> >I always theorized that time bounced back-and-forth in both
> >directions. After time flows from the big bang to the big crunch, it
> >would bounce back and flow the other way The big crunch played
> >backwards becomes the big bang for the next iteration of the
> >universe. Our big bang was the previous big crunch likewise reversed.
> >I have absolutely no evidence for this view.
> >Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Although it's impossible to visualize, imagine the universe
> as a globe. The fourth dimension will be time. At the south pole is the
> bang. At the north pole is the big crunch. To move forward in time is to
> experience only a certain slice of the globe, and then to experience the
> slice directly above it, and then the one directly above that - moving
> from big bang to big crunch.
> But, the globe doesn't change at all - assuming determinism is true.
> So I'm saying, the thing you said above doesn't even make any sense. For
> time to "move forward" just means that you're looking at one slice of
> space-time after another, and doing so in a certain direction. For time to
> move backward means you'd be looking at it in the opposite direction, but
> spacetime itself remains a static 4-dimensional structure. I have
> no evidence for this view.
As time passes relative to the frame of reference, does it make any sense to
talk about time as a dimension?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT