Time enough for time

On October 15–16, 2007, a conference was held at the New York Academy of Sciences, bringing together some of the world's foremost scientific thinkers. The topic under discussion was Time. Although the contributions to the world of theoretical physics have grown substantially since the revelations of Einstein et al. we are apparently still no closer to understanding the nature of time. I can only conclude that the basic premises which are accepted by the status quo on which lie the foundations for the analysis of time — ie. big bang theory; string theory; second law of thermodynamics — are either being misinterpreted or downright flawed or even imaginary as in the case of string theory.

If we are to accept Big Bang theory then the very creation of the Universe is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of energy in the Universe is constant. That the Universe was created from nothing and contains an infinite amount of mass is a generally accepted contradiction of that first law. I can logically conclude that the first law and that particular presumption do not apply and that while creation did indeed occur from a hypothetical point source of nothing — which is represented by infinite density — it must be constantly creating at its periphery and therefore conforms to an amended form of the first law in that the Universe will forever continue toward the realization of that infinite amount of mass. In its constantly expanding three dimensions the overall surface area of that periphery is always increasing therefore the total mass of the Universe can never be quantified. But for any state change of a system the final analysis of the entropy — its maximum value — occurs for a moment of stopped time. Likewise, the entropy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics stops time at that moment when the state change of a system is in equilibrium. These are essentially sound applications but amount to a deliberate attempt to see the small picture.

In the big picture I say that it is valid to apply these laws only if time were invariable and if existence were eternal and infinite in scope in both directions of the past and future time cones, which I cannot perceive it as being. I stated in my last post that existence passes in time for an observer at a particular place in space. Ultimately everything sentient and insentient will pass in time for any particular place in the Universe. A state of constancy exists but it moves outward in the direction of the Universe's periphery. Insomuch as time is a function of motion and velocity this constancy's rate is inversely proportional to the rate of existential decay for any given static point. Even though this sounds like a contradiction, a constant time frame has a rate of propagation. Ergo — the continuum of time, which is limiting by its stasis and which can be quantified in a dynamic Universe.

An attempt to explain why existence has a propensity toward order in violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states in a nutshell that there is a universal tendency toward chaos has given rise to a not so tongue-in-cheek fifth law of thermodynamics by Philip Carr which states:

5th Law: "An open system containing a large mixture of similar automatons, placed in contact with a non-equilibriated environment, has a finite probability of supporting the spontaneous generation and growth of self constructing machines of unlimited complexity."

In other words, the Universe has made order out of chaos. That is apparent through observation and is in accordance with the fractal expression that creation represents. After all, the dynamics of two disimilar systems is such that the entropy increases until a state of equilibrium between the two is reached. Equilibrium can be interpreted as order.

I have elsewhere posted my interpretation of gravity, a subject which must be discussed when writing about time. The conventional illustration of the bowling ball warping the mesh of space-time is a good introduction to my own interpretation of gravity — only the way I see it, the distortion of the fabric of space-time is caused not by stretching but by compression due to the displacement of space by the presence of a mass which disrupts the tendency for space to have a 'uniform density', better described as a 'uniform permeability'. Therefore for a given volumetric unit of space which can be seen to be smaller close to the surface of a mass than it is in the vast reaches between galaxies for example the time required to traverse a linear distance across one as measured by an observer travelling at a constant velocity is the same. In other words, for a given time frame and constant velocity the distance travelled through space is longer or shorter depending on the proximity to a mass.

It's all relative.