<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Whitechapel - Does Time have heights?</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 05:42:25 -0700</lastBuildDate>
			<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>
				Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.4 &amp; Feed Publisher
			</generator>
			<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276217#Comment_276217</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276217#Comment_276217</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:44:32 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Jack the Rapper</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ What if Time has dimensions like Space? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276218#Comment_276218</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276218#Comment_276218</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:49:55 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>-3-</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Well, given that time and space are considered to be two aspects of an intertwined time/space - i suppose it actually might, eh? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276222#Comment_276222</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276222#Comment_276222</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:43:48 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Warped Savant</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ It depends on where you're viewing time from. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276230#Comment_276230</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276230#Comment_276230</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:01:13 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Jeff P.</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ To properly tackle this question I need to be twenty-five years younger and really high. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276238#Comment_276238</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276238#Comment_276238</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:52:21 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>SilentObjector</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Like... with tachyons? I can't even imagine. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276245#Comment_276245</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276245#Comment_276245</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:32:46 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brendan McGinley</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Would that make parallels equivalent to width? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276246#Comment_276246</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276246#Comment_276246</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:33:52 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>-3-</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Makes sense. Travelling to parallels is sometimes referred to as "sideways time travel" or something similar. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276249#Comment_276249</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276249#Comment_276249</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:47:13 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>256</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ It doesn't really become an interesting question until there's some evidence that is unexplained unless you invoke an additional time dimension. <br /><br />Unfortunately, time is one of those particular subjects that attracts crackpots like flies to fat. In any open discussion, sooner or later, someone will stroll in and proclaim that time doesn't exist or that it is a perceptual artifact, without any obvious evidence to ignite this sentiment. <br /><br />The thing is, time isn't a perceptual artifact. It is not, as I've often heard people say "because we can't perceive everything at once" (I don't know what it is that makes people say this - perhaps it is somewhat true of our subjective experience of the sequence of events. But that's not the same thing - that's like saying that length doesn't exist because you can't remember where along the street you parked). In physics, time (or: displacement along the time axis) is what distinguishes the state of the universe with <em >less</em> entropy from the one with <em >more</em> entropy (note that this has to be applied to the universe as a whole, not just locally).<br /><br />[Entropy, loosely, is the mixing up of energy, or evening out high and low potential; if you throw a bucket of ice into a hot bath, entropy is exhibited as the temperatures average out to lukewarm.]<br /><br />Since entropy flows only in one direction, and cannot be reduced, the linear nature of time is demonstrated. In the past there was less entropy, in the future there will be more. <br /><br />Not that time is wholly immutable. Mass, which distorts space to create gravity, also distorts time and makes it "run" slower - a clock on a mountain top will tick <em >ever so slightly</em> faster than one at sea level. I know that around extremely massive objects, like neutron stars, time is supposed to slow down significantly. I don't know what it would do at the edge of a black hole, but I bet it's fucked up.<br /><br />Physics is fun, kids. Stay in school<br /><br />[Disclaimer: I have a physics degree, but I also have Bermudan Tiger flu and an open beer in front of me. Do not plan any space/time exploration or career changes based on the preceding statements.] ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276286#Comment_276286</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276286#Comment_276286</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:26:51 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>John Skylar</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Any existence of multiple time dimensions would be a mathematical construct to describe a phenomenon that is proposed or observed.  All dimensionality is a mathematical construct to approximate phenomena that we observe in the world around us.  All math used in physics is the same in this regard.<br /><br />Is there a phenomenon that is explained by the existence of more than one time dimension?<br /><br />I do not believe so.  I would be delighted to hear if there were. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276288#Comment_276288</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276288#Comment_276288</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:01:09 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Jack the Rapper</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ In reality, asJohn Barrow says in "The Universe constants" more than a time dimension would make  the Universe unpredictable and ultimately unfit for complex life. But yes, going to parallel universes is akin to going sideways in time. IMHO ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276290#Comment_276290</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276290#Comment_276290</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:04:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>oddbill</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Not science, science fiction, but Kim Stanley Robinson used a really intriguing idea of time having 3 dimensions of its own in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Dream-Kim-Stanley-Robinson/dp/0553806599" >Galileo's Dream</a>.