move freely. For this to have any meaning though, it is worth noting that there have to be at least two objects concerned, one you measure from and one you measure to, for if there was to be only one object in space, distance would become meaningless,​ as if in a dream. ​+It is easy to think of space as a container of sorts, with three axes in perpendicular arrangement stretching from where one currently ​is into infinity - a vacuum in which one may move freely. For this to have any meaning though, it is worth noting that there have to be at least two objects concerned, one you measure from and one you measure to, for if there was to be only one object in space, distance would become meaningless,​ as if in a dream. ​
  
-We perceive time as a straight line, with our conscious experience as a point on it inexorably moving forwards. Yet, despite our perceptions,​ we think of the past as something concrete, a place that could be revisited, as if it still exists. We consider the future fungible, a set of possible occurrences on which we may impose our will. Yet, continue to extract from nature her laws and rules that reveals ​a clock-like regularity, one in which we, and by that I mean the subjective we, the one that observes, have very little choice.+We perceive time as a straight line, with our conscious experience as a point on it inexorably moving forwards. Yet, despite our perceptions,​ we think of the past as something concrete, a place that could be revisited, as if it still exists. We consider the future fungible, a set of possible occurrences on which we may impose our will. Yet, we continue to extract from nature her laws that reveal ​a clock-like regularity, one in which we, and by that I mean the subjective we, the one that observes, have very little choice.
  
-Reality is no doubt more complicated. It's worth noting that when viewed from afar, a line becomes curved, as space itself is curved. When viewed in a small enough ​time frame, almost all known physical processes can as easily run forwards as back, and paradoxically it seems that one may "​borrow"​ energy from the future as long as you "​pay"​ it back quickly enough, which raises the question; on our imaginary time-line, just how "​thick"​ is the slice of now? +Reality is no doubt more complicated. It's worth noting that when viewed from afar, a line becomes curved, as it is space itself ​that is curved. When viewed in a small enough frame, almost all known physical processes can as easily run forwards as back, and paradoxically it seems that one may "​borrow"​ energy from the future as long as you "​pay"​ it back quickly enough. This raises the question; on our imaginary time-line, just how "​thick"​ is the slice of now anyway
  
 Normally time and space appear linear, yet up close or from afar it is circular. We know that for light to go forwards it requires interacting and rotating fields, and so it seems possible, likely even, that time and space are mere shadows of a bigger thing in which rotation and translation are intimately connected. ​ Normally time and space appear linear, yet up close or from afar it is circular. We know that for light to go forwards it requires interacting and rotating fields, and so it seems possible, likely even, that time and space are mere shadows of a bigger thing in which rotation and translation are intimately connected. ​
  
-With only a tiny turn your gaze can move a hundred miles over a distant and curved horizon, one that up close, ​looks very flat indeed. ​Which suggests that when it comes to movement, the way back may very well be to go forward enough, and that the quickest way forward ​is a turn of sorts.+With only a tiny turn your gaze can move a hundred miles over a distant and curved horizon, one that up close, ​appears to be very flat indeed. ​This suggests that when it comes to movement, the way back may very well be to go forward enough, and that the quickest way forward ​be a turn of sorts.
 ===== Background ===== ===== Background =====
  
ash.txt · Last modified: 2015/08/28 19:36 by Henk