<br /><br />Here:<br /><br /><blockquote >...what we call time, is a compound with a vector made up of three temporalities. <br /><br />...The first temporality moves very fast - at the speed of light, in fact. This explains the speed of light, which is simply the rate of movement in this dimension if you consider it as a space. We call that time therefore speed of light time, or <em >c</em> time, from the old notation for the speed of light.<br /><br />...But the second temporal dimension is very slow, by comparison. It's so slow that most phenomena seem suspended within it, almost as if it were that absolute grid of Newtonian - I mean Galilean - space. We call this one lateral or eternal time, thus <em >e</em> time, and we have found it vibrates slowly back and forth, as if the universe itself were a single string or bubble, vibrating or breathing. There is a systolic/diastolic change as it vibrates, but the vibration is weakly interacting with us, and its amplitude appears to be small.<br /><br />...the third temporal dimension we call antichronos, because it moves in the reverse direction of <em >c</em> time, while it also interacts with <em >e</em> time. <br /><br />The three temporalities flow through and resonate with each other, and they all pulse with vibrations of their own. We then experience the three as one, as a kind of fluctuating vector, with resonance effects when pulses from the three overlap in various ways. All those actions together create the percieved time of human consciousness. The present is a three-way interference pattern.<br /><br />...The vector nature of the manifold also accounts for many of the temporal effects we experience, like entropy, action at a distance...<br /><br />...In terms of what we sense, fluctuations in this manifold also account for most of our dreams, as well as less common sensations like involuntary memory, foresight, deja vu, presque vu, jamais vu, nostalgia, precognition, Ruckgriffe, Schwanung, paralipomena, mystical union with the eternal or the One, and so on.<br /><br />-Kim Stanley Robinson - Galileo's Dream pg: 213-214</blockquote><br /><br />It goes on a bit from there. It's really an interesting formulation, though absolutely and by the author admittedly science fiction.<br /><br />@John Skylar - it places several consciousness phenomena in the context of varying perceptions of the distinct time dimensions:<br /><br /><blockquote >"...The compound nature of the manifold creates our perception of both transience and permanence, of being and becoming. They account for that paradoxical feeling I often notice, that any moment in my past happened just a short time ago and yet is separated from me by an immense gulf of time. Both are true; these are subconscious perceptions of a delaminated e and c time."<br /><br />"And the sense of eternity that occasionally strikes? When you ring like a bell?"<br /><br />"That would be a powerful isolated sense of e time, which does in fact vibrate in a bell-like way.<br /><br />Then in a different way, the sense of inexorable dissolution or breakdown we call entropy, also the feeling called nostalgia, these are the perceptions of antichronos passing backward through c and e time. Indeed Bao's work leads to a mathematical description of entropy as a kind of friction between antichronos and c time running against the grain of each other, so to speak. By their interaction."<br /><br />-Kim Stanley Robinson - Galileo's Dream pg: 214-215</blockquote><br /><br />It's really quite a good device. It feels very convincing in the novel. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276296#Comment_276296</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276296#Comment_276296</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 01:53:12 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>mercurialblonde</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Could you really perceive height without the perspective of distance--which would require you remembering the moon isn't a quarter right in front of your face--which would require some level of experience I think(even if it's an immeasurable split whatever).  (i'm saying space isn't just a measurement--but ah...head space--time exists existentially)<br /><br />I'm sorry.  That's dangerously close to "time isn't real, maaaan".<br /><br />Perception is context though.  And maybe the entropy of the universe is a force through which these experiences and perceptions are shaped--but they do seem to be two separate things.  The force and the produced sensation.  But my degree was in history and English, so things make more sense to me narratively than they do labspeak. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276301#Comment_276301</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276301#Comment_276301</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:08:12 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Nygaard</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ The line about the unreality of time looks a bit like folklore trying to absorb einstein's concept of the unity of timespace?<br /><br />"Folk physics". Now there is a line of inquiry I could have some fun with. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276303#Comment_276303</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276303#Comment_276303</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:18:54 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Fan</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ > "Folk physics". Now there is a line of inquiry I could have some fun with.<br /><br />There were some examples of that in the novel _Orphans in the Sky_, where the people on a STL interstellar spaceship had forgotten what previous generations knew; one example I can remember was their believing that the inverse square law of gravitation was meant as a parable for human love/attraction, with its lesson being similar to "out of sight, out of mind". ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276330#Comment_276330</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276330#Comment_276330</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:08:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Berserker</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Ha, should have known this would end up being a discussion thread.<br /><br />Consider this - for astronauts ( and satellites, for that matter ) orbiting the earth, time does indeed move at a measurably different rate. It's been proven that speed and mass both have an effect on time's rate of passage - well, relatively speaking anyway.<br /><br />So, in the sense that proximity to a large mass affects time, yes, you COULD say the time 'has a height'.  But for all practical purposes, I would say that this is a rather inaccurate description of what's really happening.<br /><br />And of course, this does nothing to explain how the Freakangels pulled off their little 'time moat' trick. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276331#Comment_276331</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276331#Comment_276331</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:24:40 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Finagle</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Perhaps I'm being oversimplistic, but I thought Time *was* the 4th dimension.  So asking "Does Time have heights?" should be sort of equivalent to asking, "Does width have heights?"<br /><br />Or am I totally off there? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276337#Comment_276337</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276337#Comment_276337</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:10:27 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>allana</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Heinlein covered this one in <em >Number of the Beast</em>, didn't he? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276341#Comment_276341</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276341#Comment_276341</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:29:56 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Flabyo</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Finagle - that would be my understanding of it too, but I never took Physics beyond A-Level so they probably teach something different at uni... :) ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276363#Comment_276363</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276363#Comment_276363</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:08:23 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Berserker</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Finagle - I guess it depends on you perspective, eh?  Kind of like the rest of relativity... ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276411#Comment_276411</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276411#Comment_276411</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:11:14 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Fan</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ > What if Time has dimensions like Space?<br /><br />I suppose you're thinking of the 'wall', and whether that wall has a 'height'.<br /><br />Time does slow in a gravitational field, so time is faster when/at it's further away from a mass. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276514#Comment_276514</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276514#Comment_276514</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 03:22:48 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Paul Duffield</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Fan<br />I guess in that respect, a region of slowed time can have height width and depth, and also duration, since "slowed time in a specific region" isn't a dimension in itself, only a set of parameters for pre-existing dimensions. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276515#Comment_276515</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276515#Comment_276515</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 03:35:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Paul Duffield</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I guess the fucker is that when a lot of people talk about time, they mean "the sequential nature of my perception of reality", which remains unaltered in a region of "slow time" since we're talking about relativistic frames-of-reference, not actual personal experience.<br /><br />For someone passing through such a region, they wouldn't feel like they'd spent longer in it, everything else would seem to go faster instead.<br /><br />The things that seem to speed up or slow down our perception of time passing probably have nothing to do with how fast time in our region of space is passing as measured from a different frame of reference. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276520#Comment_276520</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276520#Comment_276520</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 06:40:19 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Finagle</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Paul D et al -<br /><br />Paul pretty much called it above - time is our experience of sequence or duration, not a *thing*.  For a serious treatment of this, the existentialists are always good, but the classic expression in Continental philosophy is Henri Bergson's notion of time as <em ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration_%28philosophy%29" >duration</a></em>.  It is a special kind of dimension for humans, because we participate in it serially or sequentially, rather than being able to perceive it from a parallel angle (as it were) as one might raise up above a table to take in the entire flat surface:<br /><br /><blockquote >[Bergson presents a metaphor] of two spools, one unrolling to represent the continuous flow of ageing as one feels oneself moving toward the end of one's life span, the other a thread rolling into a ball to represent the continuous growth of memory as a person's past follows him/her. Indeed, for Bergson, consciousness equals memory. No two moments are identical, for the one will always contain the memory left it by the other. Therefore, a person might only experience two identical moments if he/she had no memory; but, Bergson says, that person's consciousness would thus be in a constant state of death and rebirth, which he identifies with unconsciousness.<br /><br />The image of two spools is imperfect, however, as it involves the image of a homogeneous and therefore commensurable thread, whereas, according to Bergson, no two moments can be the same, and hence the Duration is heterogeneous. Bergson then presents the image of a spectrum of a thousand gradually changing shades with a line of feeling running through them, this line being both affected by and maintaining each of the shades it passes through. Yet even this image is inaccurate and incomplete, for it represents the Duration as a fixed and complete spectrum with all the shades spatially juxtaposed to one another, whereas there is no juxtaposition within the Duration, which is in reality incomplete and continuously growing, with the states not beginning or ending, but intermingling with one another.</blockquote><br /><br />So yeah, it is important to consider that for any serious speculation, time *is* an attribute, it does not *have* attributes.  Height does not have width; width does not have depth, and all of these are experienced by us as duration or perceived objectively as a sequence of seconds.  This does not make Time a <em >thing</em>, unless one is just sitting around passing the bong around and just wants to indulge in some idle mind-blowing about timey-wimey stuff. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Does Time have heights?</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276523#Comment_276523</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=9348&amp;Focus=276523#Comment_276523</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 07:19:52 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Paul Duffield</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Finagle<br />Yeah, that's what I was clumsily trying to get at, thanks :D<br />A dimension (be it time or space) is just an axis used to label observed effects. Literally a ruler of human invention, placed across reality for the purpose of measurement. The 4 familiar dimensions describe our every-day world perfectly adequately - in the same way that the primary colours can mix to make any conceivable colour. So any extra dimensions (if they even exist) are outside the realm of our direct experience, and have to be sidled up to at 90 degrees and tentatively poked with carefully constructed mathematical language in order to be understood, instead of being seen and understood intuitively (no matter WHAT you've been smoking). ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>